Wednesday, April 30, 2003

This is a biased source but it does have some interesting stuff on it about Israel and Jews; Myths & Facts Online - The Refugees

frame game - Afghanistan Hijacked
By William Saletan
Posted Thursday, November 8, 2001, at 2:57 PM PT

On Sept. 11, agents of the al-Qaida terrorist network hijacked four planes and used three of them to kill 5,000 Americans. The fourth plane crashed short of its target. Afterward, U.S. officials disclosed that if the fourth plane had made it to Washington, D.C., they would have shot it down. They were prepared to kill some civilians, if necessary, in order to prevent the terrorists from killing many more.

A similar scenario is now unfolding in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida and its Taliban agents have hijacked a nation, making it a base of operations for mass murder and terror. They're using the civilian inhabitants of this base as human shields. If we refuse to attack the terrorists, many more civilians around the world will die. So we have attacked, and some of our bombs have killed innocent people. Each of those deaths is terrible and tragic. But we're no more responsible for them than we would have been for shooting down that plane full of innocent Americans. We didn't put the lives of Afghan civilians at risk. Afghanistan's hijackers did.

The killing of Afghan civilians, followed by worldwide outrage against the United States for those killings, is central to Osama Bin Laden's long-term strategy. In a videotape released over the weekend, Bin Laden declared, "The entire West, with the exception of a few countries, supports this unfair, barbaric [military] campaign, although there is no evidence of the involvement of the people of Afghanistan in what happened in America. The people of Afghanistan had nothing to do with this matter. The campaign, however, continues to unjustly annihilate the villagers and civilians, children, women, and innocent people."

So far, Bin Laden's strategy is working. Pictures of dead civilians are pouring across TV screens and newspapers, turning Muslims and Europeans against the bombing. "We cannot accept what we see on the screen every day, hundreds of innocent civilians dying," Syria's president told British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Malaysia and Indonesia have called for a halt in the campaign, protesting that it has "taken so many innocent lives." Leftist parties in Germany, France, and Sweden, along with civic and religious leaders in Norway and Scotland, have followed suit. Polls in Britain, Spain, and France show support for the campaign slipping. The killing of Afghan civilians could lead to "an explosion of anger in the Muslim world," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told Le Figaro last week. "Innocents shouldn't pay for the guilty."

The essential theme of this worldwide reaction is moral equivalence. "As long as the U.S. keeps killing civilians, it will not differ from the organizations it is fighting against," a Turkish editor told the New York Times last week. Venezuela's president punctuated a televised speech by showing his countrymen a picture of dead Afghan women and children. "This has no justification, just like the attacks in New York didn't," he declared. "You can't respond to terror with more terror."

It's true that in Afghanistan, as in New York, killing civilians is wrong. But beneath that pattern lies another. In each case, only one party has believed that killing civilians is wrong. In each case, the other party has exploited that belief by putting civilians in harm's way. And in each case, the ruthless party has been al-Qaida and its agents. What's happening in Afghanistan isn't the reverse of what happened in New York. It's the same thing.

In recent years, al-Qaida has moved into Afghanistan, bought the Taliban's allegiance, set up terrorist training camps, and made the country its headquarters for organizing attacks on civilians abroad. After engineering the slaughter in New York, Bin Laden went underground in Afghanistan while his Taliban protectors surrounded themselves and their weapons with human shields. The testimony of Afghan refugees on this point is overwhelming. One told the Washington Post, "Now the Taliban come at night to the houses of the people and bring their equipment into civilian places." Another said the Taliban had parked 10 tanks at a mosque in Kabul. A third told Time that Taliban soldiers had positioned anti-aircraft guns on the roofs of houses in Kandahar. A fourth told the Christian Science Monitor, "Now the Taliban are taking their guns to the residential areas, and when they fire at the [U.S.] planes, the planes see them and drop bombs on them. That's when the innocent people die." If you don't trust the American press, you can find similar accounts in foreign papers such as London's Independent. Or you can consult the U.N. High Commission on Refugees, which reported on Oct. 27 that many refugees at the Afghan border have expressed fear of "being used as human shields by the Taliban."

Two days after Sept. 11, Frame Game argued that the chief weapon of terrorists is "their willingness to defy moral expectations. If you can't imagine that they'd target children, they'll target children. . If you can't imagine that they'd fly your plane into the World Trade Center, they'll fly your plane into the World Trade Center. Your conscience is their cover." That principle is no less true today. If you can't imagine that al-Qaida and the Taliban would hide behind children, they'll hide behind children. If you can't imagine bombing a residential neighborhood, they'll shoot at your planes from a residential neighborhood. Your conscience is their cover.

As Britain and the United States launch their public relations campaign to defend the war, they must take this message to the people and national leaders whose discomfort with civilian casualties is driving the global outcry for a bombing halt. The conscience of the world is the cover of terrorists. That's just as true when we attack terrorists as when they attack us. Americans hate killing civilians. But we were prepared to pull the trigger on Sept. 11, when the civilians in the crossfire were our own.

Monday, April 28, 2003

My post on the Raving Aetheist - An Atheistic Examination of the Culture of Belief: How Religious Devotion Trivializes American Law and Politics. I'd say it was a good post if I don't say so myself.

Friday, April 25, 2003

We'll, I have to say I tried having a coherent debate with my very first hate mail sender. It didn't work out very well for numerous reasons. Poor english from my counterpart is one reason. A complete and total inability to answer questions from [Name withheld]
is another. Enjoy!

*************************************************

From: [Name withheld]
To: palmerhaas@yahoo.com
Subject: Misc.
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:46:56 -0500

To Whom It May Concern,

Concerning this wonderful song Have You Forgotten all I know is all if it was you who wrote this piece of trash article you should be ashamed of yourself.We are at war and all anti-war anti-President Bush people are more concerned about are songs that you seem to think is either provoking war or is inappropriate.I guess anti war people would have thought it was ok if Darryl Worley would have wrote a crap music song in the Eminem and Ludicrous style.Also speaking of 9-11 evidently you aren't aware that Clinton had 4 offerings of UBL by Sudan and refused to take him and if you don't believe me please contact Mansoor Ijaz the man who negociated some of the dealings.However you have your Constitutional right to trash Mr. Worley and our president just as I have my rights to trash Clinton and you people if its you who wrote this dumb outrageous article that is full of nothing but pure anti-war and anti-President Bush liberal garbag.Oh and just to remind you that our president had all of this stuff dumped onto his lap and not a single Democrat will give him credit. But oh they know how to blame him for everything from the bad weather to constipation not even giving him one single bit of credit for all of the great things he's done.I'm not saying you have to like the president but at least give him some credit for the good that he's done for America.I mean for crying out loud let's face it as much as my family and I disliked Clinton we did give him a little credit even though he left a huge mess for Bush to clean up and anti Bush people can deny it all you want to but the rest of USA knows the truth.Look we are at war and all America is asking of you is to do what you did when Clinton was in office and that is think of the troops and why we have to do this even if you don't like it.

A Huge Darryl Worely Fan
*************************************************


Before I had a chance to respond I got this follow up from my first hatemailer.

*************************************************
Dear Mr.Palmer and Haas,

I want to thank you for not lighting into me you were really nice and I appreciate that.The main reason I'm emailing you back is because I believe I was a little too harsh on you and so I want to apologize.The main thing that I want to get across is that we are at war and everyone including anti-war peaceniks need to say "I'm against this war but I trust the experts and will back it for the good of the country." Now if after we topple Saddam and we will and we don't find any WMD then you can criticize President Bush all you want to.However if we find what we think we are going to find then will you do me a favor and at least say President Bush was right and we(anti-war people) were all wrong.I read some other stuff on your website and you are a very smart man just wrong when it comes to doing what is best for America and that is to take out terrorism wherever it lies including Iraq.Take care.

A Huge Darryl Worely Fan
******************************************************

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:28:04 -0800 (PST)
From: "Palmer Haas"
Subject: Re: Misc.
To: [Name withheld]

what was it that you read that made you think I was smart?

And FYI I don't trust the experts - that's the problem.... But I'll save that for another day. I plan on blogging in the very near future about people Bush trusted and brought in to his Administration and allies he trusted, and when they told him something he didn't want to hear he either threw a hissy fit (behind closed doors), or kicked them out of the administration (Like Mr Linsdey who said the war would cost $100 Billions plus). But I am short on time so it'll have to wait.

And just so you know;

-I didn't approve of a lot of what Clinton did

-I dont really listen to Eminem or Ludacris (they're not my thing, but they're not so bad either.... I digress) I'm a college DJ and I'm kind of picky about my music, so I'm what you might call the "cultural elite" as so many right wingers typically do to ostracize someone like myself.

A word of advice - it helps not to assume anything about anyone unless you know. I appreciate the apology. If you'll notice in my blog entry I said "I wonder". Truth is I dont know for sure so I speak my mind but I don't try to indite anyone without real proof. Dare I ask, how old are you?

**************************************************


After not hearing from Name Withheld I wrote another letter asking about the WMD

**************************************************

From: Palmer Haas
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: Misc.

[Name Withheld]"Now if after we topple Saddam and we will and we don't find any WMD then you can criticize President Bush all you want to. However if we find what we think we are going to find then will you do me a favor and at least say President Bush was right and we(anti-war people) were all wrong."

I was dissappointed that you didn't write back after that email I sent about a month ago. I have to say that I'm really glad I was wrong about Iraq going to be a bloodbath. One of the many reasons I was opposed to the war was I didn't want to see American soldiers coming home in body bags, and I thought there would be more than a thousand. That's not even counting the innocent Iraqi civilians, ya know those people we were "liberating"?

Well, seems like most in the ProWar camp have forgotten about the WMD. I know it's still early but is there a time table on the apology maybe?

Sincerely
Palmer Haas
***************************************************************************

From: [Name Withheld]
To: "Palmer Haas"
Subject: Re: Misc.
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 00:30:57 -0400

Dear Mr. Haas,

I couldn't find your email address so I'm replying to you in the message you sent me.I'm glad to see that at least some of you anti-war people are admitting that you all were wrong from day one about this war that did liberate the Iraqi people.One of the main points is that this war could've been avoided had Saddam given up his WMD and actually if Clinton would've been stern with him like President Bush did about getting rid of the WMDS that he does have.So all you people who keep saying "Where are the WMDS at?" Well we found the suits,nerve gas antitdote, and the missle heads that can be used to send them.And correct me if I'm wrong that we now have Saddam's nerve gas doctor in custody.Also let's not forget that Syria who is very friendly with Saddam and who is noted for harboring the most terrorists just may be where Saddam's WMD may be.However it seems now that even Syria who according so some lefties was going to be the next place USA goes to war with is cooperating. by telling Saddam's merry men to basically get out.Which is why they have been turning themselves in because they know sooner or later they will be caught.That along with the help of the Iraqi people showing us where Saddam's WMD are I think you scoffers will be more than satisfied hopefully.Look everyone has the right to say what they want but please do remember that the anti-war movement said the same thing about President Reagan that he nothing but a cowboy who was going to cause WW111 and again it didn't happen.And that if it wasn't for military action there wouldn't be freedom of speech.

[Name witheld]
Harvest,AL
*************************************


this is interesting - she thinks I am asking her for the apology when it is in fact the other way around. I guess it could be miscontrued on her part, but I don't think it's that incomprehensible. Sometimes I wonder if people should have to have a certain reading comprehension level to vote.

*************************************
Dear Mr.Palmer and Haas,

I want to thank you for not lighting into me you were really nice and I appreciate that.The main reason I'm emailing you back is because I believe I was a little too harsh on you and so I want to apologize.The main thing that I want to get across is that we are at war and everyone including anti-war peaceniks need to say "I'm against this war but I trust the experts and will back it for the good of the country." Now if after we topple Saddam and we will and we don't find any WMD then you can criticize President Bush all you want to. However if we find what we think we are going to find then will you do me a favor and at least say President Bush was right and we(anti-war people) were all wrong.I read some other stuff on your website and you are a very smart man just wrong when it comes to doing what is best for America and that is to take out terrorism wherever it lies including Iraq. Take care.

A Huge Darryl Worely Fan
**********************************************


It's most repeated since I never really got a response, prompting me to I resend it.

**********************************************

From: Palmer Haas
To: [Name witheld]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 7:26 PM
Subject: This is the email I sent back on March 12th

I had this sitting in my sent email box - did you see it when I sent it way back when - your response is coming soon;

Email originally sent March 12 -

what was it that you read that made you think I was smart?

And FYI I don't trust the experts - that's the problem.... But I'll save that for another day. I plan on blogging in the very near future about people Bush trusted and brought in to his Administration and allies he trusted, and when they told him something he didn't want to hear he either threw a hissy fit (behind closed doors), or kicked them out of the administration (Like Mr Linsdey who said the war would cost $100 Billions plus). But I am short on time so it'll have to wait.

And just so you know;

-I didn't approve of a lot of what Clinton did

-I dont really listen to Eminem or Ludacris (they're not my thing, but they're not so bad either.... I digress) I'm a college DJ and I'm kind of picky about my music, so I'm what you might call the "cultural elite" as so many right wingers typically do to ostracize someone like myself.

A word of advice - it helps not to assume anything about anyone unless you know. I appreciate the apology. If you'll notice in my blog entry I said "I wonder". Truth is I dont know for sure so I speak my mind but I don't try to indite anyone without real proof. Dare I ask, how old are you?
**************************************************************


I asked how old she was because I honestly thought this was a ninth grader of some sort based on the writing and comprehension. I was wrong - all those budget cuts in education are finally paying off for the GOP. Make your population too dumb to think for themselves and fill their heads witha bunch of BS. Very effective......

**************************************************************

From: [Name witheld]
To: "Palmer Haas"
Subject: Re: This is the email I sent back on March 12th
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:58:30 -0400

Dear Mr. Haas,

One I don't trust anything that Mr. Lindsey says. Two freedom isn't cheap.Fact is the left wanted every bullet,and bomb etc anything and everthing that was war related scanned.And that this president from day one in office has been picked on by the left who still can't seem to get over their huge 2000 election loss.Don't get me wrong whenever President Bush or any Reps do something wrong I do criticize them.However had the Democrats not tried to block our presiden't agenda by playing their usual partisan politics people would be satisfied.Another fact is that Dems said 0 about Clintons spending that was very high and that President Bush's high spending is due to fighting terrorism something Clinton who loved to throw hissy fits and Dems didn't know how to do.Lastly I won't tell you my real age but let's just leave it that I'm way past the drinking age.

[Name witheld]
Harvest,AL

**************************************************************

From: Palmer Haas
To: [Name witheld]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: This is the email I sent back on March 12th

I'm having trouble with the first email account - hope you get this -

First if you don't trust anything Linsey said, then for Godsake at least admit that it was a bonehead pick on the part of the President to appoint him! I thought the strong point of our President was that he picks people and lets them lead. If you delegate responsibility to your staff and they can't be trusted then who's fault is it, Clinton?

That's not to mention that HE WAS RIGHT! It's going to cost more than 100 Billion, by some estimates 600 Billion in the end depending on who you ask. Linsey got fired for telling the truth! Let's be honest here, Rove was just pissed that Linsey told America before we started the war instead of after.

Second - Your adage about partisan politics goes both ways. Both sides play it well and often. The GOP had congress 6 out of 8 years under Clinton and they did everything and anything they could to obstruct him legislatively. Now that the shoe is on the other foot your crying foul? This isn't even mentioning the fact that the Homeland Security Dept was a Democratic idea that the WH picked up and then used against the Dems. I guess Bush learned from Clinton - it all comes back eventually I guess.....

There are a lot of reaons this budget is thru the roof. I quote a Republican that it would serve many in the GOP to remember a little bit more -

"We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations (back in 1961 anyway).

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

That was Eisenhower in his Farewell Address in 1961. All that he predicted has come true - Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Perle and so many others and their connections to an industry that relies on our fear. That's not even counting the connections to the oil industry, considering that seemingly half of our oil comes from nations that hate us and fund terrorism. We were buying oil from Saddam up until the last week or so before the war. So many in the far right wing of the GOP would just rather nuke em to get it over with, and yet no one says anything about business connections the WH has to the very same oil rich nations, like the Saudis. It's sad really.

"Another fact is that Dems said 0 about Clintons spending that was very high and that President Bush's high spending is due to fighting terrorism something Clinton who loved to throw hissy fits and Dems didn't know how to do."

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense, your gonna have to clarify yourself, I don't understant what you're saying. This already too long - sorry about it. I'm empassioned about my politics I guess.

**************************************************************

Dear Mr. Haas,

One I don't trust anything that Mr. Lindsey says. Two freedom isn't cheap.Fact is the left wanted every bullet,and bomb etc anything and everthing that was war related scanned.And that this president from day one in office has been picked on by the left who still can't seem to get over their huge 2000 election loss.Don't get me wrong whenever President Bush or any Reps do something wrong I do criticize them.However had the Democrats not tried to block our presiden't agenda by playing their usual partisan politics people would be satisfied.Another fact is that Dems said 0 about Clintons spending that was very high and that President Bush's high spending is due to fighting terrorism something Clinton who loved to throw hissy fits and Dems didn't know how to do.Lastly I won't tell you my real age but let's just leave it that I'm way past the drinking age.

**************************************************************

Dear Mr.Haas,

Look first of all again I don't trust Mr. Lindsey and we don't know all the circumstances as to why and if he was fired now if he was fired for telling the truth then yes I agree it was dumb idea.But again we don't know for sure why or if he was fired he may have just stepped down.But again my point is you can't put a price on freedom so if you have to ask the cost of the war then you can afford it.This is something the left needs to understand but won't because of their strong hatred of President Bush since day one in office.And again where the Dems hiding at when Clinton wasted millions of dollars in Monica Missles he lobbed to keep his everyday scandals out of the public eye?All I know is that America is tired of the left taking about money all the time it seems that is all they talk about.Yet they didn't talk about where the money was going to come from when Clinton was in.

[Name witheld]
Harvest,AL

***************************************************************************

From P Haas;

Maybe I'm losing my focus here. I'll keep it brief; Why don't you trust Larry Linsey? When did your mistrust start? Before or after he was "dismissed"?

So you feel it was okay to play partisan politics when Clinton was in office but now that Bush is there it's in your eyes wrong? You don't think that's hypocritical?

"Another fact is that Dems said 0 about Clintons spending that was very high and that President Bush's high spending is due to fighting terrorism something Clinton who loved to throw hissy fits and Dems didn't know how to do."

I dont understand what you're trying to say, your gonna have to clarify yourself. Are you refering to previous policy, like the tax cut? The current policy, one of them being another tax cut? You have to be more specific.

FYI - technically Larry Linsey "stepped down", but everybody, left and right, from the GOP stalwarts and the Wall Street Journal, know that he was forced to step down. He'd been in the doghouse with Rove and Bush ever since he said the war would cost 75-100 Billion. Most people in the White House were ticked about at least Linsay giving that estimate and countered that those numbers were too high, but now it looks like that the estimate was too low. Rarely is anyone fired in appointed positions in DC. They usually give you the chance to keep your dignity by letting you resign instead of giving you a pink slip.

***************************************************************************

Dear Mr. Haas,

For one I'll have to read a source as to whether Republicans were playing partisan politics at that time and not giving Clinton the money that he needed not to say that my party doesn't play those kind of needless politics.However my main point again is that none of the people on the left want to give our president the credit he deserves for doing such a great job seeing as Clinton did hand him a recession and terrorism to boot.Now you can sit there and deny it all you want to but there are independant sources that will point that fact out that before the Slick one left office we were already in a recession. Then came 9-11 and that's why we are spending x amount of dollars to protect America something Clinton and Democrats didn't know how to do.And again you can't put a pricetag on freedom because if you have to ask the price then you can't afford it.There's no doubt that Bush has spent more but when you look at things look at what he's had to deal with all of Clinton's leftover problems.The bottom line here is the partisan politics that are being played by both parties mostly on the left though must stop and so does the fingerpointing they need to start taking responsibilities and thinking about America instead of their pockets.

[Name witheld]
Harvest,AL

***************************************************************************

P Haas

Your not answering my questions - and if you're not interested in answering them just say so whether you don't like me or trust me etc. I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint. I asked in the previous email;

1 - "Why don't you trust Larry Linsey? When did your mistrust start? Before or after he was dismissed? "

I also wanted to get clarification on what you wrote before -

"Another fact is that Dems said 0 about Clintons spending that was very high and that President Bush's high spending is due to fighting terrorism something Clinton who loved to throw hissy fits and Dems didn't know how to do."

2. Are you refering to previous policy, like the tax cut?

3. The current policy, one of them being another tax cut?

You have to be more specific.

As for the Dems playing politics, that what they do, and that's why they call them politicians, all of them; Rep and Dem, left and right, Liberal on Conservative. When politicians disagree with another politician they vote against those policies - that's what happened during Clinton, and that's what's happening now.

It's just my opinion, but I'd consider something dirty while playing partisan politics if a Representative or Senator were to vote against a law when the opposition party is in power, and then vote for an almost identical piece of legislation when their own party is in power. It goes on, and both parties have been guilty of it.

***************************************************************************
Dear Mr. Haas,

For one I'm not saying I don't trust you but I need to read up more on what you said to make sure because from what I read which came from an Independant source Republicans gave Clinton everything he wanted from his judicial nominees to whatever bills he wanted passed.Now yes some of the Repubs like Chafee,Snowe,McCain, Grassle,etc.. are playing their partisan politics just like the Democrats do. And as far as Mr. Lindsey getting fired again another Independant source from what I read said that he stepped down.Also what I'm trying to tell you is that the DNC expect President Bush to get a bluelight special on this war.They wanted everything from the bullets to the food that the military was eating scanned because according to the left we should be cutting the military.Now another thing is that all this anti=war stuff wasn't because of the war it's because of the strong hatred of our president and the ficticous Michael Moore who by the way may just get his oscar taken away because he staged some of the scenes in his documentary Bowling For Columbine it's all documented.My other main point is that the DNC didn't mind Clinton wasting millions on his Monica Missles that he lobbed to keep his 24/07 a day scandals that Reno swept under the rug for 8 yrs.Why? Because he gave his party anything they wanted so naturally they were content and still stick by him knowing how majorly corrupt he was.Now they are politicising the remarks made by Senator Santurum just like they did Lott and the fact is Mr. Santurum was exactly right and only quoting what someone who works for a courtroom that currently has a case coming up that basically says if you are going to allow gays to have sex in a home then you have to allow all that Sen.Santurum said.What's so funny is that once again it's just another case of playing the old double standard game where it's ok for Sen. KKK Byrd who in my opinion is still in the clan when he said the N word twice and not not one single peep out of the Dem, and liberal owned media who if they showed it once that was it.Then Usama's Mama Patty Murray comes out and praises UBL by saying he built the roads,daycare centers, and healthcare centers and we haven't done that.Oh and then there's Sen John Edwards who is now being investigated for taking illegal campaign money to which he has given some ot it back calling Sen. KKK Byrd his mentor just like Clinton called JW Fullbright an extremely well known segragationist his mentor after he gave him a medal.This past October Clinton says the same thing JW Fullbright is my mentor and guess what? Not one single peep out of the Democrats and the liberal owned media never touched it.Same thing with Marci Kaptur who praised either Saddam or UBL I don't remember which and again not one peep out of the lefties.Daschle on the eve of the war comes out and blasts the president how unamerican of him. John Kerry saying USA needs a regime change and 0 out of the Dems.He (Kerry) goes to a fundraiser meanwhile their was a funeral for a soldier who was killed in the war who was from Mass. and Kerry who was in the military that does teach you respect decided that his fundraising was much more important than that soldier's funeral. The Dems yep silent on this one as usual it's a double standard game with the DNC always has and always willl be because they love to attack Republicans like vulctures on a dead carcus for saying completely harmless remarks that yes shouldn't have been said but were taken out of context. This BS has been watched and heard by America for far too long and the Democrats right now are only harming their own party especially the old Slick one himself who has some nerve blasting President Bush knowing that it was his piss poor policies that got us into this huge mess.Him and Carter also seem to have forgotten the unwritten law that any former leader of the free world shouldn't criticize the current President at anytime.But of course being the typical Democratic morons that Carter and Clinton aka Dumb and Dumbest they throw that law right out the window.What's funny is that these two clowns have lost so much credibility that they make baghgdad bob look honest and yet they criticize our president's foreign policy and war plans that the top experts yes I know you don't believe them are saying they are the greatest USA has ever had even going beyond the Civil War days.I'm going to find some more info on whether Repubs at that time played partisan politics with Clinton and if it's true then I will gladly apologize reason is because the extreme left (not you) tends to fabricate things to make our president look bad.I will leave off by saying Thank you for this debate because that's one of the things that makes USA so great difference of opinion.

[Name witheld]
Harvest,AL

*********************************************

From: Palmer Haas
To: [Name withheld]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 10:43 PM
Subject: a response

Maybe I'm losing my focus here. I'll keep it brief; Why don't you trust Larry Linsey? When did your mistrust start? Before or after he was "dismissed"?

So you feel it was okay to play partisan politics when Clinton was in office but now that Bush is there it's in your eyes wrong? You don't think that's hypocritical?

"Another fact is that Dems said 0 about Clintons spending that was very high and that President Bush's high spending is due to fighting terrorism something Clinton who loved to throw hissy fits and Dems didn't know how to do."

I dont understand what you're trying to say, your gonna have to clarify yourself. Are you refering to previous policy, like the tax cut? The current policy, one of them being another tax cut? You have to be more specific.

FYI - technically Larry Linsey "stepped down", but everybody, left and right, from the GOP stalwarts and the Wall Street Journal, know that he was forced to step down. He'd been in the doghouse with Rove and Bush ever since he said the war would cost 75-100 Billion. Most people in the White House were ticked about at least Linsay giving that estimate and countered that those numbers were too high, but now it looks like that the estimate was too low. Rarely is anyone fired in appointed positions in DC. They usually give you the chance to keep your dignity by letting you resign instead of giving you a pink slip.

****************

From: [Name withheld]
To: "Palmer Haas"
Subject: Re: a response
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:23:06 -0400

Dear Mr. Haas,

For one I'll have to read a source as to whether Republicans were playing partisan politics at that time and not giving Clinton the money that he needed not to say that my party doesn't play those kind of needless politics.However my main point again is that none of the people on the left want to give our president the credit he deserves for doing such a great job seeing as Clinton did hand him a recession and terrorism to boot.Now you can sit there and deny it all you want to but there are independant sources that will point that fact out that before the Slick one left office we were already in a recession. Then came 9-11 and that's why we are spending x amount of dollars to protect America something Clinton and Democrats didn't know how to do.And again you can't put a pricetag on freedom because if you have to ask the price then you can't afford it.There's no doubt that Bush has spent more but when you look at things look at what he's had to deal with all of Clinton's leftover problems.The bottom line here is the partisan politics that are being played by both parties mostly on the left though must stop and so does the fingerpointing they need to start taking responsibilities and thinking about America instead of their pockets.

[Name withheld]
Harvest,AL

***************

From: Palmer Haas
To: [Name withheld]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: a response


Your not answering my questions - and if you're not interested in answering them just say so whether you don't like me or trust me etc. I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint. I asked in the previous email;

1 - "Why don't you trust Larry Linsey? When did your mistrust start? Before or after he was dismissed? "

I also wanted to get clarification on what you wrote before -


"Another fact is that Dems said 0 about Clintons spending that was very high and that President Bush's high spending is due to fighting terrorism something Clinton who loved to throw hissy fits and Dems didn't know how to do."

2. Are you refering to previous policy, like the tax cut?

3. The current policy, one of them being another tax cut?

You have to be more specific.

As for the Dems playing politics, that what they do, and that's why they call them politicians, all of them; Rep and Dem, left and right, Liberal on Conservative. When politicians disagree with another politician they vote against those policies - that's what happened during Clinton, and that's what's happening now.

It's just my opinion, but I'd consider something dirty while playing partisan politics if a Representative or Senator were to vote against a law when the opposition party is in power, and then vote for an almost identical piece of legislation when their own party is in power. It goes on, and both parties have been guilty of it.

***************



From: [Name withheld]
To: "Palmer Haas"
Subject: Re: a response
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:28:49 -0400

Dear Mr. Haas,

For one I'm not saying I don't trust you but I need to read up more on what you said to make sure because from what I read which came from an Independant source
Republicans gave Clinton everything he wanted from his judicial nominees to whatever bills he wanted passed.Now yes some of the Repubs like Chafee,Snowe,McCain, Grassle,etc.. are playing their partisan politics just like the Democrats do. And as far as Mr. Lindsey getting fired again another Independant source from what I read said that he stepped down.Also what I'm trying to tell you is that the DNC expect President Bush to get a bluelight special on this war.They wanted everything from the bullets to the food that the military was eating scanned because according to the left we should be cutting the military.Now another thing is that all this anti=war stuff wasn't because of the war it's because of the strong hatred of our president and the ficticous Michael Moore who by the way may just get his oscar taken away because he staged some of the scenes in his documentary Bowling For Columbine it's all documented.My other main point is that the DNC didn't mind Clinton wasting millions on his Monica Missles that he lobbed to keep his 24/07 a day scandals that Reno swept under the rug for 8 yrs.Why? Because he gave his party anything they wanted so naturally they were content and still stick by him knowing how majorly corrupt he was.Now they are politicising the remarks made by Senator Santurum just like they did Lott and the fact is Mr. Santurum was exactly right and only quoting what someone who works for a courtroom that currently has a case coming up that basically says if you are going to allow gays to have sex in a home then you have to allow all that Sen.Santurum said.What's so funny is that once again it's just another case of playing the old double standard game where it's ok for Sen. KKK Byrd who in my opinion is still in the clan when he said the N word twice and not not one single peep out of the Dem, and liberal owned media who if they showed it once that was it.Then Usama's Mama Patty Murray comes out and praises UBL by saying he built the roads,daycare centers, and healthcare centers and we haven't done that.Oh and then there's Sen John Edwards who is now being investigated for taking illegal campaign money to which he has given some ot it back calling Sen. KKK Byrd his mentor just like Clinton called JW Fullbright an extremely well known segragationist his mentor after he gave him a medal.This past October Clinton says the same thing JW Fullbright is my mentor and guess what? Not one single peep out of the Democrats and the liberal owned media never touched it.Same thing with Marci Kaptur who praised either Saddam or UBL I don't remember which and again not one peep out of the lefties.Daschle on the eve of the war comes out and blasts the president how unamerican of him. John Kerry saying USA needs a regime change and 0 out of the Dems.He (Kerry) goes to a fundraiser meanwhile their was a funeral for a soldier who was killed in the war who was from Mass. and Kerry who was in the military that does teach you respect decided that his fundraising was much more important than that soldier's funeral. The Dems yep silent on this one as usual it's a double standard game with the DNC always has and always willl be because they love to attack Republicans like vulctures on a dead carcus for saying completely harmless remarks that yes shouldn't have been said but were taken out of context. This BS has been watched and heard by America for far too long and the Democrats right now are only harming their own party especially the old Slick one himself who has some nerve blasting President Bush knowing that it was his piss poor policies that got us into this huge mess.Him and Carter also seem to have forgotten the unwritten law that any former leader of the free world shouldn't criticize the current President at anytime.But of course being the typical Democratic morons that Carter and Clinton aka Dumb and Dumbest they throw that law right out the window.What's funny is that these two clowns have lost so much credibility that they make baghgdad bob look honest and yet they criticize our president's foreign policy and war plans that the top experts yes I know you don't believe them are saying they are the greatest USA has ever had even going beyond the Civil War days.I'm going to find some more info on whether Repubs at that time played partisan politics with Clinton and if it's true then I will gladly apologize reason is because the extreme left (not you) tends to fabricate things to make our president look bad.I will leave off by saying Thank you for this debate because that's one of the things that makes USA so great difference of opinion.

[Name withheld]
Harvest,AL

Monday, April 21, 2003

Where have you gone, Ike? Farewell Radio and Television Address to the American People by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961.


My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

II.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

VII.

So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Sunday, April 20, 2003

Here's something for you to read when things are slow - but NOT AT WORK!!!!!
Access To Multiple Orgasm For Everyone by Mitchell Tepper, PhD, MPH and Melissa Bee.

I don't know if it's true but it's worth a shot!

I've had a lot on my mind but I''ve had trouble deciding what to blog about. While I'm mulling all the awful stuff going on the world, enjoy this little gem. I saw it on Chasbah and had to "borrow" it. Enjoy!

Sums It Up, Really.


Thursday, April 17, 2003

The Creative Commons is devoted to expanding the range of creative work available for others to build upon and share.

Friday, April 11, 2003

"But why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's going to happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Oh, I mean, it's, not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer." - Barbra Bush found via Tom Tomorrow.

Thursday, April 10, 2003

There are countless dead, almost a hundred dead American soldiers, at least 23 dead British troops, countless injured. Oh yeah I almost forgot since no one in this country gives a shit about anyone except Americans, not even the people were supposedly liberating, over a thousand dead Iraqi civilians including this heartbreaking and horrifying story (don't click it if you have a weak stomach) and for what? I'm still waiting for Saddam to launch one of his attacks. We've had some of the war bloggers breifly ecstatic over the allied forces coming across some gunpowder and pesticide. All this may seem irrelevant now, because we are so close to the end.

Upon seeing some of the images of what has happened in the past few weeks it is easy I don't know what to make of it. I've seen some imagery of the Iraqi citizens who have suffered immeasureably at the hands of Saddam happy to liberated, although leary of what the US brings. I saw the statue of Saddma brought down and Iraqis celebrating in the steets, pictures of Iraqi citizens kissing soldiers. I've seen countless innocent Iraqis suffer for the only airtight reasoning behind this war; which is the less than complete and total cooperation Iraq gave to UN in the readmitance of weapon inspectors. As far as I'm concerned that's a little like giving a shoplifter the death penalty, but hey, the President is from Texas so for all we know maybe they do that down there.

This is why 3000 Iraqi Republican Guard officers are dead - it is hard, even for me, to empathize and feel sorry for the death of people who helped prop upa murderous dictator, but they too had families, a wife and childern perhaps? Who is going to take care of them?

What the hell is this world coming to? Have we lost our humanity? How many assholes out there are like the ones that populate sites like Little Green Footballs? Are the the ones that will keep Bush in the White House?

If this war is considered such a success, then what do we have to look forward to? North Korea? Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? France? Is this what the people of the nation I care about so deeply truly want, a never ending war against all that will obliterate all oppostion to America and unlimited supply of natural resources, namely Oil?

Daily KOS saddest entry - Monday April 07, 2003

Hutton and Kagan bash it out on Frontline Site

FeedTheFish.org blog.

Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media Ann Coulter Fact Checker.

Sunday, April 06, 2003

04.06.03 WZRD Show CD's that were worth checking out again;
Under The Influence Six Degrees Record Comp 12301
The Notwist 12343
MC Honky 12330
Mother Toungues Female Rap Comp 12269
Detatchment Kit 11124
Aphex Twin 12218
Eurolounge 12247
Appliance 12267
Celso Fonesca 12256
The Black Keys 12308
Sybarite 12272
Brazilian Comp 12095
Bill Laswell Book of Exit 12121
Ry Cooder & Manuel Galban 12129
Cat Power 12099
Shipping News 12102
Melvins 12270
D4 12331
Rye Coalition 12143
Guitar Wolf
Chromatics

http://www.israelinsider.com/views/articles/views_0347.htm - On Jew-hatred in Europe By Oriana Fallaci April 17, 2002 - Originally published in Corriere
della Sera. Translation by Chris and Paola Newman

Friday, April 04, 2003

Greg Palast interview with Buzzflash - his site is down, don't know why though.

Talking Points Memo, Joshua Marshall's blog.

And while I've heard of this site, this is the first time I'm checking it out - The New American Century, or PNAC for short. Very creepy. I can't believe these guys. Their site is nice though....

The infamous post from NRO Rich Lowry calling for the nuking of Mecca. This guy is still employed? That is truly unbelievable. The story about DeGenova at Columbia gave Fox News, Neocons and the like almost a weeks worth of material to writhe and seethe over, but a guy at an established "well respected" Magazine The National Review writes "Let's Nuke Mecca" and it's forgotten about.

Anybody with the name DeGenova will be blacklisted for the rest of their life. Rich Lowry keeps his job.......

Here's an American Prospect article about the Lowry comment.

Go here and check this out. I haven't laughed this hard in a while.
Marla called to your attention : here:http://www.bluntedonreality.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=842#842

Howard Hoffman at hoffmania.blogspot.com and Earl suggested David Ehrenstein of David E's Fablog.

BTW, Lilith, PG runs the blog Half the Sins of Mankind at bertrandrussell.blogspot.com


The Basics - 14 ways to stretch your gas dollar


Steve of www.themodulator.org joins us from the great northwest (somewhere out near Kevin). I must say, I've had a rather productive day of recruiting, and Kevin will pretty much have to forgive my failure to send him a bio and stuff. For those using the shared blogroll, I will try to have it up to date tomorrow, and please alert me if there are errors after 5ish Eastern time tomorrow. Kevin, I guess I should take Don's site off the blogroll?

www.tothebarricades.com

Diebold voting machines

Conan's speech at Harvard

(an old write up not posted till 8.21.03) - I've been watching late night with Jimmy Kimmel - it's actually pretty funny and I have to ask myself if Jimmy is sort of a closet liberal. He had Janeane Garofolo on as the guest host all last week, and then he did an interview with those North Carolina yahoos this past Monday evening. He pretty much made fun of them. After a brief interview they started showing their t-shirt with the words french crossed off, touting freedom fries. One of the red necks remarked "we're selling souvenoirs", to which Jimmy replied "you realize that souvenoir is a French word?". You could see the embarressment on the small crowd.

Behind them was a dry erase board with the list of all the media outlets that were interviewing them that day. They had the BBC, CNN and someone spelled Virgina (not Virginia). Jimmy relished the fact that we can't spell in this country, but we can make Freedom Fries and we have a huge army. He closed the segment by trying to thank them and compliment, but would up saying "you've done nothing, thanks for playing". I have to admit, I was impressed.

I don't want to go too far, but MY IMPRESSION is this conflict is the epitome of the conflicts of interest within the GOP, between it's tendencies to act on it's nationalistic vs financial interests. This conflict is symptomatic and systematic and are exemplified in many other situations / nations (as in China for another).
Appeasement of Saudi Arabia/Middle East & Oil Companies vs. Israel
Cuba (AGRIBUSINESS AND FARMING STATES VS CUBAN GOP SUPPORTERS IN FLA)
China (BUSINESS INTERESTS VS. CHINESE GOV. ANTAGONIZING(especially after plane collision)
RRW'S FEAR OF One world gov. USED AGAINST UN vs. WTO (which has far more power)
family values vs. welfare safety net
women shouldn't work vs. single welfare mothers need to work more
regulation of TV vs. cutting funding for PBS
credit card bankruptcy reform
ab. - always cutting funding to laws that would reduce it because of business interests, but always looking to make illegal

Another Chicago blog called Audible frequency.

From Salon, Oil, imperialism and "hypocrisy" - Among the hundreds of thousands protesting in London, most saw Bush and Blair as a bigger threat than dictator Saddam Hussein. By David Akerman, Feb. 16, 2003

Yet public opinion in eastern Europe is even more hostile to war than in the west.

Bill Maher


America the scapegoat - An Australian woman who has made New York her home fires back at the smug U.S.-bashers in Europe and her native land.

A memo to American Muslims - By M. A. Muqtedar Khan


///////////////////////

Poor Excuse
Don't blame Third World poverty for Sept. 11.
By Emily Yoffe

Monday, Oct. 1, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. PT

Since the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 mass murder declined to leave a note mentioning the "root cause" of their actions, a chorus quickly found one anyway: poverty. (The more obvious one—Islamic militants view destroying the United States as part of their historical duty—apparently has the drawback of being unsympathetic.) Here's a sample of the poor terrorist refrain. "But the end game is not eliminating terrorism. The end game is using our new global coalition to fight poverty and give hope to kids all around the world so the only option they have isn't joining some fanatical group," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. "We need a systematic approach that helps everyone in the world … not only by catching terrorists but by addressing the root causes of terrorism, like resolving conflicts in the Middle East, addressing poverty," said William Ury of Harvard Law School. "To prevent terrorism, we must make war against poverty," proclaimed playwright Harold Pinter.

But the biographies of the hijackers and their commanders lead to another conclusion about the economic forces behind their actions. That is, terrorism is caused by money, education, and opportunity. For example, hijacker and apparent ringleader Mohamed Atta was the son of a Cairo lawyer. He went to the University of Cairo, then did graduate work in Germany. Another hijacker, Ziad Jarrah, was born in Lebanon to, according to the Boston Globe, "a prosperous, educated family." His father is a government official, his mother a teacher. He, too, went to college in Germany. Hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi, from the United Arab Emirates, was a college student at the University of Bonn. Brothers Wail and Waleed M. Alshehri, from Saudi Arabia, sons of a businessman, were both college
educated. Then there are the terrorist leaders. Osama Bin Laden is from one of Saudi Arabia's wealthiest families. The man believed to be the No. 2 in the organization, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an Egyptian-born physician, from, according to the New York Times "a prosperous and prestigious family."

That being poor is not a prerequisite or even a reliable indicator of a propensity to murder people was expressed in the Wall Street Journal by Saudi exile Mohammed al-Masari, a former physics professor considered by the Saudi government to be a promoter of terrorism. "Most mujahedeen [freedom fighters] in Afghanistan were from Saudi Arabia, which shows that under the cover of being relatively wealthy, the Saudis are as devoted as any other Muslims. People in the West just want to cheat themselves by saying that the problem [of Islamic fundamentalism] is purely economic."

Poverty stinks. It often means sickness, malnutrition, lousy education, and limited prospects. But if we were to magically eliminate poverty, that would not end militant Islamic terrorism. And to say that poverty explains terror is to slur those caught in terrible circumstances who choose to lead worthy lives. Does the United States fear Haitians? Few people are as circumscribed by poverty, disease, illiteracy, and corruption. But Haitians are desperately trying to get to America—not to slaughter us but to take the kinds of unpleasant jobs Americans don't want. The men of privilege and education who turned planes into bombs also murdered Leobardo Lopez Pascual. His response to poverty was to leave rural Mexico four years ago, and a wife and four children whom he hadn't seen since, to support his family by working in a kitchen on the top of the World Trade Center.

To be sure, terrorists use poverty as a kind of currency. Their people's misery helps ignite rage. The terrorists want poor foot soldiers for their own ends. Until Sept. 11, the classic model of the suicide bomber was the young man of no means and no future recruited with a promise of glory in the afterlife for killing infidels. The greatest economic boon to the Palestinian people would be a lasting
peace with Israel, but the terror organizations that want Israel's elimination prefer to sell the dark glamour of martyrdom. The chorus of poverty explainers who emerged after Sept. 11 often mention how the West's sanctions against Saddam Hussein have hurt the Iraqi people and resulted in more hate toward us. But it is Saddam's choice not to take the actions that would result in lifting the sanctions.

How much more convenient for him to continue to build his arsenal while blaming his people's misery on the United States.

Let's say, for a moment, the poverty explanation is right. What comes next? How does the United States eradicate poverty from corrupt regimes that despise us? Should we send in aid workers, like those now on trial for their lives in Afghanistan, their crime being to have Bibles?

In any war, it is always smart to try to understand your enemy, his motivations, his weaknesses, his goals. But the root cause of the acts of Sept. 11, and the many other terrorist murders that preceded it, is the malignant philosophy of the perpetrators and their leaders, not their income.

///////////////////////////////////////

You know it's weird - maybe I've told you before or not, but I'm Jewish. I have had a hard time watching what's going on in Israel. Your post that is being circulated thru the Jewish community is a heartbreaking reminder of the past, of everything I learned in hebrew school.

I feel like I understand both sides, believe it or not. I actually empathise with many Palestinians, and I do believe that they, as a whole, deserve to live in a homeland just like us, to live and be governed by themselves. That's not so much a line attributed to my own view of the Israeli occupation as much as it is an identification with their own perspective.

What upsets me is how easy one can lose their objectiveness. My heart breaks by the site of innocent Palestinians crying in the streets feeling powerless victims, I am no less heartbroken to watch innocent Israelis covered in their own blood, or someone elses, in shock from another suicidal attack. So many people want to believe that they exist in a vacuum, and they are strictly victims and reacting to those actions. To hear my own people say that the only good palestinian is a dead palestinian.

And yet I keep coming back to what is iterated in that post. For 2000 years we've been the downtrodden and killed off repeatedly so many times it's too long to list. The Palestinians have been given far more opportunities for peace. All the Jews want (most of them anyway) is the opportunity to live among themselves with feeling like the outsider, whitout fearing that someone in the night will come for them. Everybody thinks it's about the Holocaust - no one mentions the Crusades, the Spanish Inquitition, The Dreyfus Affair, The Romans, Masada, etc. It goes on forever.

So once again were are victims, be it the agenda of far off Muslim states using the Palestinians as pawns, or Islamic fundamentalists who will NEVER compromise anything less than a fully restored caliphate. So I ask, watching innocent people die at the hands of murderer, brainwashed individuals who have no respect for their own life in quest for the paradise promised hereafter, people pumped full of propaganda that there is no such thing as Israel, people who KILL their own when they are accused of being traitors with no trial, what are we supposed to do? Just what should be done? Give pre 1967 borders back?

Great editorial about state politics, comparring tax structure and infrastructure in Minnesota vs Arizona. I found it via Liberal Desert.

I always dread reading other sites when they resort to this kinda stuff, but the well is a bit empty here at BMA - but since I'm here, this is what I've been reading online lately;

Arriana Huffington's book Pigs at the Trough has gotten an enormous amount of press, but I have yet to pick up the book, but after reading the intro I think I may have to.

I like Michael Moore, although being a stickler for accuracy I have to take him with a grain of salt. Still the guy is entertaining as hell.

I almost considered getting cable after hearing that Bill Maher got a new show on HBO. I saw the first episode but haven't seen it since. Still, you can always check out his site.