Why Are All The "Reasonable" People So Outraged By Mike Nifong's Intentional Denial Of Obvious Facts?

Let me first state that I, too, am outraged by Mike Nifong's conduct in the Duke rape case. We all knew, from the very start, that the accuser was a liar and that Mike Nifong was pursuing the case solely for political purposes - which I might add is a much more serious offense than plain prosecutorial misconduct. We all understood that he was grasping for straws every time another piece of exculpatory evidence was either found by the DA's office or offered by the defense. We all knew, as we watched the morons on TV who were trying to defend Nifong's actions, twisting the possible scenarios to explain away the multitude of inconsistencies that emerged from every single aspect of the accuser's and the DA's version of events, that none of their idiotic arguments would have been accepted by anyone with a half a brain.

And yet, we watched with outrage as this obvious travesty of justice was being perpetrated on the defendants, the state of North Carolina and the whole of the United States, scratching our heads wondering how anyone could let this go on.

But we watch these same sorts of idiotic conversations take place, at the highest of levels, every single day. And we all know how stupid and fruitless the discussions will eventually be. We watch talks with Iran, with the Palestinians, with Hamas, with Hezbollah, ... We all know that none of these groups have ever kept their word. We all know that they are always lying about what they have and what they want. We all know that their idiotic defenses would not be accepted by anyone with an IQ over 77. We all know all of this, and yet we still watch it take place and brush aside the obvious idiocy of the ventures and the clearly futile (if not outright dangerous) nature of treating people who do not respect reason with a respect for their illogical arguments and belligerent nature.

Why do we just sit by and watch these idiotic dealings without saying, "Hey! Enough."?

Because we are not yet prepared to address the underlying problems and solve them. People are not willing to march against Nifong and against the criminal false accuser and people are not willing to march against idiotic proposals that we keep making to belligerent parties who seek our destruction. We seem to prefer to put the eventual fight of, until we can hold it off no longer - as happened, temporarily, with 9/11.

But that is unfortunate, since the longer each of these inevitable fights is put off, the worse it will be and the better the chances are of us losing.

No one should be surprised at how Nifong pursued this case - even as obvious as it was that it was a bad prosecution from the start - since we watch the US participate in the same sort of lopsided dealings with moronic, third world shitholes all the time, with many otherwise reasonable people offering to twist the emerging realities in order to reconcile the vast mutlitude of inconsistencies that appear at every step with every one of these idiotic negotiations.

Anyone who thinks that the rules of engagement as laid down by the Allies during World War II are not good enough for us to use in our wars today, in the face of a long string of defeats for the US while using the post-WWII rules of engagement (except for the Cold War, during which we explicitly threatened the total incineration of every man, woman, and child in the USSR), is acting exactly as Mike Nifong did during this insane and nasty prosecution and should understand where they really fit within the intellectual spectrum.

Iraq Study Group Misses The Elephant In The Room

It's hard to believe, but after the months of alleged work and research that the Iraq Study Group has been doing with respect to the situation in Iraq, somehow they have managed to link the fighting between Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs (that has been ongoing for a bit over a thousand years) to issues between Jews and Arabs. The Iraq Study Group of retards also managed to figure out that the key to peace in the middle east rests with offering more civilized discourse to the two most uncivilized governments in the region - Iran and Syria. Syria was even annointed by James Baker, himself, to be the peacemaker among Arabs and Jews - after some groveling by the US, and Israel coughing up anything that Syria might deem fit to ask for.

Interesting.

One would think that among all the people on the panel, including a former Supreme Court Associate Justice (a bad one, but one, nonetheless) and a retired admiral/ex-defense secretary, that someone would have had the brains to put a stop to the Baker-Hamilton idiot train. But, evidently, the rest of them are even dumber.

The key to peace lies in the same place it did 40 years ago, except that the game is a bit different these days. Russia is the key to all of the problems we see in the middle east. This is not to say that Russia is causing these problems, but only that Russia is the sponsor of the main problem states of Iran and Syria. Those states are totally beholden to Russia, as Iran's programs would immediately start to collapse if the Russians withdrew their support.

Russia is the key. It was the key after 9/11, and it's the key today.

There is no reason to speak with Iran or Syria, since Russia is the force that is allowing both of those governments to really survive. Russia is the place to go, and Russians are the ones to get cooperating with us.

I have been very surprised that the West has been ignoring Russia since 9/11, except to bitch about one thing or another. Russia, unlike Iran or Syria, deserves respect, and is a necessary partner for the future. Considering the fact that Russia is going to be one of the largest players in space, it is clear that we are going to have be working with the Russians, eventually, when all of these other countries are nothing but miniscule specks to be looked down on from space. Such a nation deserves far more respect than we give to any of these piss-ant countries, or even to China. Russia should be a PARTNER with the US.

So, after months of work, the Iraq Survey Group managed to 79 recommendations, along with pages and pages of idiotic commentary, bad reasoning, poor logic, and naivete supreme that has but 2 references to Russia in the whole of the document - which are nothing more than references to Russia as a member of the Security Council and the Quartet, while managing to find space for 35 individual and specific references to Israel and problems that Israel is causing by continuing to exist.

It is all very hard to believe. After the equally inane operation of the 9/11 commission, all I can say is that anyone who EVER appoints Lee Hamilton to another commission needs to have his head examined.

No More Taxation Without Representation

It seems a bit odd that, while many have engaged in talks and arguments over the proper assessment of a fair tax schedule, no one ever brought up an idea that is imbedded in the very foundation of the United States:

No Taxation Without Representation

This is what originally drove the Colonies to separate from the crown. They were incensed that taxes were being levied against them, and they got nothing commensurate in return - by their view.

Add to this all of the equal protection arguments that have been made to federal courts, and you come to the simple, common sensical conclusion that taxation and representation must be tied together. This is not a difficult idea, really, as we all have the natural feeling that when a person pays for something, he has a right to run that thing, but when he does not pay for it, he does not have any right to run it - and even more, if he takes from it, he most certainly has no right to take part in managing its operation.

Yes, this is all just common sense and basic fairness, so why does no one even discuss this with regard to taxation?

Does it really seem fair that someone should pay $1,000,000 in taxes and get 1 vote, while someone else pays $10,000 in taxes and gets that same 1 vote, while someone else takes $20,000 and gets that same 1 vote? Is it just me, or does the absolutely inherent unfairness of that situation just scream out?

Clearly, there is much open as to what is truly fair - measuring by absolute dollars, or percentage of income, ... - but it is not hard to see that some measure of fairness and balance (between what the government is taking from someone and how much representation that person has in the running of the government he is funding) must be established and people who are asked to give more than their fair share in taxes MUST be given compensatory representation in that government.

Beautiful Female Rapists And General Idiocy

What is it about people that makes them so utterly, and profoundly, stupid. As Debra Lafave makes more headlines, due to her good looks and sex appeal, many legal types seem to be getting hot under the collar, screaming about "equal treatment for female rapists ..." and similarly retarded comments. They seem stuck on the idea that rape law needs to be exactly the same for males and females, and cannot understand why there should be a double standard. How did people so stupid even make it on to TV?

Do they not understand that sex holds, upon a cursory examination, VASTLY DIFFERENT consequences for males and females? Has someone forgotten to teach them that only FEMALES can get pregnant? Do they think that males risk some sort of "equally dire" consequences from having sex - aside from STD's which are just part of the sexual environment for all? ... although women are more susceptible to them, too ...

Well, it seems utterly trivial, and obvious to all with an IQ over 77, but this whole "pregnancy" thing is the assymetry that drove the majority of human social rules of gender, and value judgments in the area. It is a MAJOR difference, which means that males and females MUST have vastly different attitudes about sex, since they have vastly different consequences to contemplate.

Of course, the introduction of birth control helped to alleviate this risk for females, not totally, and almost never in many of the situations that have always garnered the greatest interest for legislation.

So, to the legal morons who don't understand why there should be different laws governing sex crimes for males and females, that is why.

If they are too dense to understand that, then there is always the interesting point that a man cannot really be raped ... physically (in terms of heterosexual intercourse). He can be blown against his will, without any doubt, but very unlikely to be "raped". After all, don't sales of male potency drugs kind of demonstrate that women cannot "force" a men to 'rape them' (for want of a better description) if doesn't want to.

What would the mechanics of such a forced-rape be? It seems quite absurd.

Yes. Quite absurd. And that is the clear second reason why rape laws for males and females should be different.

Islam Is NOT A Religion

Just because an ideology appeals to some supernatural entity does not justify its classification as a 'religion' in the US.

Islam is a political ideology, not a religion. It demands political power wherever it is found - which runs in opposition to the US ideals of the separation of church and state - and, as such, is more closely related to Communism than to Christianity.

What does this mean?

This means that Islamic sites, such as mosques, are NOT religious sites, but political and military centers (as has been well-evidenced throughout the world over the past few decades, for those who don't believe (me)) which are not entitled to any of the rights and benefits that we grant to religious sites.

This also changes the way we fight against Muslim enemies. Mosques would immediately be removed from the list of sites that are "protected until fired FROM" and moves them to the list of sites that comprise the primary targets. Of course, everyone realizes how devasted the military power of a Muslim enemy would be if all of the mosques were obliterated in the first few days of a military campaign.

Many will feel a bit uneasy, seeing how Islam has stolen parts from the Old Testament, adding to its claim to be a religion. But they must understand, Communists could decide to call Jesus Christ the "Communist God" and could rewrite a few stories from the New Testament to add a godly quality to Communist ideals without making Communism any more of a religion that it is now. This is the case with Islam.

This move, to delist Islam as an official religion is one of the most important steps that needs to be taken in the current war, and its value cannot easily be overestimated.

Sometimes Biting An Ear Off IS The Civilized Action

Simple-minded liberals seem to have problems understanding the importance of context. They live intellectual lives not unlike an endless series of "Three's Company" episodes, with some minor mistake of negligable importance cascading through a complex structure of contradictions, emotions, and wishes that makes up the intellectual landscape of the liberal mind, causing gigantic errors in the frontline theorems.

When Mike Tyson bit off Evander Holyfield's ear, we all understood that this was barbaric behavior. We were all shocked by it. But it was not the act of biting the ear that was so bad; it was the context in which the act took place.

If I were being attacked on a desolate street, and my attacker's ear were next to my mouth, then I should, as a civilized human being, bite that ear as hard as I can. If that is my best defense against the unwarranted aggression by my attacker, then that is my most civilized defense. In that context, biting the ear is the correct action.

But Mike Tyson was within the realm of the gentlemanly fight, with strict rules. It was a space in which to test certain specific skills with another. Biting was clearly outside of all of the rules, and came across as an out-of-control, barbaric act. Not quite as barbaric as if he had bitten Evander Holyfield's ear off while giving a joint press conference, but not too far off.

In war, we see the same sort of contextual confusion on the part of simple-minded, emotionally-driven liberals. They cannot seem to understand that, what we call "terrorism" is not only the context-free concept of killing civilians, but killing those civilians outside of the context of war - in which killing civilians is perfectly civilized and acceptable.

But then, when we actually have, what any normal person would call a war, liberals refuse to take the context into account and reevaluate their notion of "civilized act". They further refuse to acknowledge any of human history, except to say that they are superior to all who came before them (since they would never stoop to use, say, the same tactics that FDR used in WWII, or that JFK used in his threat to kill every man, woman, and child in the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Morality, if one cares to consider that idiotic, self-righteous notion of superiority, is not dictated by raw action, but by the contexts within which one is willing (or has demonstrated the willingness) to perform said actions.

No. There is no "rule of war" that stipulates that enemy civilians must be spared (beside the fact that the rule of "sovereignty" states that these civilians are of concern to no nation but the one they are citizens of!). There are no "rules of war", period.

However ...

Since liberals love the notion of universal values, there is one true and universal value with regard to war. Throughout all of human history, and concerning all of the great civilizations that have ever existed, the only true and universal war crime is LOSING.

George Bush Has Been Far Too Successful To Have A High Approval Rating

What people do not seem to understand is that George Bush has been far too successful a president to get high approval ratings. He has been presented with more tough decisions in the Oval Office than any president since FDR, and he has navigated them quite skillfully.

But he has also moved more legislation in more areas and changed more of the structure of America, and the World, than any president since Abraham Lincoln. George Bush has made so many moves, in so many areas, that it is assured that every single American must disagree with, at least, a few of his changes. I disagree with many of the decisions President Bush has made, each of which pushes my approval of him down, but I agree with him on the large issues (almost all) and appreciate that he has the guts to move the world. He is an impressive decision maker.

But he has been so wide-ranging in his application of "American Values" (truly - he has taken a stand on just about every issue that would concern an interested citizen) that he could never maintain anything like a 60% approval rating. George Bush will have to trust the history books of 2090 to honestly record his impact.

Take A Clue From The Word ISLAM

Many in the West seem to be unable to understand what will be required to get arabs/persians/muslims to behave like civilized people. It is all very simple, though, if one just looks at the word that defines the great bulk of their lives - ISLAM. What does this word ISLAM mean?

ISLAM means SUBMISSION and shows the way to dealing with people whose underlying culture is based on ISLAM. They understand and respect NOTHING but SUBMISSION. This is why they are such pains in the ass, since they are always trying to force everyone into SUBMISSION.

There is no bargaining with these cultures. There are no contracts to sign with these cultures. There are no rational discussions to be had with these cultures.

These cultures must be made to submit (as distasteful as that might appear to westerners, it is what people who follow ISLAM like). There is no other solution.

Either one bombs these savages into SUBMISSION, or one resigns oneself to a never ending war with them, fighting off the muslims' attempts to force everyone else to SUBMIT to them, and their primitive religion/culture.

ISLAM means SUBMISSION, and fighting islamic groups requires beating them into SUBMISSION in order to reduce, to a level tolerable to civilized society, the constant threat they pose.

What Is Really Meant By The NEED For A Strong Multi-National Interventionist Force In South Lebanon?

It is nice that people seem to be stressing the need for some sort of external force to come into South Lebanon, but they are skirting the basic issue that it raises:

There is a need for an external force in Lebanon because Lebanon is NOT a sovereign country and cannot be entrusted with the rights of sovereignty.

Unfortunately, no one is stating this exact point - that Lebanon is too primitive for self-rule - and trying to make it sound as if it is the normal state of affairs in any sovereign country that international forces would have to be brought in to carry out the fundamental duties of the government is just totally retarded.

If Lebanon is not a sovereign nation, then it needs to be put under the administration of some civilized organization, and the Lebanese cannot be allowed the freedoms given to civilized people.

All of the double-talk, hypocrisy, and outright denial of fact by much of the world is leading us down a very dangerous path, where we are scared to call a spade a spade. But, truth and reality cannot be denied just to let primitives feel happy about themselves. This does not lead to a better world, but to an inconsistent and illogical world in which fairness and reason are eventually buried so deep under the 'niceties' of purposely-distorted descriptions that we lose all ability to advance in any way.

Freedom Run Amok

What we are seeing around the world, today, are the emergent properties of a nasty combination of underlying currents that include:

• a basically primitive culture



• out of control population growth which has taken the population size far beyond the cultural scale



• fundamentally unstable parliamentary systems which do not separate and control governmental power appropriately (as is done only in the US Constitution - which no country has seen fit to adopt, even though it is the governmental structure of the most successful and freest nation to have ever existed)



• a zeal for the idea of individual freedom that was first nurtured in the United States, but manifested as mob rule via democracy, which is a super-structure that their culture, and their political structures just cannot support.

All of these nasty currents are combining in these last throes of post-World War II liberal nonsense, that, surprisingly, is coming from George Bush - who refuses to believe that there are cultures which are just too primitive to be able to govern themselves democratically, or more broadly, to take on the responsibilities of individual freedom. It is Bush's niceness and (misplaced) faith in humanity that is giving these 3rd world pseudo-nations and primitive cultures a full chance at modernity and total individual freedom. But their underlying cultures will not support such super-structures.

No one would think that cannibals should be immediately given all of the rights of individual freedom and allowed to freely roam the streets of a free nation, like the USA, without first changing their culture to bring it up to a more modern point that will be able to support the weight of individual freedom. Individual freedom demands a prior high level of civility in the society BEFORE it can work. Individual freedom provides many rights, but only works if almost all of the people already understand and fulfill the corresponding responsibilities that accompany it.

Individual freedom does not civilize societies. Civilized societies generate individual freedom.

Is Anyone Else Annoyed By That Moronic Mac Guy?

Has anyone noticed that that obnoxious Mac prick on the commercials is totally wrong in his condescending explanation of the use of the term "touche" to the nerdy PC dude? The Mac twerp mentions some Mac ability, that he thinks is so superior, and then the dweeby PC guy APPROPRIATELY says, "Touche!" - which indicates that the dweeby PC guy acknowledges that the Mac twerp's thrust did, indeed, score a TOUCH. But the moronic Mac twerp cannot accept the PC dude's acknowledgement of defeat in a gentlemanly manner, and INCORRECTLY launches in on a totally incorrect description of the use of the term "touche" in debate. The Mac moron incorrectly states that the term "touche" is only to be used after a counter-thrust has been made (WRONG!) and even worse, he goes against the whole gentlemanly aspect of the use of the term "touche" - to acknowledge a point scored, as a gentleman!!!

Just another typically misinformed and twisted liberal interpretation of the world. They never have any idea what they're talking about, but are always so superior in their own feelings about it. This would be okay, if they had any intelligence, to start with. If they could make out some reasonable arguments for their points ... if they were correct even some of the time. But they are almost never correct, and end up being humiliated by their own stupidity - which was forwarded with so much arrogance and condescension - which makes them even more hateful.

But ... as per the liberal way, libs are now using the term "touche" in the incorrect manner taught to them by the idiots behind the Mac commercials. But they will insist that they know how the word is to be used, and they will be incredibly obnoxious about it!


To put it plainly - for the slow of thinking liberals reading this - "touche" means, in conversation, "I do not have a response to your point.", and expressed in a very gentlemanly fashion, which is exactly what the PC dweeb said and the manner in which he meant it.

Why Do People Want To Point Out That The "World" Disagrees With The USA?

I can never seem to get this question. The US must be having some immense problems with the history that is being taught in our public schools, because the US thinking differently from the rest of the world is one of the fundamental characteristics of the US, itself!

That was certainly the case in the very founding of the United States, when an attempt was being made to create a nation of a type that had never existed on Earth, with reasoning that had never been used in the political context before. That is the history of the very birth of the United States.

Further than that, the US Constitution has proven to be the greatest architecture for a government, splitting governmental powers into various competing and partnering branches that worked both with and against each other, to keep the whole of governmental power in check. It involved a government that always exists, with only the individual tasks within that govenment changing hands, in a most individualistic way! This is opposed to the various parliamentary systems, which are all weak, unstable and unreliable.

But here is one more case where the US has disagreed with the rest of the world for over 200 years! And even with all of the new countries that have popped up around the world since WWII, say, not a single one of them has adopted the US Constituion as the architecture of their government. They have all adopted the faulty parliamentary systems. Does no one in the world understand that the US is the most successful, and freest, country that has ever existed, and that it might not be a bad idea to try to copy the US and hope for the same success? How dumb do people have to be not to see this?

So, if the world disagrees with the US, I would tend to side with the US, since history shows that I would have been correct in the great majority of cases!

Israel Provides Stability To The Middle East

One important point that most westerners have ignored for years, but that is becoming apparent in the current battles, is that the existence of Israel is the only thing that stops the SHiites and the Sunnis from really going at each other, destroying EVERYTHING AROUND THEM (as they most surely would, given past arab wars and persian history) which includes all of the gulf oil. The existence of Israel is the only thing that deflects their immense hatred for each other and keeps the gulf relatively stable.

The Real Problem With Past US Middle-East Policy

George Bush, who has been in the Oval Office during some of the tensest and most trying times that any Commander-in-Chief has ever faced, is moving correctly in his ideas for a Democratic Arab World. His reasoning, however, is not quite correct.

He said that past US policy towards the Arab World was incorrect because we supported stability over freedom. This is true, without reservation. However, that was not the true crux of the choice. (Incidentally, US interests certainly call for external stability over the internal characteristics of external states.) The true choice that we were making was when we allowed these Arab 'governments' to sit at tables with first-world states, treating the Arab World as if it were on a par with the Western World. In other words, we formally extended to arab countries all the rights of mature, modern societies, even though we understood that the Arab countries and governments were NOT mature, adult, reasonable such entities.

We treated the arab countries as adults when we all understood that they were more like children. This was the mistake in US middle-east policy over the past 50-odd years. We never held them accountable to the contracts they signed, as adults would be so held. We never held them to any of the standards that we hold adult, western societies to. We never expected them to really be able to do anything, and yet we let them claim that they could do everything. No one in the West wanted to be 'nasty' and call the Arabs what they are, an anachronism with deadly weapons and their butts on top of the world's most important region.

We tried to respect them, when they kept demonstrating their contempt for our respect. Somewhat like a voodoo practitioner looking down on a moral-relativist who claims that voodoo is as legitimate a belief system as the belief in the correctness and applicability of Quantum Theory. Clearly silly.

But George Bush, even with this minor fault in his reasoning, is heading in the correct direction: Bring an adult governmental system to them so that, not only are we formally treating them as adults, but they will become (internally) adults through the freedoms of the west granted to them. One more gift.

This is a noble gesture, giving the arabs one more chance to mature, but it must be tempered with reality, for the event of the maturation not occurring, but instead, the further empowerment of immature societies. There must be adult consequences delivered along with the gift of adult freedoms.

Bush has been doing very, very well. The breadth and depth of actions he has taken on all sorts of fronts has been quite astounding. History books will record George Bush as an amazingly impactful President. Quite beyond Reagan.

But, we must all understand what the future holds. Children should not be given guns, and immature nations must be disarmed.

The current conflict between Israel and Lebanon is a perfect example. Lebanon wants to claim sovereignty, but refuses to be held to the responsibilities of sovereignty. Israel is going to allow this, once again, by not TAKING land from Lebanon as the price of their aggression - and the West is going to support this. This is where the standards need to be evened out, and children, if they are going to be given adult titles, MUST BE DISARMED. Period.

How Can Any Intelligent Person Support Even The Idea Of The UN?

All the talk coming from, and about, the UN, seems quite inane these days, given the simple fact that the whole idea of the UN is a theoretical impossibility. The notion of a peerless, competitionless organization that can be given power and be allowed to grow inside of this highly unnatural environment is anathema to any thinking person, and certain blasphemy to any people who scream about the importance of teaching evolution in public school.

The utter lack of any organization that operates in the environment of the UN ensures that the UN will grow in grotesque and dangerous ways. Anyone who believes in markets understands that monopolies can never be trusted to themselves, and the super-hyper monopoly of the UN would follow an even more destructive and self-serving path (as has been demonstrated throughout the history of the UN).

Of course, most people confuse the powerless use of the UN during the Cold War, as a communications channel between the US and the USSR, as having proven the utility of the UN. But, in fact, that communication service is the limit of what an organziation such as the UN can be trusted with. There is no power to abuse in being the conduit for meetings.

But, once the UN was given actual power - when Bush Sr. ran to the UN for the stamp of approval for the first Gulf War, or when the UN ever had to do any actual heavy lifting - the organization proved itself worthless ... and worse.

The UN is naive and childish idea that would be nice to have in a utopian world, but we are forced, unfortunately, to live in reality. And reality imposes its own many restrictions on us. Breathing life into totally unrealistic dream objects and then giving them actual real-world power is not what the intelligent person does. Only childish fools support utopian ideas.

Even national governments do not exist in such an environment, as national governments have competition in that people are always able to move to another country with a competing government. We need not talk about those governments that demanded UN-style monopolistic status on their citizens, and how they developed and grew ...

No, the UN is a utopian dream put forward in the heat of the emotion and shock that the Allies felt after World War II. It is not a serious idea that could stand any real scrutiny.

The UN is, in the end (as with most utopian dreams) a

Utopian Nightmare.

Self-Rule By Primitive Cultures

This is the source of current instability in the world. It is not a new problem, as support for the idea of "self-determination" has been a rallying cry for primitive cultures all over the world. As little as these cultures understand about the modern world, they love the modern concept of "self-determination". But, just as no serious person would advocate adult rights for a 2 year old, the concept of extending full adult statehood to societies that have never exhibited any adult behavior of any kind is clearly nothing but folly. It is the wishes and hopes of dreamers forced onto their illsuions of reality, not unlike the aforementioned 2 year old forcing square blocks into round holes. The frustration of realizing that one's intuition may not be totally in synch with reality is a disappointment that logical adults take in stride, but that may become nothing more than a maddening, and confusing, disbelief in a 2 year old.

We see this same dream reality in the existence of, and support for, the United Nations. The idea that any serious person would even entertain the existence of a competitionless and peerless entity with any power at all is beyond comprehension. There has never been an example of such an entity being productive in any way, but history is littered with examples that proved extremely destructive. Americans, of all people, should understand that such a super-hyper-monopoly is destined to grow in grotesque and destructive ways.

In the end, George Bush extended the Arabs one last chance to see if they were able to rule themselves. It appears that they cannot, and the big question then presents itself: What can be done with these societies that cannot be trusted to rule themselves?

The answer is distasteful to most 'civilized' people, but they must realize that civilization, itself, cannot advance with these infantile and aggressive societies free to destabilize all around them. Totally disarming these societies is a first step. It is certainly a NECESSARY step, before which nothing truly constructive can happen.

The world has advanced so far in the past 50 years, and to allow the wishes of humanists and dreamy globalists (against all historical evidence) to destroy it by advocating weapons and sovereignty for all societies, no matter how emotionally or intellectually unable they are to remain peaceful and non-destructive, would be the greatest failure.

To die for an ideology is one thing, but to die for the refusal to accept reality is quite another.

Liberals Of Today

While the liberals of today, given their current emotional landscapes, would most certainly have been with the patriots of the US Revolution, it is just as assured that they would have turned against the United States the moment it was created, since the liberals of today are really a class of unsatisfied people whose political theology is best described as "Perpetual Revolution". These particular people fell in love with the revolutionary delusions of the 60's and yearn for that same feeling. Their political arguments have little, in the end, to do with politics or government, since their political views serve no purpose higher than their emotional satisfaction. They are just addicted to the feeling of being in a revolution.

They will, in the end, be correct every few hundred years, for a few years, but will sink back into a festering political boil for the grand majority of the time.

Why Is No One Worried About The European Reaction?

In all of the discussions I have seen, and read, about this SWIFT situation, I cannot believe that no one is bringing up the fact that we have to worry about EUROPE's reaction! We know that the European populace hates the US (except when offered a green card) and would do anything that they could to hurt US policy. It is clear that there is going to be a reaction in Belgium, at some level, which will probably damage our ability to work effectively with them in the future.

At the very least, the European rags - who are all ticked off that they didn't get to ruin this part of US security actions - will try to enrage the European rabble.

There are so many other sides to this story, many of which are outside of the US, which is why this case MUST go to trial for espionage, at the very least.

How Many Arabs Will Have To Die To Truly End Arab Aggression?

I think it might be interesting to estimate the number of dead Arabs which will be required before they cease their violent and aggressive actions towards Israel, and the rest of the modern world. A simple, though unscientific, way of estimating this number could be derived from the figures from the Japanese side of World War II. We will look at the number of Japanese that were required to be killed (civilians, most importantly) before the Japanese would totally surrender, and no longer wish to fight.

Now, in front of any arguments, the post-war Japanese have been the very model of friendship and productivity and have contributed a great deal to all of the world through their hard work and keen intellects. It would be impossible to argue that the Japanese could have behaved any better, which lends a great deal of weight to the argument that the appropriate number of Japanese civilians were killed.

I use the Japanese, and not the Germans, because the Japanese and the Arabs share some deep non-Western cultural aspects in their anti-individualistic natures. This feature of anti-individualism will weigh heavily in the pure kill ratios and therefore, to me, seems appropriate. One can argue against it, but it seems rather senseble. There are qualities which will change the required kill ratio.

The Japanese, for example, have a strong sense of honor and a respect for fair play (in the larger sense). The Arabs lack both of these qualities and will, therefore, force the kill ratio to be at least double the Japanese, perhaps 5 times the Japanese. What I am talking about, here? I'm referring to the Arab behavior of refusing to acknowledge defeat, when it is clear to any thinking person. The Egyptians still teach their kids that they WON the '73 war. Saddam Hussein built a museum to document the great success of Iraq in the first gulf war - clearly the most embarrassing war to watch, ever in the history of the world. This type of shamelessness and imperviousness to the reality of defeat forces one to crush this type of people much harder than more rational groups require.

There are, of course, other factors, but you get the general idea. I am going to arbitrarily peg the percentage of Arabs required to be killed at 7 times the percentage of Japanese who were killed. This is even though I think the nature of Arab culture, and their obstinate refusal to learn from anyone around them, is going to make this figure that much higher.

There is one other point. Since the Arab 'armies' consists solely of civilians (the terrorists and terrorist groups), we will need to include the military dead from Japan in with the calculation.
The Japanese number:

CIVILIANS KILLED	POPULATION	PERCENTAGE	MILITARY DEAD	PERCENTAGE MILITARY DEAD	TOTAL PERCENTAGE DEAD
600,000	72,000,000	.83	2,000,000	2.78	3.62

The Arab number would then be:

---

PERCENTAGE	COUNTRY	POPULATION	CIVILIANS KILLED
3.62 * 7 = 25.34	Syria	18,000,000	4,300,000
25.34	Jordan	6,000,000	1,600,000
25.34	Egypt	80,000,000	20,000,000
25.34	Saudi Arabia	28,000,000	7,000,000
25.34	Iraq	27,000,000	6,900,000
25.34	Lebanon	2,000,000	500,000 (just muslims and palestinians)
45	Palestinians	3,000,000	1,450,000

The sum total is then, around, 41.8 million Arabs are going to need to be killed to bring peace to the middle east.

Any number less than this will probably result in a new war 10 or 12 years after. (Note: The Persians are not included, though they are going to need to be beaten, militarily, and in the same manner, at some point.)

New York Times Champions Vigilantism

The New York Times arguments, for their "right" to decide on the true security classification of any piece of data (as opposed to whatever classification the official mechanisms have assigned to the data) brings up one very interesting little point that should embarrass the old Soviet Union:

All of those Soviet spies who risked their lives trying to transmit information back to Moscow, could have avoided all of the problems by merely relaying their information to the New York Times, who would then print it and let Moscow know!

And to think that these silly spies were practicing all of these spy-games when they merely needed to tell the NYT.

I guess, by the Times' brilliant reasoning, any Iranian-run blog could publish any secret data (as a member of the media) without having to worry about silly ideas such as security classifications and the like.

The most pathetic part of this whole situation is that the Times could not even find the one argument that they DO have in their favor. The fact that the administration knew that the Times had the information and did not THREATEN the Times, at that point, with prosecution if they printed, could be interpreted (without much difficulty) as a tacit acceptance of the Times' right to run the story, not even to mention the extremely embarrassing fact that the administration then went on to, later, give the information to other press outlets.

But, thankfully, the folks at the NYT are too stupid to have found their one and only possible defense.

In the end, the Times is advocating "Vigilante Security Classification Groups", each of which makes their own decision as to how classified some data should be. Without a doubt, any modern society structured as such could not exist for any great length of time.

Finally, if the Times believe that they have the right to judge security classifications, then why don't I (or you) have the right to independently judge "Acts of Treason"?

Luckily, for the NYT, they don't bend to the will of logic and good taste, so they have no problem with the stupidities and inconsistencies of their own argument. Typical.