What to Do in Iraq

What To Do In Iraq

Great article recommending we just "Go Roman" on the Iraqis. I'll say this: At this point we need to either do this or split the country up into three sections and only protect those areas who don't attack us from the inside or get the hell out. One of my justifications from the very beginning for invading Iraq was just that; to send a message to the world that if you fuck with us, someone (Saddam, Iraq, our enemies) is going to pay. What better way to send a message by leaving Iraq in chaos?

Quite simply, some people and situations respond better to positive reinforcement and some respond better to negative. While I think it is morally preferable to first treat someone who attacks you with kindness (in an effort to win them over as a friend), if they don't respond it makes logical sense (and its good psychology) to attack them.

I know someone who is concerned that if we leave Iraq in chaos, Iran (who hates us even more and is more dangerous) will swoop in and gain influence and power. When I say the answer to that is simply aiding their enemies and helping the entire region to become a raging Arab War he says the end result will be a more battle-hardened and experienced Arab fighting force, presumably a bigger threat to Israel (and us).
My response to that is: not if it's done right. Yes, a country's military can be improved by a some real war-time experience but if the country and military itself is devastated (infrastructures blown to hell, war-weary populace, etc.) then the military gain is offset by those other factors. Of course we'd have to make sure oil flow is not disrupted. Done right, a carefully crafted Arab War would see most of the countries (or at least our avowed enemies Iran and Syria) much weakened and with overthrown governments and the U.S. in control of some oil fields.

Election Hypocrisy

Did you notice that after the last election (you know, the one in which the Democrats did well) there were absolutely no reports of any voting irregularities?

Philadelphia Inquirer | 11/24/2006 | The Economy | Revealed: Why understanding economics is hard

Philadelphia Inquirer | 11/24/2006 | The Economy | Revealed: Why understanding economics is hard

How the "Communal Sharing", "Equality Matching", "Authority Ranking" and "Market pricing" worldviews help (and hinder) us understand life situations, including economics.

It is unfortunately first a great irony that Buddhism made me more appreciative of "Authority Ranking" and perhaps secondly a testament to the tremendously (if I may use a technical term: "fucked-up-ness") mistaken interpretation of 99.99% of American so-called Buddhists who use Buddhism as an endorsement of moral relativism, laziness, and wealth redistribution that, unfortunately for them, simply doesn't match the way the world operates. As someone once pointed out, in its natural state a row of trees is beautifully diverse with each growing at a different speed, to a different height in a different direction. It is a most unnatural act to cut them so they all look (achieve) the same.

Gov. Bush gets rude welcome from Pittsburgh protesters: South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Gov. Bush gets rude welcome from Pittsburgh protesters: South Florida Sun-Sentinel


The only things that amazes me more than liberals, in the heat of battle, substituting violence, intimidation and ad hominem attacks for cogent arguments and reason are those away from the fray who praise their actions. Ah, yes. Where are the, at least intelligent, liberal icons of yore like Isaac Asimov who might have ironically been warning his own followers when he noted, “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”?

What is there left to do but laugh when the rank-and-file shout, "Yes, more!" as the philosophy of supposed peace loving, non-violent, freedom-of-speech defending, respecting-of-diversity ivory-tower intellectuals becomes steeped in barbarism once it enters the public square. Perhaps there is something to the old adage about “theory” and “reality” being two different things, afterall.

Scholars for 9/11.......Bullshit?

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

A bunch of ivory tower academics, no doubt liberal Bush-hating types (see below), have got themselves a website to promote the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. I actually bothered to go to their website and see who some of them were, and I have to tell you, when you have not just luminaries, but academics whose fields of study and expertise match so closely with the subject matter of their hypothesis...why...who can doubt them? I got tired of listing members' credentials after "K" but you get the picture:

Kevin Barrett (FM) Folklore, UW-Madison; (Now HERE is a professor whose speciality IS matched to the topic!)

Anicha Bay (FM) Visiting Professor of English, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea (An Engrish teacher who can't teach in America.)

Tracy Blevins (FM) Bioengineering, Rice University (Perhaps Tracy has inhaled some hallucinogenic genetically altered wheatgrass)

Clare Brandabur (FM) Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul (Is it a coincidence that Dogus rhymes with Bogus? I think not.)

Larry Burk (FM) Radiology, Medical hypnosis (Self-medicating, are we Dr. Burk?)

John Bylsma (FM) French language and culture (This professor obviously knows a thing or two about collapses.)

Harriet Cianci (FM) Tunxis Community College, CT (Tunxis...Tunxis. A step below BCC?)

William A. Cook (FM) Professor of English, University of La Verne, Author of "Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy" (An objective opinion can be had from Mr. Cook, no doubt.)

Richard Curtis (FM) Philosophy, Seattle University (Dr. Curtis should go back to contemplating his navel.)

Albert Dragstedt (FM) Classics and Philosophy, St. Mary's College, Oakland, CA (Dr. Dragstedt should go back to contemplating Odysseus' navel.)

Ted Elden (FM) Architect, Communicator (He lists his profession, "communicator". That's okay, I'm a "tricorder.")

Jeffrey Farrer, Ph.D. (FM) Director of Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU (Ah yes. Nothing qualifies someone to research conspiracies more than electron microscopy. Except maybe, cow milking.)

Michael Keefer (FM) English and theatre, University of Guelph (B-b-b-but, I was only....ACTING! Oh, the irony!)

Hollywood Coming Around?

Hollywood Coming Around?

Shocking to find out there are powerful people out there in Hollywood who actually will be publicly anti-Hizbollah.

Hat tip to: Indolentmick

The Roots of Muslim Rage by Bernard Lewis

The Roots of Muslim Rage by Bernard Lewis

Why a real war on terrorism brings out the best in us. By Robert Wright - Slate Magazine

Why a real war on terrorism brings out the best in us. By Robert Wright - Slate Magazine

An article in Slate, surprisingly dead on the mark regarding how we should change our foreign policy in the Middle East. To use a piece of lingo from the "new age human potential movement", we need to "hold both." Supporting dictatorships in the Middle East is morally wrong, regardless if they are "our dictatorships", and gives terrorists a reason to hate us and an excuse for why their societies are so backwards. Support should be withdrawn from them. At the same time we should kick Bin Laden's ass.

Why the left HATES, DESPISES, AND CAN'T STAND, Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft.

Cheney, Bush, and Ashcroft represent the "bullying jocks" who harassed the "liberal stoners" with whom the far-left identifies with today. When the left sees Ashcroft, et. al., they see the football coach-cum-phys.ed.-teacher who made them run laps and do pushups when they just wanted to "chill". And while they escaped the intolerant authority figure who looked down at everything from their hair to their clothes to their music to their lack of study habits by graduating (or dropping out)...where can they go now...because now their old gym teacher RUNS THE FUCKING COUNTRY!

Poor sad liberals.

Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis

Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis

Man, after reading this, I was so glad that this movie was just a vague memory, I had seen it so long ago. I will NEVER watch it again. What crap. Liberals have NO shame. Period.

Good Evening, Iraq!

John Derbyshire on Iraq on National Review Online

I love 95% of what he says. The only thing I would be concerned about is Iran arming the Shiites in Iraq and having them take over and abuse the rights of the Sunnis. I'd feel some sort of obligation to protect them and also it would be bad for the region (and our interests) for Iran to get so powerful.

WSJ.com - Aiming for Diversity, Textbooks Overshoot

WSJ.com - Aiming for Diversity, Textbooks Overshoot

Just another example of how liberalism is a mental disorder which is correlated to an inability to face reality.

WSJ.com - Lamont's Win Hurts The Dems in the Long Run

WSJ.com - Lamont's Win Hurts The Dems in the Long Run

I'm reminded of the cocaine-snorting slick would-be-terrorist-negotiator from the original Die Hard movie whose arrogance was only matched by his strategic incompetence. I'll be delighted to see liberals in power after the '06 and '08 elections. After another taste of the fruits of limp-wristed foreign policy (aka "the Jimmy Carter school") , which I think will be two more successful 9/11 scale attacks, we won't have to deal with a democrat in office for another 20 years.

Rebel Alliance Forums -> Honest Question

Rebel Alliance Forums -> Honest Question: "I happen to be a capitalist but am intrigued at the idea of socialism. It sounds like a great idea but I don’t think it would work as a practical matter unless people’s freedoms were taken away from them - something which I agree with socialists would be a bad thing. I have a series of questions ask that you kindly tell me know if you know of a more appropriate forum to ask this. My question is as follows:

Let’s assume one day that we woke up in a socialist society where all “means of production” were owned/controlled by the people in general. I’m assuming that there is private ownership of property, like homes, stereos, furniture and lawn equipment.

What is to stop the following scenario from happening?

Let’s say that one enterprising woman who happens to own a lawn mower (she bought it originally to mow her own lawn) realizes that there are lots of people who don’t like to mow their lawn -- they’d rather watch football or do something else on a Sunday -- who would be willing to pay her to mow their lawn so they don’t have to. This woman starts mowing lawns (she charges $30 per lawn) and making extra money by working on weekends.

If that would be allowed, then what’s to stop the next scenario from taking place?

This woman is particularly industrious and enterprising and realizes that there are more people who would like her to mow their lawns than she can mow. So she saves up her extra money and buys a second lawn mower. She finds somebody who does not have a lawn mower (they live in an apartment and have no need for one) and says to them, “Hey, if you want to, I’ll let you use my lawn mower to mow peoples’ lawns and we can split the money. You can get $15 and I’ll take $15, because I’m letting you use my lawn mower.” The person accepts and starts mowing people's lawns for $30 and give the woman who owns the lawn mower they're using $15 each time.

If this would be allowed, then what’s to stop the next scenario from taking place?

The woman who owns two lawn mowers starts saving more and more money and buys more and more lawn mowers. She finds more and more people who don’t have lawn mowers themselves (and don’t want to buy them) but are willing to mow a lawn using one of her and split the $30 - the woman who owns the lawn mower getting $15 and the “worker” who actually does the mowing getting $15. Pretty soon she has so many lawn mowers and people mowing lawns giving her half their pay that she decides to stop mowing lawns herself and just take care of the maintenance of the lawn mowers - replacing blades, keeping the engines tuned, etc.

If this would be allowed, then what’s to stop the next scenario from taking place?

Eventually, she has so many lawn mowers, that she decides to rent a warehouse (she can’t keep them all in her garage) and hire someone (who happens to an even better mechanic than she) to maintain them. Now, she doesn’t mow lawns or do the grunt work of maintaining them - she just focuses on making sure everybody has enough work, advertising, and paperwork.

Unless something stops this kind of thing from happening (and the only thing I can think of is some kind of force/violence being used to prevent adults from freely agreeing to do thing for/with each other for something in exchange) I think any socialist society would find small businesses like these sprouting up all over, in all kinds of industries. I think you would just find that some people are either more hard-working, enterprising, or just lucky in some cases and would start to accumulate wealth/ownership of "means of production". These small business would grow bigger and bigger until eventually you would have the same kinds of disparity of income/wealth distribution we find in society today.

I would love to know if I missed something in my prediction and welcome your feedback.

Ah yes, the liberal media never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to show the truth about communism.

U.S. Reporter Attacked by Castro Goons in Argentina

You heard it here first, folks.

I predict there will be no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil until after the 2008 Presidential election. Here's why. Bin Laden, et. al., know that if you fuck with the U.S. while a Republican is in office you will get hammered. (q.v. the U.S. owns Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of 9/11) Terrorists would all much prefer to see a Democrat in office, who probably wouldn't fight back as hard. They know that any terrorist act will galvanize the people into backing whoever is President, especially someone like Bush who will hit back hard. If another terrorist act is committed before the election it will increase the chances of a Republican getting winning the election -- something they don't want. Therefore, there will be no terrorist act on U.S. soil until after the election. Terrorists also remember the last time they tried to influence the election it backfired (q.v. audio tape Bin Laden released a few weeks before the 2004 election) and bolstered Bush. What do you do when your enemy says, "Don't vote for candidate A"? You vote for candidate A. So they won't be making that same mistake again.

Something else to consider. In most Muslim countries, and certainly in the orthodox Muslim religion, women are looked at (and treated) as inferior. They are seen as weaker and unworthy of an education, important jobs, etc. What does someone who holds this view think of a woman running a country? Probably that it is a dumb move and signifies that the country (in addition to being a moral cesspit worthy of being destroyed) is weak and "easy pickins". My prediction is that shortly after the demos take back the White House in '08 (and especially if Hillary is in office) there will be massive attacks by terrorists againts the U.S. who will hold the above described view. I only hope that they're wrong.

The only thing better than liberals being caught is when they blame other liberals for setting them up! It's a two-fer!

Activists: We were framed by Democrat operatives in tire-slashing case
By Chris O'Connell

Ronald Reagan

"A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."