Slashdot Mirror

Kerry didn't broadcast speaches designed to harm soldier's moral
You must be too young to remember the speech he made when he returned stating .."It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country"
Or the fact he threw a "Medal Throwing" against the capital building with the VVAW.

While Americans are often accused of ignorance, it appears that the Euros are only better informed of misinformation. Consider this anectdote an interview with a French journalist fired for reporting the Jayson Blair like reporting of all the major French media corporations.

Poller: There is something bloodthirsty about the fantasies embroidered by these journalists despite their pacifist predisposition. In the blitzkrieg phase they mock a Pentagon strategy that sought to minimize civilian deaths and advise the US military to go in for massive bombing. In the quagmire phase they ghoulishly predict bloodbaths for all parties concerned. In the Saddamgrad phase Le Monde?s Patrice Claude and Remy Ourdan invent atrocities, give ?eyewitness? accounts of things they didn?t see. How do you explain this desire for death and blood and horror from these pacifists? There was a kind of holy atmosphere at that time.

A.H.: ...The American strategy of very quick efficient raids made the regime collapse. I think those [French] journalists were so astonished, the only explanation they gave was that the GIs were brutal, they had no consideration for civilians. The best example of this is what Remy Ourdan wrote about Saddam?s fedayeen. These were the dictator?s most oppressive guards, they were like his SS. Ourdan said the fedayeen didn?t fight because they were so frightened by the way the GI?s were killing everybody, and a lot of civilians, so the fedayeen didn?t want to defend them so the Americans wouldn?t kill so many civilians. It?s a joke. I guess he?s very sorry to have written that in the heat of reporting. Reporting is not something easy?it?s public writing? I think it?s a shame?Remy Ourdan is a good journalist. I don?t say that all his work is the same. People make mistakes. What I can?t accept is not telling your readers at one point, okay, I did write that, it was in the heat of reporting, the heat of passion. As journalists we feel those things too, it?s not professional, so we apologize. I think the main problem was their attitude of not telling readers why they misinformed them, and not apologizing. It was just ?read us and shut up.?

The referenced article is available here: What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?

Noam Chomsky? Good God. He's the most anti-American guy out there. Learn. Learn some more.

Noam Chomsky? Good God. He's the most anti-American guy out there. Learn. Learn some more.

Also, FrontPage Magazine has some good archived articles about Israel and the Palestinians.

Also, FrontPage Magazine has some good archived articles about Israel and the Palestinians.

Also, FrontPage Magazine has some good archived articles about Israel and the Palestinians.

Yeah, but he's going to breed and create more red diaper babies.

A few of them have turned out okay in the end, of course.

Don't kid yourselves. Politics is part of the process and I don't mean personal politics. I mean political positions on things like school choice, regulation of the economy, etc.

The question is: would Newton be smart enough to keep his mouth shut?

He would have to stay off the blacklist.

I make toys for good boys and girls the world over.

Bullshit. The slave-labor elves you have trapped in your non-union sweatshop do the work. Not only that, but you take jobs away from American elves.

Bastard.

All right all you yahoos, let's get to the truth of the matter.

A lot of left-wing scientists hated Teller for his ambiguous testimony about Oppenheimer, but Oppenheimer really was a security risk.

And lay off the carbohydrates too. This might start a flame war (Atkins diet arguments and such.) You should lay of the bread, chips, orange juice, and other things that have a lot of carbs. This stuff gets absorbed by your body and makes you fat. Actual fat is more or less just passing through and makes it into the toilet with your centrum multivitamin.

Cutting back on the carbohydrates and stepping up on the exercise is really what makes the difference.

Now, would anyone with a better understanding of dietary values care to correct me?

Sorta, kinda. Fat definitely does not "just pass through" in any sense. It's actually easier to digest and goes more directly to your flab. However the Atkins theory is that severely restricting carbohydrate consumption throws the body into a different metabolic state, where weight loss becomes much easier.

I've been following this lately, because some interesting data is now coming out. It turns out that all the physicians and nutrionists who have been mocking Atkins as pseudo-science for the past 30 years or so, did not have any actual scientific results to back up their criticisms--just common knowledge and assumptions. Assumptions which completely ignored what was being learned about endocrinology.

I think there's going to a real shit-storm within the next 5 years, because so much of what we've been told by the establishment (iow USDA and AHA in the US) was based on mere assumption but presented as science. And it's beginning to look like it was wrong--that the food pyramid with its big base in carbs (grains) is a recipe for obesity and Type II diabetes.

All through my 20s and 30s I practiced (mostly) the low-fat high-carb recommendations, and managed to stay pretty active overall. I always thought that Atkins was some kind of fringe quack, based on what I read. But now that the truth is coming out, there is no evidence that Atkins doesn't work, and never was. Where it has been studied recently, the data that is coming out suggests that it might work after all. And by work, I don't mean just rapid weight loss--I mean rapid weight loss, while increasing HDL, without increasing LDL, and none of the other dire health problems predicted by mainstream nutritional theory.

Just so you know this is not an ill-informed rant, here are a few references:

Here's a decent primer on more current nutrional thinking.

This article from the New York Times Magazine was one of the better ones, because it dug deeply enough to uncover the original gap in the science and the way it was glossed over for political expediency. Unfortunately, the article is old enough that it's in the for-pay archives. However, a quick google search for the title turns up a number of web sites with copies. For instance, here, here, here, here, and a pdf here.

There are other articles I've seen within the past 2 years that make what seem to me to be good solid scientific points, but I can't remember the reference. FYI, my interest all started when I read a small AP blurb in a newspaper about a nutrional researcher who got the idea to locate and examine the results of all the studies of the Atkins diet, then discovered that there were no such studies!

Read this article by Robert Bork. Summary: you have probably been seriously mislead about the PATRIOT Act.

How about: ``I told you it was a Ponzi scheme!''?

I suppose that the really sad part is that most of those people, some of whom did actually ``worked hard their entire lives'', could have saved up enough to be secure in their old age, IF they hadn't been saddled with paying for FDR's nasty little Ponzi scheme all these years.

What's that? Oh, you wanted a solution? Well, we'll have to choose between collecting enough taxes to keep them on welfare, as they did for their parents, and letting them eat catfood. When the baby boomers were supporting their parents, there were a LOT of boomers, and few retired parents. Soon, there will be scads of retired boomers, and few young workers. THAT's why the Ponzi scheme is crashing, as they all eventually must. The catfood option may be forced upon us: we may not be able to do any better. There's a bit of poetic justice in that: it was the boomer's socialist leanings [1] that kept our economy from growing the way it could have with a bit more economic freedom.

By the way, this is a problem all over.

[1] Some links to neat places on that page, BTW.

Although this seems like a troll, it really isn't. In recent years, both before and after Sept. 11, the US government has passed a raft of legislation curtailing and limiting the 1st Amendment, to the general apathy of the population. Meanwhile, any suggestion of curtailing the 2nd Amendment, however mild, is met with howls of protest.
Well, Americans are, in general, stupid and apathetic. They watch the nightly news as their entire news source. That is the most politically biased and sanitized version of the news you could possibly get without actually providing you with any actual information. Ten to fifteen second clips about real information and a couple of minutes devoted to a fire in an abandoned warehouse does not constitute news. It is just ridiculous. Yes, we have freedom of the press, but look where it gets us. We have a bunch of press who give us their version of the news. I'm just so glad I have the Internet available and can read non-mainstream sources.

Wouldn't it be nice if the ACLU was as politically powerful as the NRA?
They are, but they don't focus on benefitting freedom of speech. They have their own agenda that is not focused. When they put their weight behind something, it usually breaks. The problem is that they pick some really strange things to support. If they actually focused on freedom of speech issues and not some crap issue (literally) then I think they would be a more respectable institution and get some good work done.

Disclaimer: I am a Canadian.
I'll try not to hold that against you! ;)

When did Allende suspend elections, as claimed in your first and third points?

A list of Allende's constitutional violations was prepared by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies in August of 1973, and can be read here. Here is a report on Allende's abuses from the September 15, 1973 issue of The Economist, while a more modern take can be found here.

You'll find a good paper on the history of constitutional law in Chile here (.doc format, sorry), which details in passing some of how the Constitutional review process broke down early in Allende's rule, as Allende overruled and/or repeatedly refused to enforce laws passed by the legislature.

Incidentally, one of the best primary documents on Allende's abandonment of the Chilean constitution is the open letter which the Supreme Court of Chile wrote to the New York Times after they were forcibly dissolved by Allende. I haven't yet found this on the web, but I'll keep looking. Any good history of the era reproduces it, as well.

You also claim the CIA had no knowledge of their contacts' illegal actions, ostensibly including that of Manuel Contreras and the DINA assassins of Letelier and Moffitt, and demand evidence of this knowledge. May I ask what sort of evidence would satisfy you that they knew?

Kind of an odd question, really, since so far you've provided no evidence at all. In either case, I've already mentioned or linked to the known archives of Chile-related material, none of which (as far as I can tell) provide such evidence.

Even such knowledge, however, would be a far cry from evidence of US involvement in Pinochet's rise to power, however, no?

Finally, you claim that pressure from the Reagan adminstration forced Pinochet to step down, and that this is an "uncontested fact". Yet the Reagan administration were selling helicopters to Pinochet's regime, all the while they were supposedly "pressuring" for elections. http://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Chile.htm

What confuses you about the idea of providing aid coupled to demands for reform? The fact is that Reagan aided Chile and demanded elections, and the result was elections, while Carter had cut ties to Chile and demanded elections, which resulted in nothing at all.

In other words, the result of Reagan's pressure was the stable democracy that Chile is today. And you propose that what, exactly, would have been a better course of action? Invasion?

It's more logical to conclude that Pinochet was planning to step down, and the US was simply applying the same sort of "pressure" that Israel currently enjoys from the US, meaning mild, periodic press releases requesting the client state to do the decent thing. The Republicans put Pinochet there, should we congratulate them for asking him to step down years later, all the while suppressing documents on US involvement, all the while turning a blind eye to the torture and murder of tens of thousands, including that of US citizens?

As you have yet to provide any evidence that the US `put Pinochet there', you have no grounds to base further claims on this allegation. When you have demonstrated that this wild conspiracy theory is true, then you may rationally theorize about `what it tells us', and not before...

And while we're at it, perhaps you can provide a source for your claims of `tens of thousands' killed under Pinochet's rule? Most credible reports which I've seen put the number of deaths at around 1,000 or 2,000, and even the site remember-chile.org which you link to

There are no Palestinians

I hope you'll forgive me if this is in your sig for humorous effect, but damn, that's some of the craziest shit I've ever read. Although it's probably not useful to construct a reasonable counter to an argument that ends with "[killing everything south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan], that's actually not such a bad idea," I'm going to take a halfhearted swing at it.

Let's say that everything in that piece is true. There are no Palestinians. They don't really want their own country. The Arabs want to drive the Jews into the sea. Even if this is all true, do you really not get why the locals are so pissed off, even after a half century of this shit?

Do you, by chance, happen to live in a region where there used to be a different population in control of the land? I live in the eastern part of North America, which was previously occupied by the Shawanee tribe, among others. That was just a few hundred years ago (i.e., a much shorter period of time than that since Palestine was controlled by the Jewish tribes). Imagine the reaction if, tomorrow, a very well-armed group of Shawanee warriors arrived in my town to reclaim their birthright. For this analogy to work, I suppose these Shawanee would have to be equipped with energy weapons and spacecraft, but go with me. Would the modern inhabitants not go completely insane, and be willing to sacrifice a great deal to be rid of these aggressors?

Or, would that reaction simply be a sign of backwardness?

Here's a hint: early Zionist thinkers were perfectly aware that no Israeli state could be peacefully constructed in an already-inhabited land. Look up the principle of the "Iron Wall," by which Israel would attain a position of unassailable strength, and then negotiate with the Arabs using this military superiority. The plan for Israel in Palestine has been on very shaky moral ground since the 19th century, precisely because it always acknowledged this universal trait of human nature.

Michael Moore is a loud mouth liar who is himself, the fear mongering media he encourages everyone to despise.

Moore isn't a liberal. He's "moore" likely to be a republican mole. He should move out of his 1.2 million dollar Manhattan apartment and get out of the country and away from the people he hates so much. Ofcourse he won't because Moore really doesn't care about what he preaches. Moore only cares about getting attention to feed his ego. Guess who once said "My biggest failing is that I have absolutely no ego"?

Truth about columbine:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=6841

http://www.atomiq.org/archives/000524.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html ?id=110003233

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816 ,436268,00.html

http://www.hollywoodhalfwits.com/michaelmoore/inde x.shtm

http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000037.html

police state
n.

A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.

I think the main reason Americans are so concerned about government power is due to the roots of our country. As to government efficiency, I would wager that the majority of services performed by government could be better handled by a private industry. There are some exceptions to this of course i.e. military.

Since you enjoyed the quote so much, here is another from Jefferson that he wrote just after visting France ( a country to which he was greatly enamoured)

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

I'm sure you can guess which event lead him to make that statement?

I'm curious as to why nationalism is such a bad thing in the eyes of so many Europeans. I am to understand that in Germany, being vocally pro-Germany garners stares and concerns of racism and neo-nazi association. At one time, France was STRONGLY pro-French culture. Resistance to Euro-Disney and such. I have a legitimate concern because my family lineage is French (A great-grand something or other was a high ranking officer for the French Army during the U.S. Revolutionary war.)

As to Chirac, here is an article by a frenchman for an admittedly staunch conservative publication here in the states. Do any of the points in that article match personal experience?

An American congressman pushing business that would benefit America? I'm shocked! I'm appalled! The extreme left's claim that this war is partly motivated by business/financial considerations may have some truth to it, like the truth that Europe's opposition is also partly motivated by financial/contractual business interests. The business interests of both sides are not in question. The difference is that one approach ends a brutual, repressive dictatorship, and the other preserves it.

In another example, England apparently has a decent chunk of gun violence, yet strict gun control laws

I hate to get involved in gun-control arguments, but...could anyone post a link supporting this?

Here's a couple of links for you to chew on. :-)

WTC terrorist Moussaoui said, "I pray to Allah" for "the destruction of the United States of America." Let me clue you in: this is not a unique thought. There are many millions like him.

The things I have said are widely-known facts. Militant Muslims don't even try to hide their intentions within their own countries. They proclaim peace when speaking in English to Western audiences, but they advocate genocide and hatred in their native language.

They openly proclaim in large gatherings their eternal hatred for America, and they scream passionate vows to destroy America with guns firing in the air and a flaming Uncle Sam on a skewer.

• They preach it in the mosques.
• They teach it in the schools.
• They celebrate it at anti-American/Israeli/Western/ Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/infidel rallies.
• They broadcast it over the state-run TV and radio stations.
• They print it in the newspapers.

It's not merely a suspicion or conspiracy theory. It's just plain fact, and it's out there in the open for everybody to see.

War is not the choice; victory is. There is a real and present danger. If we act now, we get to fight on our terms rather than on theirs (as on 9/11). Either way, there is war.

Serious question: What if the first time you see a gun outside a museum and not in the possession of police/security is when you are looking down the barrel of one in the hand of a criminal? Do you think you'd wish your country had more gun control (which obviously didn't keep this gun away from a criminal) or less (so that you could have your own for self-defense)?

Hypothetical, but compelling.

• Gun crimes soaring despite ban brought in following Dunblane
• A world without guns is not a pretty picture
• Gun-toting Swiss see fewer crimes
• Too many guns?
• Handgun Ban Fails to Quell Surge in Gun Crimes Across Britain
• When guns are banned in England
• Ivy League research says Anti-gun Crackdown Didn't Lower Crime

I have more, but that's probably enough.

-ChristTrekker

.ad afgjk uba dooba doo DRUDGE REPORT 2002
Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers

WASH POST: Bush Admin Split over Iraq...

IRAQ 'CLOSE TO NUCLEAR BOMB GOAL'

Passive smoking can kill your cat... TIMEWARNER to charge flood victims for cable boxes... Archerd: Democrats seeking Hollywood money... Republicans will tie ANWR to Iraq; Say threat in Baghdad necessitates oil drilling in Alaska... Ventura Goofs On God... AP WORLD
AP NATIONAL
AP WASHINGTON
AP BUSINESS
AP ENTERTAINMENT
AP ON THE HOUR
AP HEADLINES
AP BREAKING
SEARCH
Headline:
Date Range:
Within 14 Days Within 13 Days Within 12 Days Within 11 Days Within 10 Days Within 9 Days Within 8 Days Within 7 Days Within 6 Days Within 5 Days Within 4 Days Within 3 Days Within 2 Days Within 1 Day
Any word(s) in article:


ANANOVA
DOW JONES
BLOOMBERG
PAKISTAN WIRE
PAKISTAN BROADCASTING
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC WIRE
ITAR-TASS
KYODO WIRE
PR NEWSWIRE
[SHOWBIZ] PR WIRE
SCRIPPS HOWARD
US INFO WIRE
U.S. NEWSWIRE
WORLDWIRES
XINHUA ABC NEWS
AD AGE DEADLINE
BBC
BBC AUDIO
BILLBOARD
BOSTON GLOBE
BROADCASTING & CABLE
CBS NEWS
C-SPAN SCHEDULE
CHICAGO TRIB
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
CNN
CNN TRANSCRIPTS
DAILY VARIETY
D.C. DAYBOOK
E!
ELECTRONIC MEDIA
EMERGENCY NET
ENT WEEKLY
FINANCIAL TIMES
FORBES MAG
FOX NEWS
INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIB
HILL
H'WOOD REPORTER
HUMAN EVENTS
INSIGHT MAG
INVEST BUS DAILY
JERUSALEM POST
JEWISH WORLD REVIEW
LA DAILY NEWS
LA TIMES
LUCIANNE.COM
MEDIA CHECK
MEDIA LIFE
MSNBC
MUCHMUSIC
NATION
NATIONAL ENQUIRER
NATIONAL REVIEW
NEW REPUBLIC
NY DAILY NEWS
NY OBSERVER
NY POST
NY TIMES
NEW YORKER
NEWSBYTES
NEWSWEEK
N. KOREAN NEWS
PEOPLE MAG
R & R
REASON MAG
ROLL CALL
SKY NEWS
SLATE: PAPERS
STAR
TIME MAG
TV SHOPTALK
[U.K.] DAILY MIRROR
DAILY RECORD
[U.K.] EVENING STANDARD
[U.K.] EXPRESS
[U.K.] GUARDIAN
[U.K.] INDEPENDENT
[U.K.] NEWS OF THE WORLD
[U.K.] PEOPLENEWS
[U.K.] STAR
[U.K.] SUN
U.K. TABLOIDS
[U.K.] TELEGRAPH
[U.K.] TIMES
US NEWS
USA TODAY
VILLAGE VOICE
WASH POST
WASH TIMES
WEEKLY STANDARD
WORLDNETDAILY
UPDATE: Mob Kills 2 in Ill. After Van Crash... US Senate Fails to Pass Medicare Drug Plan... Agents leaving Border Patrol in droves, union says... French spa to host next G8 summit... GLASSMAN/HASSETT: Dow 36000 Revisited... MATT DRUDGE
3 AM GIRLS
CINDY ADAMS
ARMY ARCHERD
DAVE BARRY
MICHAEL BARONE
PETER BART
BOB BARTLEY
STEPHEN BATTAGLIO
MARILYN BECK/SMITH
BLANKLEY
GLORIA BORGER
L. BRENT BOZELL
BRESLIN
DAVID BRODER
PAT BUCHANAN
BILL BUCKLEY
MONA CHAREN
ELEANOR CLIFT
RICHARD COHEN
PAUL COLFORD
JOE CONASON
ANN COULTER
STANLEY CROUCH
MICHAEL DALY
LOU DOBBS
MAUREEN DOWD
STEVE DUNLEAVY
ROGER EBERT
JOSEPH FARAH
SUZANNE FIELDS
ARI FLEISCHER
MICHAEL FLEMING
ROGER FRIEDMAN
JOHN FUND
LEAH GARCHIK
BILL GERTZ
GEORGIE GEYER
JONAH GOLDBERG
ELLEN GOODMAN
MARTIN GROVE
LLOYD GROVE
PETE HAMILL
CARL HIAASEN
NAT HENTOFF
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
H'WOOD REPORTER E-MAIL
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON
INSIDE BELTWAY
INSIDE POLITICS
INSIDE THE RING
MOLLY IVINS
AL KAMEN
MICKEY KAUS
KEITH J. KELLY
MICHAEL KELLY
MICHAEL KINSLEY
HARRY KNOWLES
MORT KONDRACKE
KRAUTHAMMER
LARRY KUDLOW
HOWIE KURTZ
JOHN LEO
DAVID LIMBAUGH
RUSH LIMBAUGH
HAL LINDSEY
RICH LOWRY
MICHELLE MALKIN
CHRIS MATTHEWS
MARY MCGRORY
MICHAEL MEDVED
DICK MORRIS
PEGGY NOONAN
BOB NOVAK
OFF THE RECORD
KATE O'BEIRNE
MARVIN OLASKY
BILL O'REILLY
PAGE SIX
ANDREA PEYSER
JIM PINKERTON
JOHN PODHORETZ
TV PROGRAMMING INSIDER
WES PRUDEN
ANNA QUINDLEN
WILLIAM RASPBERRY
REX REED
RICHARD REEVES
J. MAX ROBINS
RICHARD ROEPER
RUSH/MOLLOY
BILL SAFIRE
SCHLAFLY
TOM SHALES
GAIL SHISTER
LIZ SMITH
MICHAEL SNEED
JOE SOBRAN
THOMAS SOWELL
ANDREW SULLIVAN
HELEN THOMAS
CAL THOMAS
HUNTER S. THOMPSON
NEAL TRAVIS
TV COLUMN
DEB WEISS
JEFFREY WELLS
GEORGE WILL
WALTER WILLIAMS
WASHINGTON WHISPERS
BILL ZWECKER
GERTH ZEROS IN ON CHENEY... AIRLINES TO TRIM FLIGHTS ON SEPT 11... Accounting controls on EU budget 'unreliable'... Man Accused of Raping Nine Women He Met Through Internet... Pentagon: Hamas experimenting with chemical weapons... AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
AFP INTERNATIONAL
AFP NEWS WRAP
AFX
UPI WIRE
UPI NATIONAL
UPI WORLD
AP/REUTERS PHOTO WIRE
REUTERS ROUNDUP
REUTERS SPOTLIGHT
REUTERS WORLD
REUTERS POLITICS
REUTERS ODD
SEARCH






*FINDS ANY STORY LINKED ON DRUDGE WEATHER ACTION
QUAKE SHEET x x x x x VISITS TO DRUDGE
07/31/02

004,776,309 IN PAST 24 HOURS
107,519,403 IN PAST 31 DAYS
895,224,122 IN PAST YEAR DRUDGE ARCHIVES DRUDGE REFERENCE DESK EMAIL: DRUDGE@DRUDGEREPORT.COM SUPER-POWERED BY ALLEGIANCE TELECOM... DRUDGE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB SPEECH TRANSCRIPT

Now on to the second half of your post. Let's look at some of these statements:

"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistentwith the purposes of the UN.?" I'd say that's pretty clear.

Perfectly clear, but only because it is taken out of context. The UN Charter also says:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."

Your turn to cite evidence that the security council approved of how the US chose to respond to 9-11.

On September 28, 2001, both the Security Council and the General Assembly approved US-drafted, US-sponsored measures approving our actions in response to the attacks of September 11. I welcome you to look these up.

Can you provide me with a shred of evidence that the presence of Syria, China or Sudan has had an adverse effect on the judgement of the human rights committee?

While I would argue that such effects are clearly evident, especially in the Human Rights Committee's statements in the matter of Israel, this is beside the point entirely. The mere presence of such notorious human rights violators on the Human Rights committee does irreparable harm to the UN's credibility.

It also states that whether or not they have followed the requirements of the convention is a matter for a tribunal to decide, and that until such a decision has been made, they are to be considered POW's and treated as such.

This is a misrepresentation of a specific provision of the Conventions, which actually calls for such tribunals only in the case where a nation has generally upheld their obligations under the conventions, but where an individual soldier caught fighting in civilian garb claims that he had legitimate reasons to do so.

For more on the Geneva Conventions, see this article

Afghanistan is free? When did this happen?

Around when it was liberated by US and Northern Alliance troops, basically. Is there more progress to be made? Sure. Is it miles beyond where it was under the Taliban? Clearly.

Food aid is STILL at the present time lower than it was prior to the US attack.

This is simply incorrect. Indeed, in actual fact, even during the air war more aid was reaching Afghanistan than had under the Taliban. Once Kabul fell and the roads from the north were open, aid shipments skyrocketed again. See here for an analysis of claims that food aid is not getting through.

Finally, on the issue of US Foreign policy, I repeat that I do not see a legitimate claim against America by those who you claim `have ample reasons to be angry'. If you do see such a legitimate claim, perhaps you should spell it out.

Right, but the problem with that argument is that there was no disruption in aid services (or rather, the war served to reverse the disruption in aid services caused by the Taliban seizing aid shipments), and had Chomsky done any research at all, he would have known this (honestly, I would argue he did know this, but it didn't suit his argument).

Even in the first weeks of the bombing, before the Taliban began to lose control on the ground, more aid was getting to Afghanistan then had at any point since the Taliban grabbed power. Once Kabul fell, opening the roads from the north, the amount of aid reaching the Afghan countryside skyrocketed again, yet Chomsky continued to make his absurd claim.

For more on this, see here.

That's LBJ's third state of the union address in which he clearly states "Yet, slowly, painfully, on the edge of victory, has come the knowledge that shared prosperity is not enough. In the midst of abundance modern man walks oppressed by forces which menace and confine the quality of his life, and which individual abundance alone will not overcome."

Um, okay, what is your point exactly? That LBJ said that some people were oppressed in 1966? Were you even born then? Were many of the other people you claim are oppressed?

Here's a nice little piece by Noam Chomsky

Ah yes, Noam Chomsky. Whether it's holocaust denial or just general nutty anti-American raving (also here), Mr. Chomsky can always be counted on to come out with something inane. Do you have a reputable source for your claims? Remember that Mr. Chomsky isn't even taken seriously on the left anymore.

That's LBJ's third state of the union address in which he clearly states "Yet, slowly, painfully, on the edge of victory, has come the knowledge that shared prosperity is not enough. In the midst of abundance modern man walks oppressed by forces which menace and confine the quality of his life, and which individual abundance alone will not overcome."

Um, okay, what is your point exactly? That LBJ said that some people were oppressed in 1966? Were you even born then? Were many of the other people you claim are oppressed?

Here's a nice little piece by Noam Chomsky

Ah yes, Noam Chomsky. Whether it's holocaust denial or just general nutty anti-American raving (also here), Mr. Chomsky can always be counted on to come out with something inane. Do you have a reputable source for your claims? Remember that Mr. Chomsky isn't even taken seriously on the left anymore.

`proven' wrong? Haven't read too many economics textbooks, have you? Never mind actual work in the field...

Of course, you give the game away when you quote Chomsky, who is a holocaust-denier, a general anti-American bigot, and a blithering ideologue whose fantastic claims (7 million dead in Afghanistan? Really? Even the anti-war left only claims a few thousand...) have caused him to lose credibility even on the left. Even his work on linguistics (as opposed to abstract syntax) is generally considered way off base in the field.

For more on Mr. Chomsky, see here or here. For more on his absurd claims about Afghanistan, see here.

Now, to refer to your original claim, why do you think America leads the world in invention, while the old Soviet Union couldn't even keep up with manufacturing stolen technology, never mind inventing new technologies?

`proven' wrong? Haven't read too many economics textbooks, have you? Never mind actual work in the field...

Of course, you give the game away when you quote Chomsky, who is a holocaust-denier, a general anti-American bigot, and a blithering ideologue whose fantastic claims (7 million dead in Afghanistan? Really? Even the anti-war left only claims a few thousand...) have caused him to lose credibility even on the left. Even his work on linguistics (as opposed to abstract syntax) is generally considered way off base in the field.

For more on Mr. Chomsky, see here or here. For more on his absurd claims about Afghanistan, see here.

Now, to refer to your original claim, why do you think America leads the world in invention, while the old Soviet Union couldn't even keep up with manufacturing stolen technology, never mind inventing new technologies?

`proven' wrong? Haven't read too many economics textbooks, have you? Never mind actual work in the field...

Of course, you give the game away when you quote Chomsky, who is a holocaust-denier, a general anti-American bigot, and a blithering ideologue whose fantastic claims (7 million dead in Afghanistan? Really? Even the anti-war left only claims a few thousand...) have caused him to lose credibility even on the left. Even his work on linguistics (as opposed to abstract syntax) is generally considered way off base in the field.

For more on Mr. Chomsky, see here or here. For more on his absurd claims about Afghanistan, see here.

Now, to refer to your original claim, why do you think America leads the world in invention, while the old Soviet Union couldn't even keep up with manufacturing stolen technology, never mind inventing new technologies?

Balanced reporting, and they often scoop the Big Players too.

• World Net Daily
• Drudge Report
• News Max
• Townhall
• Lucianne
• Jewish World Review
• Front Page Magazine
• Cybercast News Service

Fox has pretty good, balanced news, too.

Ever notice how if a /. story is about anything Linux related that the zealots come out en masse and mod down almost 50% of the comments? This thread is a good example.

The growing trend of censorship by the left (which Linux advocates certainly qualify for) is frightening. We rely on the Left to provide progressive and enlightened contributions to the betterment of society. Censorship, in any form, flies directly in the face of this.

What are the Linux zealots so afraid of? To read that someone thinks their OS sucks? This is ridiculous. Regardless of your choice of an OS, there are millions of geeks ready and chomping at the bit to inform you that your choice sucks, is miguided, ignorant, facsist, criminal, etc...

Linux is failing because the Linux community has been growing increasingly dysfunctional and childish. It was a compelling option for a desktop OS a few years ago but for some reason things have gotten seriously broken in the open source world.

I am advocate for open source and the philosophy behind it. We need to leverage our democratic right for the public to own its own property. But there needs to be a serious reality injection into the open source community. They need to understand the dynamics that make software appeal to the mass market. They have utterly and completely missed the ball on this one, imho.

Ever notice how if a /. story is about anything Linux related that the zealots come out en masse and mod down almost 50% of the comments? This thread is a good example.

The growing trend of censorship by the left (which Linux advocates certainly qualify for) is frightening. We rely on the Left to provide progressive and enlightened contributions to the betterment of society. Censorship, in any form, flies directly in the face of this.

What are the Linux zealots so afraid of? To read that someone thinks their OS sucks? This is ridiculous. Regardless of your choice of an OS, there are millions of geeks ready and chomping at the bit to inform you that your choice sucks, is miguided, ignorant, facsist, criminal, etc...

Linux is failing because the Linux community has been growing increasingly dysfunctional and childish. It was a compelling option for a desktop OS a few years ago but for some reason things have gotten seriously broken in the open source world.

I am advocate for open source and the philosophy behind it. We need to leverage our democratic right for the public to own its own property. But there needs to be a serious reality injection into the open source community. They need to understand the dynamics that make software appeal to the mass market. They have utterly and completely missed the ball on this one, imho.

Meanwhile, employment of young black males is at an all time low. Coincidence? Probably not.

I like the 'taxes are taken out before they get paid' bit. Yeah right. Most of these guys get paid in cash at the end of the day and the employer writes it off as a non-workforce expense. The only taxes they pay directly are sales taxes and lottery tickets. So are you also saying that they never-ever go to the emergency room, or put their kids in public school or pressure states to give them in-state tuition. Of course, the Mexican government isn't just shoveling their problems on the US. No not at all. Of course, they don't have their own lobbying group with the same integrity as Operation Rainbow backing them with discrimination lawsuits if anyone tries to enforce the law.

We need them only for cheap labor. They only bring more poverty along with them because their own corrupt government doesn't give a shit. Maybe it would be a good thing for grocery prices to go up. Americans are too damn fat and maybe it would help provide jobs for those who can't find them (oh shit, that's right, welfare pays them to sit on their ass and breed...this would mean that they'd have to work!). Oh, and they won't become the equivalent of the Palestinians in the US. Nope, never.

WAKE THE FUCK UP! YOUR COUNTRY IS BEING INVADED IN SLOW MOTION!!!!!!

Wars are always for reasons, China could easily destroy us with ground and air troops by numbers alone.

You act like countries start wars because its fun, there would have to be something to gain from it

Unfortunately I have again and again looked at Hitler's objectives in WW2, and especially Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour. Even Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, in charge of such a powerful and indestructible fleet was afraid of this relatively small attack (by WW2 standards) on Pearl Harbour when he said, "I fear we have awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve" in this article. If he knew that the attack would wake a sleeping giant, why would he have done the attack? Why did he not perform Hara-kiri (ritual suicide) instead of attacking Pearl Harbour like any good Japanese soldier would do if victory is not possible (as Japanese culture dictates)? Well actually I over-react, it's possible that he simply thought it would be a difficult war when he said that. However when it became clear that America was kicking ass he should have commited Hare-kiri for starting the war that caused the dishonour of Japan.

Plus Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - why? Such a small country. Hopefully China will not be to Taiwan as Iraq is to Kuwait.

President Putin (of Russia) is wise - his cooperation with the Americans brings money, and also allows the US to massively squeeze China. As soon as American military bases are deployed in Russia in the name of good relations (same as they are in Saudi Arabia) you'll see the Chinese shut up, and stick with what they do best - quietly copying CDs, making stuff cheaply, etc.

Actually, there has already been at least one, ahem, incident...

National Guardsman Shoots Self in Butt

Sorry it comes from such a weird news source, but it really did happen, it was all over the local news.

Read "The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky" to answer your question.

Former leftist David Horowitz pointed out in a very interesting article on FrontPage Magazine several days ago exactly what Noam Chomsky is about. See, the word 'liar' has a single meaning in the English language and Chomsky fits it quite aptly.

For anyone that's interested:

link...

bye, now.......

http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/ponte/2001/ ponte07-02-01p.htm

It's sure going to be interesting, sorting out who pays whom. A great many of the people who think of themselves as "we minorities" are actually descendants of those white slaveholders. Think about it.

David Horowitz has convincingly debunked the whole reparations idea. Check out Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks -- And Racist, Too. I have read many people who say his article is horrible, reprehensible... but not one who could refute any of the actual claims in it.

Oh, we Americans live in such burdensome wretchedness! We are downtrodden and persecuted by the ills of capitalism! To make matters worse, some stuttering babboon with his wily strategery stole the election, and now we drink poisoned water and have no electricity! *sobs* At least we can import water from Mexico. oh wait..

Remind yourself that the capitalists now have control of the schools, and that they are training you to be net slaves.

Really? Why do the capitalists insist that college students who are studying to be scientists or engineers waste two of their four years taking liberal arts courses? 99% of what I know about the net I learned on my own. Most degrees are worthless because they're full of liberal arts fluff and new age business drivel. Good for leftist evangelists, bad for capitalists.

It is precisely anti-capitalists who control and teach at the schools, which (ahem) are owned by the government, not capitalists. In fact, most colleges and universities are bastions of socialism, anti-Americanism (strange isn't it?), eco-extremism, and fascist political correctness.

OK, it's not that bad at all colleges, but this is all beside the point. Capitalism is good because it allows you to choose where you want to work. If you think the bad outweighs the good, then I'm sure Comrade Castro will let you join little Elian in the sugar cane fields of Cuba with the other government slaves. Perhaps you can unionize them and petition Castro for ergonomically-correct sickles and machetes. And paid overtime. oh wait..
For all the bashing of capitalism, let's not forget that the opposite side of the coin is much, much worse.

It's just mind-boggling to see how ungrateful U.S. citizens are for the unprecedented opportunities and comforts we have, which were not afforded to the greatest rulers and most advanced civilizations of times gone by and most still today.

Come and see what I found.

So-called free speech at Berkeley is a joke. Sure, you can say whatever you want, as long as your views are squarely to the left. Otherwise you get shouted down and threatened. Ask David Horowitz, a former prominent Berkeley sixties radical who is now an articulate conservative writer. He wrote a now-famous ad for the Berkeley paper on why reparations for slavery are a bad idea. Although his views are shared by something like 80% of the public, he was labeled a racist bigot by the newspaper, which was pressured into formally apologizing for the ad. It's a new McCarthyism, folks, and it's coming from the left this time.

Horowitz recently spoke at Berkeley (his alma mater), where the administration at first refused to guarantee his physical security despite threats of violence. At the event, a large group of protesters chanted communist slogans through a bullhorn (even Al Gore and Ralph Nader are too far to the right for them) and denounced Horowitz as a bigot. Find out what is going on in our so-called institutions of higher learning, folks. It is nothing short of chilling.

Here's another theory: America's rising standard of living has made it easier for families to break up, which has lead to greater illegitimacy and crime. Americans' rising wealth has also created a lackadaisical attitude towards petty theft and minor misdemeanors, which has also raised the crime rate. Throw in the War on Drugs (a folly which could only be truly done in a country as spoiled as the US), and you've got a flammable mixture.

Read Spoiled Rotten.

For example: female firefighters should have the exact same fitness requirements as men -- raging fires are not gender sensitive. However, in an intellectual setting, teachers have to fight the gender bias that results in women with "less CS interest". It's a chicken and egg problem -- if we don't discourage critical thinking in females when they're young, they may end up choosing CS when they're older.

Gender bias research says that: teachers call on boys more often, let boys interrupt girls, encourage boys to solve problems, etc. More is here. An article about women and computers is here, and a dissenting view is here
------------------------------------------------ -------