I stand poised on the edge, awaiting my return home.
It's going to be deathly hot where I'm going. I don't know how I'll survive. It's been almost a year since I left everything behind to come here where I am. I don't want to spend the 3 weeks moping about the house. Will people still want to spend time with me? Who knows.
At least I have the new TYR CD. 'Land' is fantastic. Maybe I'll try to order some Faroese learning materials.
25.6.08
23.6.08
Barack Obama vs. The 2nd Amendment
You don't need to be a politics major to understand that just about all politicians are out of touch with their constituencies, or even reality itself, in one way or another.
For all the messianic hubbub surrounding Barack Obama, his stance on the right of law-abiding US citizens to keep and bear arms demonstrates just such an instance of his lack of foundation in reality.
Sen. Obama has spent a great deal of time doing political work in the state of Illinois. Illinois is home to Chicago, one of the most violent cities in the US. Paradoxically so, it "boasts" heavy restrictions on firearms ownership relative to most other states. If Sen. Obama is elected this November, he will make the District of Columbia his new home. Like Chicago, Washington, D.C. experiences a violent crime rate that is significantly higher than average despite severe firearms control policies. In fact, many states and cities in the US with high rates of violent crime have heavy firearms restrictions, often imposed state-wide (Illinois, California, et al.). Senator Obama does not seem to understand that passing more laws only work against people who obey them in the first place.
Take our multifarious laws against murder - the people who break such laws generally do not spend weeks agonizing over their decision to commit murder. What, then, would stop a person with criminal intent from violating a firearms law? Restricting types of firearms only affects those who go through the legal channels. There are already laws on the books prohibiting convicted felons and those adjudicated to be mentally unfit from owning firearms. Sen. Obama acts like those laws do not already exist.
His stance, like so many other politicians and policymakers in his camp, is the following:
Law prohibits A --> A is still committed --> Pass more laws prohibiting A --> A is still committed --> repeat process until our legal system looks like a Manchester, UK river circa 1870
In essence, he is hinting at criminalizing the breaking of laws that already exist. It's not the law, stupid! It's the enforcement.
I now give you the following excerpt:
"(Cho) had a semiautomatic weapon with a clip that allowed him to take 19 shots in a row,” Obama said. “I don’t know any self-respecting hunter that needs 19 rounds of anything. The only reason you have 19 rounds is potentially to do physical harm to people. You don’t shoot 19 rounds at a deer. And if you do, you shouldn’t be hunting."
Sen. Obama, YOU may not know any "self-respecting" hunters (what, you can only be "self-respecting" if you use a breechloading or bolt-action rifle with a single-shot capacity?) but who are you to determine what people "need" and what they "don't need". That is moral busybodyism at its worst, not to mention a throwback to Clinton-era nanny-statism. Besides, he fails to note the primary purpose of the firearm in US society: self-defense, whether from our own government or from other citizens who wish to do us harm. I will be much better off with a 19-round magazine (NOT a clip) than the 6 shots that a revolver will allow me in a self-defense situation. In this case, I would certainly want to do as much physical harm to my attacker as I possibly can. As they say, it is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six.
"You don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer."
What about 1 round each at 19 deer? If I can bag an entire year's worth of venison for my familiy and everyone else on the block without having to change mags, that just means I'm acting with maximum efficiency. I might also practice with the same rifle at the shooting range, and a larger magazine means less reloading time. Nothing about my 19 round magazine in this context involves doing "physical harm to people".
Funny he brings up the Virginia Tech shootings, a school that already had a total ban on firearms possession by students.
Check out the statement by VT spokesman Larry Hincker, made three months prior to the rampage, in regard to the defeat of a bill that would have allowed university students in Virginia who had concealed-carry permits to utilize their right to self-defense on the campus:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
The defeat of the bill only ensured that the students who were ordinarily able to carry a concealed handgun everywhere else in Virginia were disarmed and had to fend for themselves like everyone else and "wait for the cavalry to come charging over the hill" before it was too late.
Instead of pulling the 'police state' card and strip-searching every student at each entry point, perhaps Virginia would have been wise to let permitholders defend themselves and their classmates instead of forcing them to cower behind desks and pray they weren't going to die before police arrived. Instead, most of the victims were cleanly executed with shots to the head, signifying that Cho was not doing the ol' "spray and pray" - firing indiscriminately. He had the time to make clean kills. The Virginia legislature and the university faculty disarmed people who had already proven themselves to be law-abiding (look up the requirements for getting a concealed-carry permit if you don't want to take my word for it) outside of the campus and instead forced the student body to rely solely on the police. Their short-sightedness and disrespect for those who follow laws got 32 innocent people killed.
What if someone was able to fire back? Two people? Five people? If that had happened, 3 or 4 people might've died, maybe none at all. There wouldn't have been 32 families grieving, and trolls all across the Series Of Tubes We Know As The Internets wouldn't be posting about "beating Cho's high score".
It's only going to get worse with Sen. Obama as President. This is a man who does not believe that people who defend themselves with lethal force may rely on the legal nature of self-defense if they used said force in a zone that prohibits firearms (which could be your own home, depending on where you live). He has promoted the "one gun per month" policy, as if criminals operate on timetables or that they have never used anything but firearms to commit murder. People who pass the background checks should be able to buy as many firearms per month as they please. Firearms owners are not criminals, but the Democratic party has a bad habit of treating them as such. To people like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Dianne Feinstein, gun owners are just "accidents waiting to happen". What is this, the Division of Precrime? Minority Report was an awesome movie, but it is at the same time a frighteningly real concept that has been playing out in various subtle shades for a long time.
This will all come under the guise of "reasonable restrictions". What does Mr. Ivory-Tower-Ivy-League-politician-who-has-never-fired-a-gun-in-his-life know about "reasonable restrictions"? Banning .50cal rifles because they could "potentially" shoot down an airliner, despite all evidence that claims otherwise? Banning civilian ownership of automatic weapons because they could be "potentially" used in a crime, never mind that there is only one recorded instance in the past decade of a murder being committed with such a weapon? They have no problem with "reasonable restrictions" as long as those restrictions don't affect the ability of their bodyguards to carry weapons against people who might try to attack the guarded in question.
I'm sorry, but the average American citizen cannot afford to hire a security guard or pay for an expensive alarm system. Most martial arts are only useful if your opponent is in the same weight class and gender as you are. The gun is the true equalizer: between man and woman, weak and strong, wheelchair-bound and ambulatory, old and young.
To tell a woman traveling on foot in a city at night that she should carry pepper spray (assuming her attacker is working alone), shout "HELP", hope someone notices, and then hope that someone calls the police is absolutely sexist. Shouting doesn't stop a rapist quite like putting some gaping holes in his chest cavity.
If legislators really want to go after guns, they'll start with ammunition. There is already a bill in the works in the CA legislature restricting ammunition sales to licensed in-state vendors. That's right - no online orders, and a perfect opportunity for a distribution and sales monopoly. I will be paying out the ass to put ammunition in my 65-year old rifle at approximately $1.05 PER ROUND of 7.62x54R, rather than the $80 I would spend for 880 rounds from an online vendor.
Sen. Obama also upholds the D.C. gun ban despite all evidence that the crime rate has done nothing but rise since the ban was implemented. He claims to believe in the individual's right of firearms ownership as per the 2nd Amendment, but by definition must also believe that D.C. is not included in the United States for some reason. As it gets closer to November, get prepared for the BS to be layered on in thicker layers. Fundamentally, Senator Obama supports disarming people who follow laws, even when it only results in those same people being preyed upon by those who didn't follow those laws, and then clamoring for more of the laws that will again be disobeyed.
Here is my message to each of you: during some point in your life, purchase a firearm and become proficient with it. Handgun, rifle, shotgun - it doesn't matter. Familiarize yourself to the noise and the recoil. Learn how they work. Learn the difference between "clip" and "magazine", "fully automatic" and "semi-automatic", "reasonable restrictions" and "disarmament and defenselessness".
What, are you going to rely on the police for the rest of your life? Take a stand for yourself. Don't let our lawmakers decide how, when, or why you need to protect yourself. This piece is not a McCain endorsement, but I could happily endure a small military base in Iraq for the next "100 years" (he was talking about a defensive agreement with Iraq, and the hyperbole of '100 years' is apparently lost on most people) rather than risk being stripped of the ability to afford ammunition for my rifle all while a self-righteous Democratic administration ham-handedly lectures us poor, dumb bastards who cling to our guns and religion about what we really need or don't need.
For all the messianic hubbub surrounding Barack Obama, his stance on the right of law-abiding US citizens to keep and bear arms demonstrates just such an instance of his lack of foundation in reality.
Sen. Obama has spent a great deal of time doing political work in the state of Illinois. Illinois is home to Chicago, one of the most violent cities in the US. Paradoxically so, it "boasts" heavy restrictions on firearms ownership relative to most other states. If Sen. Obama is elected this November, he will make the District of Columbia his new home. Like Chicago, Washington, D.C. experiences a violent crime rate that is significantly higher than average despite severe firearms control policies. In fact, many states and cities in the US with high rates of violent crime have heavy firearms restrictions, often imposed state-wide (Illinois, California, et al.). Senator Obama does not seem to understand that passing more laws only work against people who obey them in the first place.
Take our multifarious laws against murder - the people who break such laws generally do not spend weeks agonizing over their decision to commit murder. What, then, would stop a person with criminal intent from violating a firearms law? Restricting types of firearms only affects those who go through the legal channels. There are already laws on the books prohibiting convicted felons and those adjudicated to be mentally unfit from owning firearms. Sen. Obama acts like those laws do not already exist.
His stance, like so many other politicians and policymakers in his camp, is the following:
Law prohibits A --> A is still committed --> Pass more laws prohibiting A --> A is still committed --> repeat process until our legal system looks like a Manchester, UK river circa 1870
In essence, he is hinting at criminalizing the breaking of laws that already exist. It's not the law, stupid! It's the enforcement.
I now give you the following excerpt:
"(Cho) had a semiautomatic weapon with a clip that allowed him to take 19 shots in a row,” Obama said. “I don’t know any self-respecting hunter that needs 19 rounds of anything. The only reason you have 19 rounds is potentially to do physical harm to people. You don’t shoot 19 rounds at a deer. And if you do, you shouldn’t be hunting."
Sen. Obama, YOU may not know any "self-respecting" hunters (what, you can only be "self-respecting" if you use a breechloading or bolt-action rifle with a single-shot capacity?) but who are you to determine what people "need" and what they "don't need". That is moral busybodyism at its worst, not to mention a throwback to Clinton-era nanny-statism. Besides, he fails to note the primary purpose of the firearm in US society: self-defense, whether from our own government or from other citizens who wish to do us harm. I will be much better off with a 19-round magazine (NOT a clip) than the 6 shots that a revolver will allow me in a self-defense situation. In this case, I would certainly want to do as much physical harm to my attacker as I possibly can. As they say, it is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six.
"You don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer."
What about 1 round each at 19 deer? If I can bag an entire year's worth of venison for my familiy and everyone else on the block without having to change mags, that just means I'm acting with maximum efficiency. I might also practice with the same rifle at the shooting range, and a larger magazine means less reloading time. Nothing about my 19 round magazine in this context involves doing "physical harm to people".
Funny he brings up the Virginia Tech shootings, a school that already had a total ban on firearms possession by students.
Check out the statement by VT spokesman Larry Hincker, made three months prior to the rampage, in regard to the defeat of a bill that would have allowed university students in Virginia who had concealed-carry permits to utilize their right to self-defense on the campus:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
The defeat of the bill only ensured that the students who were ordinarily able to carry a concealed handgun everywhere else in Virginia were disarmed and had to fend for themselves like everyone else and "wait for the cavalry to come charging over the hill" before it was too late.
Instead of pulling the 'police state' card and strip-searching every student at each entry point, perhaps Virginia would have been wise to let permitholders defend themselves and their classmates instead of forcing them to cower behind desks and pray they weren't going to die before police arrived. Instead, most of the victims were cleanly executed with shots to the head, signifying that Cho was not doing the ol' "spray and pray" - firing indiscriminately. He had the time to make clean kills. The Virginia legislature and the university faculty disarmed people who had already proven themselves to be law-abiding (look up the requirements for getting a concealed-carry permit if you don't want to take my word for it) outside of the campus and instead forced the student body to rely solely on the police. Their short-sightedness and disrespect for those who follow laws got 32 innocent people killed.
What if someone was able to fire back? Two people? Five people? If that had happened, 3 or 4 people might've died, maybe none at all. There wouldn't have been 32 families grieving, and trolls all across the Series Of Tubes We Know As The Internets wouldn't be posting about "beating Cho's high score".
It's only going to get worse with Sen. Obama as President. This is a man who does not believe that people who defend themselves with lethal force may rely on the legal nature of self-defense if they used said force in a zone that prohibits firearms (which could be your own home, depending on where you live). He has promoted the "one gun per month" policy, as if criminals operate on timetables or that they have never used anything but firearms to commit murder. People who pass the background checks should be able to buy as many firearms per month as they please. Firearms owners are not criminals, but the Democratic party has a bad habit of treating them as such. To people like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Dianne Feinstein, gun owners are just "accidents waiting to happen". What is this, the Division of Precrime? Minority Report was an awesome movie, but it is at the same time a frighteningly real concept that has been playing out in various subtle shades for a long time.
This will all come under the guise of "reasonable restrictions". What does Mr. Ivory-Tower-Ivy-League-politician-who-has-never-fired-a-gun-in-his-life know about "reasonable restrictions"? Banning .50cal rifles because they could "potentially" shoot down an airliner, despite all evidence that claims otherwise? Banning civilian ownership of automatic weapons because they could be "potentially" used in a crime, never mind that there is only one recorded instance in the past decade of a murder being committed with such a weapon? They have no problem with "reasonable restrictions" as long as those restrictions don't affect the ability of their bodyguards to carry weapons against people who might try to attack the guarded in question.
I'm sorry, but the average American citizen cannot afford to hire a security guard or pay for an expensive alarm system. Most martial arts are only useful if your opponent is in the same weight class and gender as you are. The gun is the true equalizer: between man and woman, weak and strong, wheelchair-bound and ambulatory, old and young.
To tell a woman traveling on foot in a city at night that she should carry pepper spray (assuming her attacker is working alone), shout "HELP", hope someone notices, and then hope that someone calls the police is absolutely sexist. Shouting doesn't stop a rapist quite like putting some gaping holes in his chest cavity.
If legislators really want to go after guns, they'll start with ammunition. There is already a bill in the works in the CA legislature restricting ammunition sales to licensed in-state vendors. That's right - no online orders, and a perfect opportunity for a distribution and sales monopoly. I will be paying out the ass to put ammunition in my 65-year old rifle at approximately $1.05 PER ROUND of 7.62x54R, rather than the $80 I would spend for 880 rounds from an online vendor.
Sen. Obama also upholds the D.C. gun ban despite all evidence that the crime rate has done nothing but rise since the ban was implemented. He claims to believe in the individual's right of firearms ownership as per the 2nd Amendment, but by definition must also believe that D.C. is not included in the United States for some reason. As it gets closer to November, get prepared for the BS to be layered on in thicker layers. Fundamentally, Senator Obama supports disarming people who follow laws, even when it only results in those same people being preyed upon by those who didn't follow those laws, and then clamoring for more of the laws that will again be disobeyed.
Here is my message to each of you: during some point in your life, purchase a firearm and become proficient with it. Handgun, rifle, shotgun - it doesn't matter. Familiarize yourself to the noise and the recoil. Learn how they work. Learn the difference between "clip" and "magazine", "fully automatic" and "semi-automatic", "reasonable restrictions" and "disarmament and defenselessness".
What, are you going to rely on the police for the rest of your life? Take a stand for yourself. Don't let our lawmakers decide how, when, or why you need to protect yourself. This piece is not a McCain endorsement, but I could happily endure a small military base in Iraq for the next "100 years" (he was talking about a defensive agreement with Iraq, and the hyperbole of '100 years' is apparently lost on most people) rather than risk being stripped of the ability to afford ammunition for my rifle all while a self-righteous Democratic administration ham-handedly lectures us poor, dumb bastards who cling to our guns and religion about what we really need or don't need.
3.6.08
KSCO Santa Cruz's Noon Balloon!
I was a featured guest on a local radio station this afternoon.
After the David Horowitz lecture, I was approached by a man (we'll call him 'MZ') and he told me that he was a radio host at KSCO Santa Cruz. I gave him my name and phone number, and he called me this afternoon and asked if I'd like to come down to the station and be a guest on his show from 12-2.
I obliged, as I love speaking in public (I really do, even if I am a recluse/survivalist in the making). The show concerned political indoctrination of the general student body, as well as harassment of conservative students like myself and what it's like to be a political minority at the UC. An acquaintance of mine (we'll call him 'Hank') was also a caller on the show, and it was good to hear from him.
'Hank' said that what little funding we received from the school was only acquired with a couple weeks' worth of arm-twisting: asking around, filling out forms, and waiting. Most of the money came from the Young America Foundation, a conservative organization that spends a good deal of time and money supporting conservative organizations on university campuses across the US. Now on the other hand, we have "ethnic organizations" receiving all sorts of financial support from the University. I guess that's because the University figures "hey, those people are of different ethnicity and ancestry! Whoa, hold on! They must be WAY different!" Never mind 18-25-year olds as a whole tend to listen to the same types of music (whatever shitty indie bands they heard about on Youtube or Myspace), drive the same kind of cars (the Prius their parents paid for, or maybe the BMW their parents paid for), and display very similar trends in fashion and appearance (whatever they see in the Urban Outfitters or American Apparel display window, and I can't forget the iPhone - the one thing that differentiates the airheaded hipsters from the people with at least a cursory grasp of financial wisdom). Throw race or ethnicity into the mix, and *BOOM* - you get "diversity". Never mind that a vast majority of the students are Obama voters who consider restrictions on lawful firearms owners' rights/non-binding talks with openly belligerent and autocratic regimes/raising taxes on the people who already "contribute" 50% of this nation's tax revenue to be sound policy. Whose ox is being gored here, eh?
Speaking of Obama, is it really all that healthy for university students to have such a collective hard-on for him? I mean, they act like he's the Messiah in a secular context.
Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. [I don't know whether to laugh or cry.]
That is, if you unquestioningly vote for him and don't bother objecting to any of his policies. Dissent is only patriotic when Republicans are in power.
Now I know why college kids love the Obamessiah. He appeals to all that ingrained collectivist drivel they've been hearing in all of their classes - if you just vote for him, "all your wildest dreams will come true." Thank you, Pedro. I can sleep soundly at night knowing that you'll save us all from the evil oil companies, gun owners, white racists, Republicans, and business owners. That way we'll realize that Islamic terrorists are just good people at heart who have been misunderstood, and that they only videotape decapitations and blow up buses because of political grievances that the racist imperialist West have caused. We'll realize that taxing rich people really can bring benefits. After all, they have enough already as they'd otherwise just sit in their offices counting their gold and cackling with glee as they drink the blood of African children from wine glasses made of pure diamond.
The radio show was a lot of fun. We had a guy fax in some complaint about the station's hosts and callers. *cue lots of silly accusations about "hate speech", "conservatives", "bigots", etc.*
Hey, get this - whose fault is it if only conservatives call in on a non-partisan radio show, where the hosts encourage EVERYONE to call in and share their ideas on a topic? YOURS! If you high-and-mighty leftists are getting so butt-hurt about a radio station, call in and see if you can hack it in front of people like me! Quit your bitching and put your money where your mouth is. What's that quote you guys are always putting on your bumper stickers? "Be the change you want to see in the world" or something like that, right? You guys do an awful lot of complaining without action for a group of people who like to consider themselves "activists". Maybe you should look into putting an 'armchair' on the beginning of that. The caller tried to bring up how a privately-funded station with a majority of conservative callers is "intimidating", but I promptly asked him to think about how a conservative like me feels about expressing my own beliefs at a PUBLIC university that is dedicated (on paper) to "free speech and inquiry". I told him to switch "conservative" with "leftist" and "radio station" with "university".
Which is more damaging to society: a radio station that features a majority of conservative callers but in no way rejects leftist callers, OR a high-ranking public research university that makes it nigh-impossible for conservative groups to obtain funding and a location to host a speaker and a collective of leftist students and faculty that actively creates an intellectually and politically hostile environment for those opposed to their monopoly of thought?
After the David Horowitz lecture, I was approached by a man (we'll call him 'MZ') and he told me that he was a radio host at KSCO Santa Cruz. I gave him my name and phone number, and he called me this afternoon and asked if I'd like to come down to the station and be a guest on his show from 12-2.
I obliged, as I love speaking in public (I really do, even if I am a recluse/survivalist in the making). The show concerned political indoctrination of the general student body, as well as harassment of conservative students like myself and what it's like to be a political minority at the UC. An acquaintance of mine (we'll call him 'Hank') was also a caller on the show, and it was good to hear from him.
'Hank' said that what little funding we received from the school was only acquired with a couple weeks' worth of arm-twisting: asking around, filling out forms, and waiting. Most of the money came from the Young America Foundation, a conservative organization that spends a good deal of time and money supporting conservative organizations on university campuses across the US. Now on the other hand, we have "ethnic organizations" receiving all sorts of financial support from the University. I guess that's because the University figures "hey, those people are of different ethnicity and ancestry! Whoa, hold on! They must be WAY different!" Never mind 18-25-year olds as a whole tend to listen to the same types of music (whatever shitty indie bands they heard about on Youtube or Myspace), drive the same kind of cars (the Prius their parents paid for, or maybe the BMW their parents paid for), and display very similar trends in fashion and appearance (whatever they see in the Urban Outfitters or American Apparel display window, and I can't forget the iPhone - the one thing that differentiates the airheaded hipsters from the people with at least a cursory grasp of financial wisdom). Throw race or ethnicity into the mix, and *BOOM* - you get "diversity". Never mind that a vast majority of the students are Obama voters who consider restrictions on lawful firearms owners' rights/non-binding talks with openly belligerent and autocratic regimes/raising taxes on the people who already "contribute" 50% of this nation's tax revenue to be sound policy. Whose ox is being gored here, eh?
Speaking of Obama, is it really all that healthy for university students to have such a collective hard-on for him? I mean, they act like he's the Messiah in a secular context.
Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. [I don't know whether to laugh or cry.]
That is, if you unquestioningly vote for him and don't bother objecting to any of his policies. Dissent is only patriotic when Republicans are in power.
Now I know why college kids love the Obamessiah. He appeals to all that ingrained collectivist drivel they've been hearing in all of their classes - if you just vote for him, "all your wildest dreams will come true." Thank you, Pedro. I can sleep soundly at night knowing that you'll save us all from the evil oil companies, gun owners, white racists, Republicans, and business owners. That way we'll realize that Islamic terrorists are just good people at heart who have been misunderstood, and that they only videotape decapitations and blow up buses because of political grievances that the racist imperialist West have caused. We'll realize that taxing rich people really can bring benefits. After all, they have enough already as they'd otherwise just sit in their offices counting their gold and cackling with glee as they drink the blood of African children from wine glasses made of pure diamond.
The radio show was a lot of fun. We had a guy fax in some complaint about the station's hosts and callers. *cue lots of silly accusations about "hate speech", "conservatives", "bigots", etc.*
Hey, get this - whose fault is it if only conservatives call in on a non-partisan radio show, where the hosts encourage EVERYONE to call in and share their ideas on a topic? YOURS! If you high-and-mighty leftists are getting so butt-hurt about a radio station, call in and see if you can hack it in front of people like me! Quit your bitching and put your money where your mouth is. What's that quote you guys are always putting on your bumper stickers? "Be the change you want to see in the world" or something like that, right? You guys do an awful lot of complaining without action for a group of people who like to consider themselves "activists". Maybe you should look into putting an 'armchair' on the beginning of that. The caller tried to bring up how a privately-funded station with a majority of conservative callers is "intimidating", but I promptly asked him to think about how a conservative like me feels about expressing my own beliefs at a PUBLIC university that is dedicated (on paper) to "free speech and inquiry". I told him to switch "conservative" with "leftist" and "radio station" with "university".
Which is more damaging to society: a radio station that features a majority of conservative callers but in no way rejects leftist callers, OR a high-ranking public research university that makes it nigh-impossible for conservative groups to obtain funding and a location to host a speaker and a collective of leftist students and faculty that actively creates an intellectually and politically hostile environment for those opposed to their monopoly of thought?
1.6.08
Playing by the "rules" will get you nowhere.
[Yahoo! News link]
The emasculated West has reached a new low. They seek to go into prisoner exchanges with bloodthirsty thugs who would like nothing more than the destruction of Israel and all Jewry the world over - as these exchanges are just a stop on the way - and the the Western media for once lauds Israel as if to say they're somehow heroes when they swap live Lebanese prisoners for the mangled remains of their own soldiers.
"Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a January 19 speech his group had the heads, hands and legs of soldiers left on the battlefields of the 34-day 2006 war."
Apparently, this sort of conduct is considered an act of good faith to the politically-correct and "culturally sensitive" Western media. A group of animals mutilates captured soldiers - legitimate combatants, unlike the non-state actors of Hezbollah - and demands that its opponent return its own imprisoned soldiers alive and well.
All the talk about the so-called "moral high ground" when it comes to the rules of engagement begin to wear thin after a while. Hezbollah does nothing honorable to its enemies. It wages propaganda campaigns [zombietime on the Qana ambulance attack], uses the bodies of children as props in photos, kills and mutilates legitimate POWs, then complains to the UN and all the other hand-wringing and "socially conscious" leftists about how terrible Israel is. Phrases like "unprovoked war", "illegal war", "Zionist war" come up a lot when the average college student talks about Israel's war with Lebanon in the spring of 2006. Why don't phrases like "not adhering to the Geneva convention", "desecration of soldiers' remains", or "Islamic supremacy" enter the vocabularies of these talking heads? For one, Israel can do no good.
Here's a little diagram for explaining the behaviour of leftists in regard to this situation:
-Islam/Arabs/"brown people" = oppressed, victimized, helpless (never mind the kind of victimizing and oppression that has occurred at the hands of Islamists the world over)
-anti-Israel/anti-Semitism = played off as "anti-Zionism"; as if to say "Oh, but we love Jews! We just don't love them enough to renounce our support for people who would rather see all of them burn in a lake of fire than share a national border with them."
-international law = something that only applies to developed/Western nations, because drawing attention to Saudi treatment of women and non-Muslims is "ethnocentric", "racist", or "culturally insensitive"
Such stalwart defenders of human rights have made a huge fuss over the possibility of a single-digit number of people getting waterboarded, but ask them what they think about the fact that the roads leading to Mecca re-direct non-Muslims to other places, and they'll either give you a confused look or just change the subject. Ask them how many Muslims have committed acts of terrorism in the last 10 years, and they'll stall, re-direct focus on how Muslims have been "marginalized" (gee, even when they blow themselves up in their own countries?), try to call you a "racist" (despite how Islam is a religion and not a race), or bring up the Tamil Tigers' use of suicide bombing.
Fun Fact about the Tamil Tigers: they have used a suicide bomber exactly nine times during this whole year. I guess they're going to have to step up their game if they want to give the soldiers of Muhammad a run for their money.
Anyway, enough about the glaring hypocrisies running rampant among the left, and back to the rules of war.
Are there rules for war? Should protocol be followed when you may be fighting for your own survival? As the old saying goes, "the only 'unfair' fights are the ones you lose". If one's enemy not only disregards the rules of engagement that most of the world's countries and organizations have subscribed to, but actively and flagrantly makes a point of disobeying them, all bets are off. Israel should be free to level cities and kill Hezbollah-affiliated POWs.
"Nissim Nisr, released after a six-year jail term, was greeted by Hezbollah officials in the southern village of Naqoura, where the group unexpectedly announced the release of the soldiers' remains."
Live prisoners with access to the best healthcare in any Middle Eastern prison, exchanged for body parts. Sounds like an even exchange, right? How about 'Beiruit turned to rubble and ash, along with anywhere else that Hezbollah has bases of support' for 'stop making raids into our territory and kidnapping soldiers' for a fair trade?
The Lebanese are complicit not only in their silence, but in their refusal to boot Hezbollah from their territory. For every Israeli POW killed, Israel drops a JDAM on a school, market, or hospital. Maybe that would wake up the Lebanese and get them to throw out Hezbollah (preferably with Hassan Nasrallah's head on a pike).
Rome did the same thing to Carthage: they would no longer suffer the slaughters and humiliation of their men at places like Cannae and at Lake Trasimenus. The Carthaginians had long disobeyed Rome by their refusal to recall Hannibal. They violated the armistice reached at the end of the First Punic War, and the destruction of Carthage ensured that Rome would survive. The Romans never did salt the fields of the Carthaginians, mostly because the Romans figured it would not be a good idea to destroy arable land that could be used by Rome itself. Another misconception is that the Romans slaughtered or enslaved every single civilian inside the city walls. Various sources state that Rome gave ample warning to the Carthaginians - get out, or face the wrath of Rome. Only about 10% of the city's original population remained to defend the city.
Hannibal's forces raided the Roman countryside for years, too weakened to lay siege to Rome or to attack it outright, but Hannibal was a competent enough strategist to keep the Romans on an almost constant lockdown.
Like Hannibal, Hezbollah has no "official support" from the de juris government of Lebanon, but Hezbollah is free to do as it pleases, at least when it's not hiding behind non-combatants from Israeli missiles and small arms fire. If they're willing to kill POWs and use human shields, what would make ANYONE consider them likely to follow any other rule of engagement? When one's enemy doesn't speak the language of diplomacy and instead refuses to learn it, the language of violence often suffices in that it uses no complicated jargon and there is little hidden meaning to decipher.
Long Live Israel.
The emasculated West has reached a new low. They seek to go into prisoner exchanges with bloodthirsty thugs who would like nothing more than the destruction of Israel and all Jewry the world over - as these exchanges are just a stop on the way - and the the Western media for once lauds Israel as if to say they're somehow heroes when they swap live Lebanese prisoners for the mangled remains of their own soldiers.
"Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a January 19 speech his group had the heads, hands and legs of soldiers left on the battlefields of the 34-day 2006 war."
Apparently, this sort of conduct is considered an act of good faith to the politically-correct and "culturally sensitive" Western media. A group of animals mutilates captured soldiers - legitimate combatants, unlike the non-state actors of Hezbollah - and demands that its opponent return its own imprisoned soldiers alive and well.
All the talk about the so-called "moral high ground" when it comes to the rules of engagement begin to wear thin after a while. Hezbollah does nothing honorable to its enemies. It wages propaganda campaigns [zombietime on the Qana ambulance attack], uses the bodies of children as props in photos, kills and mutilates legitimate POWs, then complains to the UN and all the other hand-wringing and "socially conscious" leftists about how terrible Israel is. Phrases like "unprovoked war", "illegal war", "Zionist war" come up a lot when the average college student talks about Israel's war with Lebanon in the spring of 2006. Why don't phrases like "not adhering to the Geneva convention", "desecration of soldiers' remains", or "Islamic supremacy" enter the vocabularies of these talking heads? For one, Israel can do no good.
Here's a little diagram for explaining the behaviour of leftists in regard to this situation:
-Islam/Arabs/"brown people" = oppressed, victimized, helpless (never mind the kind of victimizing and oppression that has occurred at the hands of Islamists the world over)
-anti-Israel/anti-Semitism = played off as "anti-Zionism"; as if to say "Oh, but we love Jews! We just don't love them enough to renounce our support for people who would rather see all of them burn in a lake of fire than share a national border with them."
-international law = something that only applies to developed/Western nations, because drawing attention to Saudi treatment of women and non-Muslims is "ethnocentric", "racist", or "culturally insensitive"
Such stalwart defenders of human rights have made a huge fuss over the possibility of a single-digit number of people getting waterboarded, but ask them what they think about the fact that the roads leading to Mecca re-direct non-Muslims to other places, and they'll either give you a confused look or just change the subject. Ask them how many Muslims have committed acts of terrorism in the last 10 years, and they'll stall, re-direct focus on how Muslims have been "marginalized" (gee, even when they blow themselves up in their own countries?), try to call you a "racist" (despite how Islam is a religion and not a race), or bring up the Tamil Tigers' use of suicide bombing.
Fun Fact about the Tamil Tigers: they have used a suicide bomber exactly nine times during this whole year. I guess they're going to have to step up their game if they want to give the soldiers of Muhammad a run for their money.
Anyway, enough about the glaring hypocrisies running rampant among the left, and back to the rules of war.
Are there rules for war? Should protocol be followed when you may be fighting for your own survival? As the old saying goes, "the only 'unfair' fights are the ones you lose". If one's enemy not only disregards the rules of engagement that most of the world's countries and organizations have subscribed to, but actively and flagrantly makes a point of disobeying them, all bets are off. Israel should be free to level cities and kill Hezbollah-affiliated POWs.
"Nissim Nisr, released after a six-year jail term, was greeted by Hezbollah officials in the southern village of Naqoura, where the group unexpectedly announced the release of the soldiers' remains."
Live prisoners with access to the best healthcare in any Middle Eastern prison, exchanged for body parts. Sounds like an even exchange, right? How about 'Beiruit turned to rubble and ash, along with anywhere else that Hezbollah has bases of support' for 'stop making raids into our territory and kidnapping soldiers' for a fair trade?
The Lebanese are complicit not only in their silence, but in their refusal to boot Hezbollah from their territory. For every Israeli POW killed, Israel drops a JDAM on a school, market, or hospital. Maybe that would wake up the Lebanese and get them to throw out Hezbollah (preferably with Hassan Nasrallah's head on a pike).
Rome did the same thing to Carthage: they would no longer suffer the slaughters and humiliation of their men at places like Cannae and at Lake Trasimenus. The Carthaginians had long disobeyed Rome by their refusal to recall Hannibal. They violated the armistice reached at the end of the First Punic War, and the destruction of Carthage ensured that Rome would survive. The Romans never did salt the fields of the Carthaginians, mostly because the Romans figured it would not be a good idea to destroy arable land that could be used by Rome itself. Another misconception is that the Romans slaughtered or enslaved every single civilian inside the city walls. Various sources state that Rome gave ample warning to the Carthaginians - get out, or face the wrath of Rome. Only about 10% of the city's original population remained to defend the city.
Hannibal's forces raided the Roman countryside for years, too weakened to lay siege to Rome or to attack it outright, but Hannibal was a competent enough strategist to keep the Romans on an almost constant lockdown.
Like Hannibal, Hezbollah has no "official support" from the de juris government of Lebanon, but Hezbollah is free to do as it pleases, at least when it's not hiding behind non-combatants from Israeli missiles and small arms fire. If they're willing to kill POWs and use human shields, what would make ANYONE consider them likely to follow any other rule of engagement? When one's enemy doesn't speak the language of diplomacy and instead refuses to learn it, the language of violence often suffices in that it uses no complicated jargon and there is little hidden meaning to decipher.
Long Live Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)