Antiparty

2008-09-30T07:24:00.004-04:00

AMERICA IN CRISIS (funeral tune playing in the background)

For the past week or two, the word (from the Bush regime and everyone who makes a living parroting 'the authorities', including 'the media') is that we are all going to die, unless the congress agrees to give a couple of people working for Bush the ability to spend $700 billion, more or less as they see fit.

Why should anyone assume or agree that all these wiseguys who had not a clue and no idea that this was coming, now know exactly what it takes to fix everything and have the ability to predict what would happen if everyone was not following their wise advice?

how do you know that "our economy will implode unless..."?

These are, more or less, the same people who did NOT see this coming until after it happened who now claim that they know exactly what is going to happen if 'we' do A (salvation) or B (possible salvation) or if we do nothing (catastrophe).

Let me suggest some other possible outcomes:

- catastrophe no matter what - such things tend to happen when you owe tens of trillions, keep printing money and consume more than you make for 30 years in a row.
- recovery without state intervention - maybe the crisis is not as big as the scaremongers claim it is (how big a lie would 'you' be willing to tell if the prize was your controlling close to a trillion dollars?)
- recovery and more prosperity through wars - see the great depression/WW2 situation

It's early in the morning so I can't claim that this enumeration is exhaustive. I am only suggesting that the 'you must do what I tell you by tomorrow or you will die/starve/be totally ruined" thing could come out of misunderstanding or some ulterior motives.

I heard this yesterday from a congressman, and there may be some truth in it: "Paulson is not a banker or an economist, he is basically a day trader". Now, how scary is THAT? Would you agree to give $700 billion to a day trader so that he can play with it and maybe make you some money if the deadline to make the decision was 'by tomorrow'?

2008-09-05T07:53:00.014-04:00

The McCain Tear-jerkoff

Hey, is everyone aware that McCain was a prisoner in Hanoi - that's Viet-nam, for the geographically-unaware among us? I thought I reminded everyone, just in case.
What impressed me most at yesterday's GOP convention finale was the video that introduced McCain to us. They had this section where the narrator was disclosing that, shortly after McCain got caught and locked up in Hanoi, his loving daddy had no choice but follow the plan and order the carpet-bombing of that very same city.
Ahhh... the humanity of it all!
I was all tears, thinking like a daddy. Can anyone even begin to feel and dare grasp the incredible pain but also the heroic determination that's illustrated by this situation? Having to carpet-bomb a city while your own son is held prisoner inside that city? It's... priceless. It's an Oprah moment but spiced up with Jerry Springer-like energy. One can only begin to imagine all those burning... things, smelly things. I believe they live in huts over there... limbs flying around, those disgusting, bloody, mutilated corpses, all endangering the life and well-being of poor but brave, precious Jhonny McCain, trying to survive in a city that his own daddy is carpet-bombing.
It's tragic and it's inspiring.
Oh, and McCain showed all this moral and heroic qualities. Believe it or not, he did NOT jump the line when it came to get out of the POW hotel and he DID allow the POWs who got caught before him to go home before him. He does tell us that, not taking advantage of his privileged situation, this one time, was VERY hard but... he heroically followed the rules of basic decency. Once.
And that's why, my friends, McCain should be given the job of president of the United States.

2008-07-19T08:42:00.002-04:00

I believe it's one of the greatest movies ever made and a milestone in the history of kitsch. You got these 3 aging yentas - aging like in semi-decomposed - literally murdering ABBA's music. I LOVE ABBA and watching and listening to a 90-year old on steroids and in high heels belching 'Dancing Queen (she's only 17)'... holy geriatric mermaids!!! Meryl Streep should be so proud of herself, displaying the musical talent of an elephant and the dancing grace of a cow.

And, to everyone's delight, especially of those great parents taking their little daughter to this great show, there ARE lots of family values being promoted here. Let's enumerate some:

- Merryl Streep graphically showing how a power drill can easily replace a man's... you know what.
- One of the yentas, the ugliest one, grabbing a black kid (teenage?) and screaming in delight about it.
- Meryl's daughter has THREE dads, and loving it.
- On the last minute of her wedding ceremony, she and her to-be groom deciding that... marriage-shmarriage... forget about it... let's go on a cruise!!!
- Same daughter, approvingly telling her mom something like... "mother, I don't care if you banged hundreds of men, you're still my mommy".
- Meryl's daughter and her 2 teenage-like girlfriends reading the delightful page of her mother's diary, describing how she was banged by 3 different guys within the space of a night or 2.
- Another old, ugly yenta practically raping one of the middle-aged suspected daddies because, apparently, she was having an itch.
- The 3 yentas keeping themselves youthful and energetic by means of some home remedy made with donkey sperm.
- Defining fatherhood as the outcome of an ejaculation.
- One of the 3 possible daddies turning out to be a homo - we see his tattooed buttcheeks more than once - finding happiness and, apparently, a one-night stand at the same time Meryl's daughter happily decides that marriage is not something she should bother with.

I am so glad that this movie was made because it is a great thing at giving everyone the needed moral direction. All parents should be encouraged to take their kids and discuss the great message this great work of art.

Giving the powerful message this movie conveys, PC-13 is much too timid a rating. It suggest a G or maybe a K (as in 'kindergarten') so that all kids can develop a taste for sexual promiscuity, overall moral relativism and mindless hedonism at an early age because... it's never too early for kids to learn the facts of life from their very wise elders.

The movie is highly suited for a Blu-ray release because we need all the high visual resolution we can afford and the finest sound reproduction for this jewel of work of artistic accomplishment.

2008-03-21T08:12:00.001-04:00

I don't believe that Obama's suggestion that 'we' have a dialog on race should be rejected. If Buchanan's statistics are true, and they probably are, then 'the White side' should have a lot to say on this topic. The problem seems to be that Whitey is more inhibited than the Black side in expressing his frustrations. While the Darkies do hear in their black churches from preachers such as Obama's mentor and, like the homos or the Jews, have been successful in building their own, segregated communities, there are very few White or even 'traditionally White' organizations, clubs, colleges or TV stations. Somehow, voluntary segregation became a good thing for the Darkies but a terrible one for the Whites. Lacking prestigious or 'mainstream' fora for expressing their views, it's the Whities who have no voice and have nothing intelligent to say or dare not say it because they shut themselves up.

Obama's talk looks like a 'lecture' not because he means it that way but because the other side refuses to join the dialog. Instead, Whities are growing and nurturing the do-gooder welfare state, pumping money into collectivist institutions and initiatives, increasing everyone's dependence on the all-powerful State and expecting everyone, Blacks, Whites and Mutts to be eternally grateful for this heart-felt redistribution of resources.

The Blacks should be as grateful for the trillions compassionately 'invested' into their welfare as the Iraqis should be for the trillions invested into theirs. If this continues, the end results are going to be quite similar: more hate from the 'beneficiaries' of such lavish but destructive 'charities'.

2008-02-19T08:48:00.001-05:00

The Bush economistic theory:

The war stimulates the economy because you hire people to build things that blow up other things and then you use them up, so you need more of them and keep the people employed. Then, in the place where you blow up things, you need to 'rebuild' so you can blow them up again later - and you hire more people to rebuild what you just blew up. It's... like a miracle of jobs creation.

But, sadly, on the HOME FRONT, 'we' build houses and we don't blow them up so people first get jobs to build the houses but, after that, they are out of work because the houses are standing.

THE SOLUTION: BLOW UP HOUSES on the HOME FRONT AS WELL. This would create lots of new jobs.

2007-11-27T08:18:00.000-05:00

Let's talk Kindle for a few paragraphs:

For anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, this is the new book reader that Amazon is selling for $400 (sold out) at the Amazon site. It allows customers to wirelessly purchase eBooks from Amazon and then read them on a paper-like screen.

Now, on the acceptable reader. It should not be an 'Amazon' reader but it should have the ability to purchase books from any vendor, the same way my laptop has the ability to purchase stuff from Amazon or from any other vendor with an online presence. The vendor should lose all physical control over the product, once the book is purchased and delivered. It is bad enough that Amazon would have and keep forever a record that I purchased, let's say, Mein Kampf or The Communist Manifesto or God forbid, some book that disparages our beloved president Lincoln - and Amazon WILL surrender such records to the FBI or the CIA the same way the phone companies were happy to let the government record every single communication passing over their communication hubs. It would be terrible to give Amazon (and, therefore, to our beloved government) control and the ability to maybe erase an inconvenient title at government's request, via the online connection or to decide whether I can let anyone else read the stuff that I purchased with MY money.

Related to the above, the architecture of the Reader needs to be as open and as well understood as that of one of today's computers and operating systems. If my device communicates with a vendor, then everyone must understand EXACTLY WHAT the vendor can see or change on my device. Can Amazon know what I've read on the Kindle? Can it see what annotations I made? Can it know how much time I spent on any particular page? Can it keep a record of the paragraphs I copied? Can it discretely update the content of any of the eBooks to eliminate 'extremist' or 'hateful' views when some anti-hate law is passed by the congress? No one knows today.

And, finally, yes, the buyer must have FULL CONTROL over what the buyer purchases. Of course, it is illegal to make copies of a copyrighted eBook but it is also illegal TODAY to give away Xerox copies of a paper book and yet I can buy my paper book and do with it as I please, including burning the book so that no one will ever know that I had it and read it. There are laws that punish book piracy and the paying customers should be trusted to behave properly and be punished when they don't.

Amazon's and Sony's efforts should be lauded but we should be very worried if this model becomes the way people shop, read and store books in the future.

2007-07-03T07:31:00.001-04:00

Humor: Bush pardons Libby

The Libby pardon by Bush is a most funny episode and it has its place in the process of total decomposition of the current American 'conservative' clique. It's absurd beyond extreme, coming from an a-hole president who used to joke about the death-row guys he refused to pardon while he was gov'nor of Texas.

I hope the Wilsons succeed in turning Scooter into OJ Mark 2, getting a multi-million judgment against him.

It's insanely funny that the Bush, the Cheney and the other false conversatives were oh-so-worried-and-concerned about Scotter's family and, of course CHILDREN. Their hearts were bleeding like leaky sewer pipes while asking or demanding that Bush pardons the poor traitor ASAP - after all... he's got a family. No?

Can anyone do a Lexus(tm)-Nexus and see how often the conversative hearts are bleeding for the other 1,000,000-plus US inmates who, in many cases, have 'families' and, sometimes, even parents, spouses or children? Please do report your findings here.

Oh... and those Gitmo guys. They have families too, sometimes they even have wives and CHILDREN.

2007-06-11T06:38:00.000-04:00

Bush continues to repeat that 'Saddam' did not allow the inspectors in Iraq and that he 'did not disclose'.

Anyone whose memory goes back a few years recalls that Saddam actually allowed full access to UN inspectors. I even recall the inspectors frustrations for not finding anything interesting and Baradei BEGGING the Bushies to just tell them where to go and look for those weapons of massive distraction. The inspectors were allowed access everywhere in Iraq, including Saddam's palaces and their basements.

As for the 'did not disclose' part, the Iraqi government provided thousands of pages and dozens of CD-ROMS of evidence of the WMD non-existence. As soon as the documentation arrived, the US took custody of it and only provided a small subset to the other members of the Security Council. Then, the Bushfreak went on the teevee and claimed that Saddam did not 'disclose'.

Any way you look at it, from that time's perspective or from today's, the invasion of Iraq was an act of NAKED AGGRESSION. And the nakedness of it makes it obscene and it makes Bush a perpetrator and peddler of obscenities on a global scale.

Any politician who repeats the Bush line is a liar and a monster or a gullible idiot. Any media type who does not challenge the Bushfreak or the politicians who come up with the Bush line is a willing collaborator and moral monster or an unbelievably incompetent journalist.

2007-06-05T08:00:00.000-04:00

Apparently, Ray Bradbury didn't write Fahrenheit 451 as a possible illustration of life under totalitarianism but to show what watching too much TV can do to humans. Or so one Amy Johnston claims in an article.

I don't know if a medium can be blamed for some of us choosing to be comfortable and dumb. The TV is one of many available and relatively cheap distractions such as alcohol, post stamps collecting, the telephone, various drugs - medically prescribed or not, ipods, tobaccer, rapping, pornography, sugary drinks or role-playing games.

I happen to know that there is a vast and diverse supply of alcohol out there but I do not spend must of my day boozing. Some people do that though. Some people choose to get themselves drunk while watching the teevee and maybe munching on Twinkies. Voluntary addictions or intoxications should not be blamed on the intoxicating agent. Blaming the corrupting substances or circumstances would only support the theory that we're all just a bunch of big, in-need-of-control children who will always need daddy and mommy State (the Authorities) to make sure we don't hurt ourselves and to ensure that our own kids don't get corrupted by our own bad examples of irresponsible and irreversible addictions and self-abuse.

2007-06-02T10:11:00.000-04:00

If someone like poor me was able to see the Bush for what he really was in 2000, I am sure that many could see through his phoniness. I was so outraged the GOPs were pushing this freak to make him the country's prez, I quit the GOP before the election.

Anyone remember the 'passionate conservatism' propaganda? His stated ambition of shaping the children's minds in ways that the Feds saw fit? The 'armies of compassion' B.S.? His quick distancing from those who help put him in office and his warm embrace of Clinton and Clintonism as soon as he moved into the White House?

The main factor for the freakosaurus being elected twice was the ability of his propagandists to scare the voters shitless with the prospect of an even greater evil (Gore, Kerry) making it into the White House - voters, make your choice: whom are you going to reject? Satan or Antichrist? Thank the '2 party system' and each of the '2 parties' for getting us where we are. Or don't thank them. It's the people who tolerate this or just don't care. We get what we collectively deserve and, it seems, we're going to get more of it for a long time to come.

2007-05-18T08:18:00.000-04:00

Yes, but, in this era of bipartisanship, who's going to replace them when they go?

We voted many GOPs out a few months ago and... look what we got: a bunch of
Demos. Now, I hear people calling C-Span and promising to vote their
newly-elected Demos 'out'. Wow!!! And bring the freakish GOPs back.

I can't see a nice and pleasant way out of this. The bipartisans are in control
of the schools, the media, the 'law and order' and the SWAT teams, the cash and
service-dispensing agencies, the power grids, the roads and the banks.

There is no escape unless the current order collapses and collapses good.
Revolutions don't start while the masses are spending half of their 'free' time
watching television or playing virtual reality games on their computers. People
will not risk their 'standard of living' to help bringing 'representative
government' in control.

We live in a fragile society where everything is connected to everything else.
You lose a couple of satellites and the military can't function very well. You
lose a few more and people can't find their way on the roads. A couple of
tunnels blow up and the entire city of New York turns into a nightmarish
disaster area. Lose a few power plants and half of the country can't watch TV or
play Second Life or chat online any more and millions are likely to freeze if
it's happening in the winter. A few missiles fly across the straits of Hormuz
and gasoline becomes unaffordable overnight. You rock the boat and the boat
sinks with you in it. You sneeze and you suffer the consequences.

It is STUPID to lament the loss of 'liberty' when, clearly, the vast majority
can NOT survive (forget about prosper) absent a million little things that the
current state provides in exchange for obedience and cooperation. Those who are
functionally dependent of the bandit State can't free themselves of it because
the only way to achieve that is to take down the State and, if they do that,
they will go down with it. You take down the state and you are more likely than
not to die of disease, cold, hunger or at the hands of some gang of brutal,
desperate savages.

WELCOME TO THE HIVE! And don't forget to feed the Queen.

If the current relative prosperity is ended by a sudden collapse, what follows
is not a revolution but something more like that 1000 years that followed the
collapse of the old Roman order, we now call 'the Dark Ages'.

2007-05-06T10:49:00.000-04:00

The DemoGOPs stand forever united where it counts: statism, globalism, Israelism, free tradeism, the ultimate demise of this country via the admission of Third World immigrants. They both agree that this is no longer a republic or a nation but what Chimp calls 'this part of the world'. They now see 'consumers', not citizens, who need 'workers', not immigrants to survive.

Their concern is not defending freedom but promoting and growing 'the market'. They all agree of these important issue but they sharply disagree on the optimal blend of fuels, whether women employees should wear pants on casual Fridays and wearing condoms should or should not be mandatory attire and whether Israel would be better off if we first bombed Iran instead of occupying Iraq.

2007-05-04T14:44:00.000-04:00

The Great 'Emergency Appropriation' Game of 2007

The only 'emergency' the congress needs to appropriate money for should be to bring everyone back home from Iraq. And let's do it First Class. At $2000 per First Class ticket, all you need is $300 million. Let's triple that so that some of the equipment comes home with that and we are still UNDER ONE BILLION.

It takes one billion to bring the troops back home (first class) permanently. But Bush wants ONE HUNDRED BILLION to keep them there and to have many die, for a few more months.

He's a SICK, MUDEROUS SOB.

2007-05-04T14:30:00.000-04:00

Can anyone name the most outrageous "local government" abuse this nation has ever seen?

People are screaming about 'zoning' and 'eminent domain' but these are only marginal outrages. The big thing is the reality that, as an American 'resident' (citizen would be too big a word) you have NO PROPERTY RIGHTS WHATSOEVER. You are merely tolerated with your little built box, on a plot of land and neither is yours. As soon as you can't afford paying your town and county whatever they ask you to pay, they kick you out and off your 'property' the way a drunk Korean would kick his sick dog (no longer good to eat).

There can't be freedom if there can't be ownership of land and THAT, my friends, is only an illusion.

Lately, I am getting friendly mail from my local town council, reminding me that it's time for me to pump my septic tank empty and to send them some evidence that I had the work done by a town-approved scatologist.

2007-04-19T06:34:00.001-04:00

The so-called 2-parties are converging into some indistinguishable political goulash meant to deny voters any hope that they could affect the nature or the activities of the government in any significant way.

No matter whom they vote for at a national level, it is nearly-guaranteed now that millions more Third World immigrants, legal or not, will be settling the country every year. The 'moral' stature of homosexuality is going to increase and anyone who didn't celebrate such practices will be labelled 'an extremist', 'a hater' or much worse. The process of criminalizing thoughts will continue, regardless of which party is in power. The official worship of 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism' will continue to grow while, in the real world, the process of self-segregation on racial-ethnic, linguistic and income lines will continue. Regardless of which party is in power, the state will grow bigger, individual freedoms and liberty will narrow and the opportunities for free individual expression will diminish. Both parties will be advancing Israel's national goals. None of the parties will even discuss the possibility that the state's ability to monitor, record and control an individual's private life should be reduced rather than increased. Regardless of who may be in power, new and bigger 'databases' will be developed and the government will launch and fund initiatives leading to increasingly sophisticated mergers of all these data on individuals so that the state's control over an individual grows ever closer to 'absolute'. Both parties will support all sorts of heart-warming 'for the children' projects meant to increasingly separate the children from their natural parents and replace the parents with state-funded institutions. Both parties will work toward advancing collectivism and combating individualism.

2007-03-28T07:13:00.000-04:00

When it comes to campaign contributions or support, it would make sense to prohibit all cash contribution from anyone who is not a resident in the candidate's district or state. It make sense for the citizens of a nation not to allow foreign contributions to national elections and it makes equal sense for the voters of a state or of a district not to allow outsiders to bribe or impose their candidate or buy themselves one. The same restrictions should apply to the 'parties'. Since the elections are about citizens electing their representatives not parties imposing their agenda and party discipline, political parties should NEVER be allowed to contribute in any way to anyone's campaign.

2007-03-13T08:25:00.001-04:00

All three Semitic religions and many other religions are inherently aggressive
and intolerant. Aggression and violence are part of human nature and there are
many triggers for them. The holy books of religions are only attempts to justify
them as if they came from or ordered by some God who knew better and the poor,
innocent humans were only obedient followers of God's will.

We know from the good Old Testament what the Jewish God was expecting the Jews
to do to their enemies. Christians have been engaging in religious wars,
persecution of those of other religions, crusades and conquest ever since
Christians became the more powerful cult. Islam demands that its followers
convert everyone to their faith and so does Mormonism and Jehova Witnessism only
the Mormons and the Witnesses are militarily weak at the moment so they use
other means.

The point is, one becomes a violent religious fanatic when religious fanaticism
seems to be the only choice and the only way to counter conquest, dispossession,
humiliation, ridicule or some violent missionary campaign aimed at changing
one's way of life.

Interestingly, in places where there are no good alternatives to the dominant
religion, non-religious ideologies can be used to justify fanaticism and
violence. One recalls the great Russian revolution, the Chinese Maoism, the Pol
Pot massacres, the many Latin American movements where Marxism was as good as
any 'religion' in justifying and demanding violence.

So, yes, many people in the Muslim world, and an increasing number, are driven
into a most radical interpretation of their religion. Radical or fanatic
Christians would be no less violent. We know that because there was this thing
called 'the past' and there is evidence that this is exactly what was happening
in 'the past'. In fact, 'the recent past' and even 'the present' show that when
people derive their identity from their religion, bloody things happen - think
of Bosnia. The Tamil Tigers are not Muslims, they are a Hindu minority living in
a Buddhist state. The Irish Catholics are... Catholics. The Stern Gang, back in
the 40's was Jewish and those who ordered millions of cluster bombs dropped on
the homes of Lebanese were probably all sensitive Jews.

2007-02-24T08:28:00.000-05:00

FORT WORTH, Feb. 23 -- The Army's highest-ranking officer said Friday that he was unsure whether the U.S. military would capture or kill Osama bin Laden, adding, "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."

"So we get him, and then what?" asked Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the outgoing Army chief of staff, at a Rotary Club of Fort Worth luncheon. "There's a temporary feeling of goodness, but in the long run, we may make him bigger than he is today.

"He's hiding, and he knows we're looking for him. We know he's not particularly effective. I'm not sure there's that great of a return" on capturing or killing bin Laden.

I am sure that this is exactly how the FBI feels about their 'ten most wanted' list.

"Relax!!! Why bother? It's not worth it! Let's see we get ALL these guys? Then... what? Would it stop crime? Not at all. We'd just feel good about ourselves for a little while then... will have to fill up the list with another 'ten most wanted'."

Of course, the FBI would NOT make such statements. This is why this was NOT a war and it should not be made into a war. It should have been a political, police and, maybe a special ops-predator kind of operation. 100,000 angry armed anti-American Muslim men would be minding their business today and maybe saving for a satellite dish so that they too can watch 'gay makeover' on the teeve rather than spend their money on Kalashnikovs and ammo and spend their time training for martyrdom.

2007-02-23T21:00:00.001-05:00

Alright. Let's assume that we 'cut and run' and that we don't need to spend hundreds of billions more half a world away from our borders and no one needs to die there no more. We're gone and the anti-Americans take over the country - which they will when we leave whether we cut and run or we stay there for 2 more years or until the job gets done.

So, our boys are home and 'they' (the baddies) control Iraq. And? Exactly how are 'they' going to be able to harm 'us'? Are they going to send an expeditionary force to occupy and liberate us? Are they going to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles with nukes on them, like the North Koreans do these days? Will they send a few stealth bombers and carpet-bomb Brooklyn? Are they planning to blockade us so we can't get food and supplies and we starve?

Let's try to figure out how these bad people are going to harm us from their base in Iraq.

2007-02-09T13:29:00.001-05:00

I lived the first half of my life on the other side of the iron curtain. Very, very few people would dare speak out their mind in public there and then, even though many or most would do so in private. Almost everyone absolutely HATED 'the dissidents' for what they were (desperately courageous people) and for what they were doing (putting everyone else to shame). The quick and harsh punishment of the dissident was needed to confirm and validate everyone else's cowardly decision to submit to the authority. They would tell each other that their accepting oppression and their submission were the rational, safe and possibly even the noble and right thing to do, given the circumstances.

So they would openly cheer the powerful during the day and maybe drink themselves into a stupor or beat up their wives and children at night, so that they could relieve themselves of some of the accumulated tension and humiliation.

2006-10-30T19:14:00.000-05:00

Do YOU Want To Win the War in Iraq?

Apparently, Cheney's wife asked the Blitz (a CNN talking head) whether he wanted the US to 'win the war' in Iraq.

Firstly, there is no war in Iraq that's 'our war'. There is maybe a civil war caused by the Bush-ordered invasion and his experiments with make-believe dee-mock-rah-see but there is no US-Iraq war. Can 'we' win other country's civil war? I don't think so. Neither the local Sunnis nor the Shias are our enemies but we are theirs only because Bush sent our troops there to destroy their country and they are trying to expel us.

Now, that yous answered the question, and if you answered 'yes', please define 'victory' and explain why would 'victory' be desirable. What would be the fruits of our 'victory'? What is it that would make it worth the lives of 5000 or 10000 Americans and one trillion dollars or more?

My answer to the 'do you want 'us' to win?' stupid question is a loud and clear NO!!!

Going to Iraq was a stupid and criminal thing to begin with. Staying 'the course' in Iraq only makes it worse every day while more Americans are killed and more resources are wasted.

Can we possibly 'lose' in Iraq, if 'we' don't win? Not at all. We simply go home and maybe mind our business for a change. Bush and his Neocon handlers would definitely lose and maybe Israel if we bring our boys back home but America is not Bush and America is definitely not the Neofreaks or their beloved Israel.

By the way, if we go home no one would think that Iraq 'won'. What kind of victory would that be after we turned their country to rubble, killed their people by the hundreds of thousands and turned them against each other to a degree that a unified Iraq may not be possible ever again. These are the fruits of our 'victories' so far. 'Staying the course' brought nothing but death, ruin, misery and desperation to the people of Iraq.

Again: I DO NOT WISH US TO WIN IN IRAQ! I want our boys back home... 4 years ago and I want justice brought to Bush and those who control him.

2006-10-21T10:04:00.000-04:00

TOP 9 THINGS THAT ARE LIKELY TO STAY THE SAME

Regardless on who 'wins' in November, I expect that the following will be enacted by our beloved government:
- immigration reform that will 'legalize' all the illegals and open the 'legal doors' even wider for even more third worlders to replace the current gene pool.
- continuing involvement in the ME and intervention on behalf of Israel.
- continuing globalization, further nafta-cafta-shafta integration.
- more manufacturing capacity moving overseas
- more incentives for outsourcing of US high-paying jobs while blaming 'the Americans' for not being sufficiently educated.
- further progress on the glorification of homosexuality and the 'same-sex' marriage front.
- increased government control over an individual's personal freedom via the requirements of taxation.
- increasingly absurd 'safety regulations' and new and more restrictive rules governing the use of public spaces and facilities.
- continuing, largely successful, efforts to maintain the 2-party system and suppress and even repress any attempt to challenging it.

2006-10-12T11:27:00.000-04:00

Top-11 Bush Excuses for Killing 655,000 Iraqis

11 - This is telling me that almost 30 million fellow Iraqis are still waiting to be brought to justice
10 – Hitler killed more Jews
9 – I lack the intelligence
8 – With fewer Iraqis around, there can be better healthcare for the survivors
7 – While many Iraqi were killed, let’s not forget that many more Iraqis were born
6 - It’s Clinton’s fault
5 – It didn’t happen; show me 655,000 corpses
4 – Some of those killed were terrorists and they would have killed even more Iraqis if allowed to live
3 – S__t happens
2 – Rummy got the metric: divide $400,000,000,000 by 655,000 and you get over $600,000 compassionately spent per killed Iraqi. These are not ‘third class’ killings
1 – Bibi Netahyahu says that if Israel was Iraq and Albania was America and China was Chile then this would only look like killing 5 Martians and Billy Krystol so it’s no big deal

2006-10-10T09:56:00.000-04:00

WG: Perhaps the American public should look into an alternate party, like the Libertarian party?

AVRWC: Perhaps the American public should vote for people who would REPRESENT THEM rather then align themselves with some organization whose goal is to monopolize power?

The Libertarian party or the Constitution party would quickly turn into corrupt power-grabbing organizations as soon as they get close enough to 'power' for them to be able to smell it. What we need are laws that criminalize organized politics and influence peddling and a citizenry that demands that the laws are actually enforced.

AVRWC's 'Top 10' W Excuses For Allowing N Korea to Develop and Deploy WMD's and Doing Nothing Abt It

2006-10-10T09:26:00.000-04:00

1 - It's Clinton's fault
2 - It didn't happen
3 - It's small
4 - We are going to punish them severely by not increasing the amount of aid by as much as we would've
5 - They're not a danger to Israel
6 - We lack the intelligence
7 - The French, the Russians, the Germs, the Brits and the Japs all agreed that N. Korea was NOT developing WMD's
8 - Duck and cover are always reasonable options
9 - N Korea may be evil but Iran is eviler
10 - Nanci Pelosi would not have handled this any better

2006-09-28T08:24:00.000-04:00

Leftwing Reporter Nut: Mr. President... terrorism... blah... blah... civil war... blah... blah... losing... blah... blah... cut and run... blah... blah... blah... So, what are you basing your optimistic statements on?

El Presidente Bush: MAH HIPS DON'T LIE!!!

2006-09-17T09:17:00.000-04:00

But, then again, who would have imagined 15 or 20 years ago that the prez. of the US, defendant of the Free World, grand Duke of Texmex, bestfriend of Kings and despots, the artist formerly known as 'Dumbo' - would call a press conference to announce that, without torture and secret killings and rapes, the free world would turn unfree and then, presumably, be taken over by 'the enemy' who are evil and torture and rape people.

2006-09-16T09:42:00.000-04:00

Isn't 'existence' inseparable from consciousness or, if you want, awareness?

I know, trees do fall in the woods even when I am not there but trees are mainly mental constructs or it wouldn't be possible to separate the roots from the soil they feed off or the leaves from the wind that blows them.

Where does a tree end?

When do you begin?

2006-09-05T20:54:00.000-04:00

The other day, someone asked: "do you love Israel more than America?" I don’t know why anyone would ask such a stupid question because even those who live in Israel should love America more than Israel but… here’s my take.

I see states as necessary evils. They are necessary because we expect them to protect us from the great abuse that could be inflicted upon us by other states. They are evil because they invariably end up themselves abusing the populace they are expected to protect.

From that prospective, and from my point of view, while the United States is a necessary evil, because it's the country/state I live in, the state of Israel is only evil because it is not necessary to me. Israel is able to compel 'my' state to abuse me more while Israel is providing me with the opposite of 'protection' in the form of trigerring terrorism and other unpleasant treatments against the inhabitants of my state. I end up being more abused because of Israel’s existence because ‘my’ state decided to throw some $3 billion in aid and other goodies at the state of Israel every single year and everything that Israel gets is moneys taken from me and other working stiffs like me or maybe borrowed from China to be paid back later by my kids and their girlfriends.

A state such as the United States is a necessary evil because, while oppressive, it is still marginally less oppressive than most other evil states. A state such as Norway is quite indifferent to me. A state such as the state of Israel, which takes wealth away from the United States, is by necessity evil and therefore unloved.

An inhabitant of Israel, on the other hand, should love the United States more than they love Israel because the United States gives money and other support to the state of Israel and therefore the state of Israel does not need to take away as much wealth as it would otherwise take from its own citizens. So, for such people, while the state of Israel is a necessary evil, the United States is clearly necessary but not evil because the United States is not taking wealth from the inhabitants of Israel but it gives wealth to Israel.

2006-08-21T20:41:00.000-04:00

Not exactly a dialogue:

B: I am a former Republican Congressional Committee Chair.....right now I have 40-60 precinct chairmen, Republicans all and they are going to work to defeat all but a couple of Republicans from now until 2008....and are not supporting the pubic Cand in 2008 and want to Impeach Bush!!

AVRWC: Do you and your patriotic friends still believe in the 'party system'?

B: Not the ONE PARTY CABAL we have NOW!!

AVRWC: I was thinking about the party institution itself. It seems to me that it hijacks the process and forces 'party discipline' and 'partisanships' on what were supposed to be the representatives of 'the people'.
Something to think about.

B: It doesn't unless you are a mindless cheerleader ....
I was always a maverick and was offered elected positions on two occasions
That was when the Republicans had not been taken over by AIPAC and the NeoCons...
Anyone can be duped and when both parties are doing it....time for a BIG CHANGE....
Nothing short of an election revolution and election of all third party candidates will right the situation short of.../..

AVRWC: Can you, please, translate that?
OFFERED elected positions?
So you were going to be representing a corrupting force - your party - after going through the formality of an election.
Nice.

B: When you receive a nomination in a district that is 90% democrat or republican, the nomination is de facto election. Don't play dumb.

AVRWC: You seem to accept that idea that some corrupt party freaks have the ability to 'give' elected jobs to their protégés, and then ask them to do as they are told or they are fired. Of course, the 'parties' themselves are for sale and are whoring their elected 'assets' to the willing buyers.
You are or were part of such a sinister, criminal organization whose main goal is to suppress the voice of the people and replace it with the influence of the party. We already have the RICO laws. All we need is ONE first case where one of the 2 parties is treated as an organized crime organization and, hopefully, this nearly 200 year- old nightmare might end.

B: Yada yada yada yada ....got blow it out your ear ....I don't have time for Whacked wackos who don't know their ass from a jole in the ground....

2006-08-10T16:10:00.000-04:00

V for Vendetta

I watched the DVD last night. It had such a powerful message and it strikes right into the heart of today's statists.

While the 'big brother' in the movie is not exactly the Bush, a lot of the 'historical record' hints that the foundation on which the Orwellian Britain was built was laid by the Bush. The methods the SWAT-like thugs were using: placing bags on the heads of those they were arresting were a nice touch. The same was 'British Fertilizer' bags that were used to blow up the Parliament building.

I would advise all statists at to avoid watching the movie because they may be offended. It's not a spoiler to note that one of the good guys was actually hiding an ancient copy of the Qoran in his secret room - he got himself arrested, tortured and then shot for that though but... it may still be offensive to some.

On the other hand, the idea that people would actually agree to risk their safety and overthrow the totalitarians... not realistic. I don't believe that it's going to be dignity beats totalitarianism in the end. It would be more like unchecked savagery destroys the carefully-built structures of organized domination.

2006-08-08T09:42:00.000-04:00

So much to do, so little time. This is what I sent to Sen. Santorum after receiving his stupid response to my initial letter. It's fun.

Dear Mr. Senator,

I appreciate your staff's effort of putting together half a dozen paragraphs on your views regarding the Lebanon invasion by Israel in response to my passionate letter. It’s good that our government turned out to be so generous as NOT to require that American citizens pay through the nose for THEIR own government rescuing them from Israel dropping on them American-made bombs from American-made planes flying on American-supplied jet fuel. I am sure that the world is in a state of awe and complete disbelief as it learns how our government was always for charging our citizens before it was against charging them… before… it’s getting too hard to keep track of all of this flip-flopping but, perhaps, someone in the Bush campaign could help sort this out.

In my previous letter to you I suggested something very simple: help stop us borrowing billions from communist China so that we can give them to Israel in the shape of bombs, jet fuel and fighter-bomber planes so that Israel could kill Lebanon's children and other innocent people. As a super-pro-lifer, the killing of children should be unbearably repugnant to you and you MUST be losing sleep at the thought of Israel being funded by OUR money (well... it's China's money but we are disbursing it) using weapons that WE shipped them in a hurry so that Israel can more efficiently kill the children of this once beautiful country.

Thanks to your uncritical support of Israel, just about everyone in the Middle East and their mother are now intensely anti-American and many of them are now willing and some may be even training to perform violent acts aimed at hurting us and our property. Please demand that ALL aid to the Middle East stops immediately. This should include the aid to the police state of Egypt where voters are being murdered by the state police as they are trying to cast their votes and including the aid to some monarch in Jordan who is bribed with hundreds of millions of dollars every year (that, remember we BORROW from the commie Chinese) to make nice to us and to Israel. It should also include aid to the Arab ghetto inside Israel known as ‘the Palestine Authority’ – you can call it a Bantustan if calling it ‘ghetto’ is too disturbing.

Mr. Senator,

We can not stop the massacres by sending more and better weapons to the killers and more Band-Aids to the killed. This is ridiculous and it doesn’t fool anyone, it only makes angry people angrier. I understand that the AIPAC is probably calling you every day to congratulate you for supporting Israel one more time but, let’s face it, we are not Israel and, it appears, you are not going to be re-elected anyway. I suppose the President is going to appoint you to some nice job in his cabinet or maybe make you Ambassador to some islands after you lose your election but, would THAT be worth compromising your pro-life views.

Remember: the children of Lebanon are killed by American-made bombs, dropped from American-made planes; flying on American-supplied jet fuel as part of an invasion financed by billions of dollars of American aid to Israel (did I mention this already?)

Help stop this and you will sleep better. You may not make it into Bush’s cabinet but… let’s face it again – the GOP is going to lose in 2006 and they are going to lose again in 2008. And the AIPAC couldn’t care less. Your Demo replacement in the Senate is likely to be as subservient to Israel’s national interests as you and your GOP colleagues are so they don’t really care whether you win or lose or whether your party wins or loses.

Mr. Senator, do act on your pro-life beliefs and help stop our country help another country end life by ways of killing.

2006-07-30T22:39:00.000-04:00

Dear Mr. President,

As you know, we are currently giving Israel up to $500 per year for every man, woman and baby living in that country. Israel is using these funds to purchase high-tech military equipment and it is now using that equipment to mass-slaughter the good people of Lebanon. This is repugnant and unacceptable. We, as a country and as a nation should not be associated with this slaughter.

As we all know, the American-made weapons are given to Israel so that Israel can defend itself, not to blow up Red Cross ambulances, UN posts, high-rise apartment buildings, power plants and to indiscriminately massacre people. They can blame Hizballah for this until they get themselves blue in the face but the fact is that killing hundreds or thousands of people and destroying a country following an unfortunate border incident is a crime several orders of magnitude greater than what allegedly triggered this response. And, there is no way to establish that Israel’s version of events is the complete truth – let’s remember that Hitler too managed to organize an incident where Poland appeared to have attacked Germany, thus giving him a pretext to rape Poland.

Let's not support more murder and let us separate ourselves from this decades-old conflict. Rushing bombs to Israel and Band-Aids to Lebanon already lost us millions of friends in Lebanon and the rest of the world. Let's not lose more. We are the United States and we should advance our interests not Israel’s.

Please stop the aid to Israel today. And, think about it for a moment: there would not have been a 9/11, no Iraq invasion, no thousands of dead Americans in Iraq, no hundreds of billions wasted there if we were not involved in the Middle East on the side of one party.

Thank you for your attention and please continue to work for the people of this country, not for the dual-loyalty AIPAC. Israel is NOT a US state, nor is it our ally. Israel never fought with us and all Israel does is take our aid, occasionally sell our technologies to interested third parties and helping us make more enemies in the world.

Thank you for your attention.

2006-07-29T07:43:00.000-04:00

With Blair puddling next to him, Bush predicts that 'we' will prevail because our ideology 'freedom' offers more hope than their ideology "hatred". [God help us]

Bush on Hizbullah: show me another country where a political party in government has an armed militia. Bush can't seem to remember his or his predecessor's own creations: Kosovo, Macedonia. And he forgot that, probably not long before he began 'working' to solve the most recent Lebanon crisis he wrote another check payable to the Somali 'warlords', hoping that their US-paid militias would overthrow the other side that Bush does not like. But... how about his dear baby - purple-stained IRAQ? We got the Kurds there, in the goverment, with their militia, we got the 'Shia', in the government with militiaS (Sadr, Badr and so on) and we got the Sunni militias, killing Americans by the thousands. But, I suppose, Bush doesn't sees these places as 'countries'. They are only his dear babies.

What does Bush's insanity have to do with the stated topic of this site? Clearly, the citizens of a party-free repulic would not trust their affairs to some incompetent, insane, moronic megalomaniac.

2006-07-27T07:52:00.000-04:00

- Yo Olmert, good move man. Mmmmm, my big, your country not so big.
- Eeeeeeee eeeeee.
- couple strikes and POP goes Beirut
- eeeeee eeeeee tehrohr... eeeee TEHROHR!!!!
- how'd ya like Codi?
- eeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Blair's country not so big. They say it was bigger.
- TEHROHR!!!! eeeeeeeeeeeeee. $5 billion
- Laura is out to the damn man strip joint again. Can you do me a favor and blow the damn thing up with Laura inside it? i'll get ya plausible undeniability AND a couple billion or two
- eeeeeeee TEHHROHHR, HUZ BALLAAAH!!!, KATIUSHA, GGHAMAZZZ!!! TEHHHHROHHHHR!!!!
- yeah... heh, heh. BULL!!! duh dozers! Good move on the UN thingy. The French must be real pissed.
- EEEEEEE $5 billion? tehrohr! best ally!!!! tehrorhr!
- okee donkeee. big country the chinese huh? we let them steal our nukes, they sell us mango - yummy! i can roast pig all by myself
- eeeeeeeee the account number eeeeeee
- and go easy on the indians okay? french and candian okay. i love canadian bacon and laura loves kevin. yeah, i gotcha: TEHROHR!!! TEHRORHR!!!! cha-ching... heh heh heh
- eeeeeeeeee eeeee
- yo, little country but you fat and sweaty. me, biiiiiiig country, not so fat. eeeeeeeee

2006-07-25T07:45:00.000-04:00

Both the Dems and the GOPs begin their freakish electoral campaign agitprops by enumerating whatever popular bad things happen to be in the news: foreclosures, homeless, crime, bad schools, unemployment, racism, anti-gayism... whatever.

Then, both shout that the solution to everything would be... a bigger, more powerful, more intrusive government. The Dems would propose to tax 'the rich' to pay for part of the growth while borrowing the rest while the GOPs would borrow a lot and, of course, tax mostly 'the rich'.

Both would be busy degrading and stealing whatever rights we may still have left, probably for our own safety. After all, if the terrorists are hating us for 'our freedoms', they would surely stop hating us and begin loving us as soon as our freedoms are taken away by the Hillary-W axis of evil statists.

We do have choices. Don't we?

2006-07-23T08:00:00.000-04:00

Let’s talk about the various “antis”.

Is being “antiparty” also anti-Semitic? It could be. In fact, it COULD be a code word for anti-Semitism.

But let’s not digress. Those who opposed the communist Russian empire were known as anti-Soviets. Not anti-Russian or racist or neo-Nazis but anti-Soviets. While anti-Sovietism would send one to the GULAG if in Russia, the free-world’s anti-Soviets were quite free to state their opposition to the Soviet regime. Anti-Sovietism meant opposition to one totalitarian form of state and it had anti-statism and anti-totalitarianism aspects.

Then we have the anti-Americans. These are really anti-US individuals who oppose the United States for whatever reason. They are not, by default neo-Nazis, racists or ‘enablers of terror’. Many of today’s anti-Americans are probably dedicated anti-statists or libertarians and, of course, anti-imperialists, global-warmists, peaceniks and so on.

Somehow, though, those who oppose Israel, and the range of opposition could be anything from objecting to the current Israel government’s behavior to wishing that the state of Israel is eliminated MUST be anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, racists and, in most cases also anti-American but not necessarily anti-Soviets.

How could the opposing of a state or its policies become a racial issue? The most likely explanation is that the supporters of that state are mainly concerned with ‘race’ themselves – if we agree to call the Jewish ethnicity a ‘race’. They seem to support that state because they view the state as the well-armed instrument for advancing certain race-centric objectives. If that is true - and it probably is true, note that Israel is often affectionately called ‘the Jewish state’ (Germany is not called ‘the Aryan state’) - then it should be fair to view most supporters of the state of Israel as racists-Semitists, not worse but not better than any other variety of racist.

There’s plenty of anti-US, anti-Iran, anti-Iraq, anti-French, anti-Russian, anti-Yugoslavia, anti-Albanian, anti-Mexican (oh, strike that), anti-South African (strike that too), anti Zimbabwe and so on and almost none of the above stands is ever viewed as racist or neo-Nazi or anti-Semitic. The opposing of Israel is automatically labeled as ‘racist’ and anti-Semitic by the supporters of the State of Israel.

And, re-visiting the initial question: ‘is being Antiparty also anti-Semitic’? The answer is YES, if one of the parties the Antiparty person opposes is ‘a friend of Israel’. In the case of the United States, both ‘major’ or ‘mainstream’ parties are faithful (and somewhat fearful) friends of the state of Israel. Therefore, any American Antiparty person is by definition a racist, neo-Nazi anti-Semite.

2006-07-09T08:46:00.000-04:00

2025 AD - Red, White and Blue Lipstick

Let’s say that the year is 2025 and the US was occupied by a Chinese-led coalition of the willing whose stated purpose was to free the US from banned chemical and bio weapons and to free the American people from Queen Hillary accepting a life-time presidency.

Would you support or oppose an insurgency fighting the occupiers.

Let's further clarify the situation on the ground. The coalition has encouraged the formation of race-based political parties. The last vote for a new constitution had voters identify themselves with red (American Indians and Latinos), white (Blacks and other ‘minorities’) and blue (Whites) lipstick on their… lips, of course. The red-white coalition now rules Washington and the Whites (the Blue party) are hunted down, tortured and murdered and White women are raped as a matter of principle. Web sites and the media all over the world and talking heads are pouring millions of articles and speeches showing factual evidence that Whites are obsessed with taking over and controlling the world and that they would happily kill all non-Whites if given the opportunity. Other articles and news pieces show coalition forces throwing cheap, corn-starch-sweetened and trans-fat-rich candies at American kids and fixing school roofs.

Would you support the anti-coalition insurgency?

So, one day, you witness a group of coalition soldiers entering your neighbor’s house by means of blowing up the front door. A few hours later they come out, big smiles on their faces and, as they leave, the house seems to catch fire. You enter the house to help put out the fire and you find everyone inside shot dead, some women and children partially burned, one teenage girl showing signs of being shot, burned and gang-raped. The next day, you read in the local paper that the evil White insurgency killed a bunch of civilians. No mater how loud your town mayor screams, there is no investigation from either the red-white government or from the coalition of the willing.

Would you lean toward taking revenge and pay back the coalition under the circumstances or would you agree to do nothing for the sake of Amerika's newly-found freedoms and work with the coalition?

2006-07-06T09:53:00.000-04:00

A Dialogue With The Deaf?

A: What we need is a true one-party system so that our Leader doesn't waste vital energies on petty disputes and can focus entirely on serving the interests of Israel and the New Worldly Order.

B: Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

A: I believe that I am realistic, not sarcastic.

What I wrote was the best possible translation of what today's uninspired and false 'conservatives' are agitating for. The Goldberg boy has an interesting barf piece on the desired DemoGOP merger or libby- conservative union, I believe he calls it, at the Nat'l Review Online. He is basically doing the diary of a cheap scribe whore who keeps dreaming and hoping against all hope that she would be shown 'some' respect in the morning.

It's nothing new but it appears that the vermin are getting restless and emboldened and that they feel like it's time to tear off at least half of the mask.

B: I doubt the Republicans and Democrats will ever merge into one political party. You need to remember that the heads of the DNC are probably clinically insane and hate the RNC and Bush to the point that it is pathological hatred.

A: It is good for the DemoGOPs to stay separated because it perpetuates the illusion of 'choice' that the voters-consumers must be given so that they are properly controlled. However, the entire world is back in an advanced clinical phase right now so irrational events - such as an American one-party political system becomes not only possible but likely.

What do you think 'bi-partisanship' translates into? Hmmmm?

B: Oh there is not a choice, only the insane would vote for lunatics.

A: You mean, like the guy who had hundred-thousand people killed and trillion- dollars spent to satisfy his illusions of mushroom clouds, half a world away?

Let's face it. We're no longer in the dreamy age of Aquarius. This is the comeback of Mordor. A new king took charge and the king is mad.

B: Clinton would fit that description after he invaded Serbia and aiding the North Korea in building nukes?

A: There is an amazing continuity, regardless of who is in power. Bush picked up the baton from Clinton and Clinton may take over again in 2008. Regardless of what Bush may believe, he is not 'a leader'. He may call himself so for as long as he stays on the path to deeper madness but, God forbid he would ever try to do something that's unapproved.

2006-07-06T09:41:00.000-04:00

What's great about America?

The US used to have a great comparative advantage in areas such as the overall standard of living, the size of government, political freedom and individual rights.

We are no longer the wealthiest people. Governments at every level, from federal to village are increasingly imposing and enforcing their power on individuals. Our political system is more and more corrupt as the '2-party system' offers zero-choice on most issues that count. We still have some advantage in some individual rights area such as the ability to bear very small arms (body armor is expressly verboten) and the ability to speak on more issues than most people in the rest of the world can.

So... what's still great about America? Very little at this time.

2006-06-25T22:58:00.000-04:00

The other day, I heard Rep. Cynthia Something from Georgia speak. She is a professional politician, by virtue of her vagina and her pronounced and dark, Afro (as in Africa, not Afrodite) features. She was criticizing ‘the other party’ for conspiring to prevent more ‘black folks’ from representing ‘their people’ in the US Congress.

This is very interesting. I suppose this means that the few Whities who vote for her do not expect to be represented because politicians like her come to Congress to represent a race, not the people who live in her district. This also means that all Whities who do not vote for her are racist and all Darkies who do not vote for her are Uncle Toms.

2006-06-09T07:48:00.000-04:00

State implemented terrorism is no terrorism, it appears.

Incidentally, the first state sponsored use of 'airplanes flying into buildings' was organized by the US gov't on Clinton's watch - and applauded by politicans on both sides of the bi-partisan aisles. The target was peaceful Belgrade, the capital of the one Balkan country that was NEVER a US enemy and on US' side when it counted. Serb 'partisans' rescued and sheltered hundreds of downed US pilots in WW2. It's the country that, even when under communist, rule refused to join the Soviet-led Warsaw pact.

So, against that country, the US gov't unleashed a campaign of savage bombing, including bombing the private residence of that country's leader. And, one faithful day, remote-controlled little planes, carrying thousand-pound payloads of high explosives, flew through the windows of the local TV station and exploded inside the building, killing innocent civilians, including - belive it or not - men, women and children.

Now... was THAT terrorism?

Whatever it was, creepy politicians and their propaganda accessories: Mitch McConnell, Lieberman, Lantos, Rush, Crystol, Biden and so on - they all applauded it and they all asked for more.

2006-06-04T09:21:00.000-04:00

Unity 08

I found these new site Unity 08. Apparently, the guys 'in the middle' are suggesting the replacement of the current 2-party system with a true one-party version of the party system. I left the following at their message board:

So, let's give it a little thought. We got this so-called two-party system now that's giving us no choice whatsoever on all issues we care about. And some smart people came up with this grand idea of getting us an official one-party system. Why shouldn’t I be unimpressed? Note: the real solution is, of course, the zero-party alternatives. Clever. No?

The two-party acts as the one-party already on everything that matters: multi-culture, income taxation, illegal and increased immigration, disadvantageous foreign trade, encouraging American jobs outsourcing, technology and high-tech jobs export, increased globalization, Iraq occupation, Israel subservience, constantly growing the government, constantly reducing individual liberty and initiative, constantly pushing toward more collectivism, always for interventionism abroad and never for protecting the jobs of Americans, always for more intrusive intervention into people's personal lives, more do-goodism and less individualism. We call the above 'bi-partisan' issues and they continue on the path set probably ever since Lincoln, regardless of which party is in power at any given time. I call the party on power the DemoGOPs and they should go or this nation goes.

Then we have the so-called 'wedge issues'. Like the GOPs screaming against 'gay marriage' and the Demos decrying 'tax breaks for the rich'. Not that any so-called party does anything about these but they help keep the voters focused on peripheral distractions while the 2 so-called partisan parties are in complete agreement on 99% of everything.

So... these guys find... too much division and partisanship? I guess I couldn't stop laughing for a long time if they expressed this in a more humorous way - they are planning to replace the 2-party which is really a one-party with a one-party? I am soooo overwhelmed and energized :))))

Will this post survive the bi-partisan censorship? I hope it does but the odds seem to be against it.

2006-05-30T14:31:00.000-04:00

Why do we care about politics?

I'd say because we expect to see maximum representation with minimum government interference in our personal matters and at the lowest possible cost. A politician would try to earn our votes by acting on our behalf to achieve these three objectives. Of the three, the latter, which translates in 'taxes' is the one that's the easiest to quantify.

Then... what's wrong with THIS picture of what's going on in Pennsylvania's legislature these days?

It may be wishful thinking to expect meaningful property tax reform this year because the Republicans who control the House and Senate don’t want Democrat Ed Rendell to campaign for re-election having delivered on his No. 1 promise -- cut property taxes. Instead of working hard to reduce our taxes they are blocking the tax-reduction effort.

Are these people sick? No, they are PARTISAN Republicans.

They are no longer our representatives. They are Republicans or Democrats and they are playing with our lives and with our children's future so that they can obtain some future political advantage.

2006-05-28T08:25:00.000-04:00

I am glad that Ms. Mercer is slowly coming closer to my views on how political parties need to be handled if the human race is to survive.

In Ms. Mercer's words: If anything, antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity.

Let's all agree that what we need is not MORE parties but ZERO parties. Or we will continue to be betrayed, only by another political party with many of the old con men now performing for a new label.

Since most of us would call ourselves 'people', our political aim is to achieve true PEOPLE representation, not party representation.

2006-05-18T09:58:00.000-04:00

The 100% Solution

The US Congress is currently composed of Representatives and Senators who are either Republicans or Democrats - except for one Socialist (D) Rep. and one Independent (R) Senator.

The current polls show that only 15% of all Americans approve of the service these Republicans and Democrats provide the nation. 85% are not happy.

My prediction: these people of the United States, of whom 85% disapprove the job that the Republicans and Democrats are doing in Congress are going to elect a new Congress in 2006 that is going to be made of about 100% Republicans and Democrats.

Something MUST be wrong either with the people who vote or with the electoral system.

2006-05-16T06:58:00.000-04:00

The Price Illegals Must Pay or... THE PERMANENT PUNISHMENT OF LIVING IN THE USA (LOL)

Bush says that the illegals should PAY A PRICE if they are going to get
citizenship. So it's not 'amnesty' because they'll be paying the price.

And the PRICE they pay, or the PUNISHMENT they get is like this:

The illegals will have to:

- PAY TAXES
- LEARN ENGLISH
- WORK ON A JOB FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS

In other words... the life that WE live is nothing but an endless punishment?
Think about it!!!

Now, as a legal person who's performed these three punishing activities for all these years, it's probably time for me to stop paying taxes, to begin speaking in tongues and... forget about a job. We got Welfare, don't we?

I hope that the illegals won't be punished for a long time because we need them so that we can party a lot.

2006-05-07T08:21:00.000-04:00

Party like it's 2000 99?

It costs a company $600 to build a new server (big computer) in the US. The cost of doing the exact same thing in Latin America is under $50. And yet, most US company continue to have most of their servers in the US. Should this change?

It costs a US company probably one order of magnitude more to hire and employ a human in the US than it would take it to do the same in China or India or parts of Latin America. Why should any US company employ anyone in the US?

Building or renting an office building or a production facility in Asia or Latin America would cost a US company a lot less than doing the same in the US.

Given all of the above, for any US company continuing to stay in the US does not seem to make sense. The logical outcome and the probable outcome of the current globalistic and 'free trade' arrangements is for all the US companies to leave the US as their only incentive left for them to continue to stay in the US - the US consumer market - is likely to fade away while the US-based consumers become increasingly unable to continue to consume.

The above (the US companies leaving the US) could only be prevented by: world war, catastrophic social unrest in the Third World, catastrophic and world-wide economic collapse. Reversing the current globalistic policies may no longer reverse the trend as the US share of the world’s economy continues to decrease.

It is interesting to note that, regardless of a peaceful fading away of the US as a nation or as a consumer market or some world-wide catastrophe, the eventual outcome for the US 'consumer' is bad all-over. I am aware of no forecast of an actual 'improvement' in the US standard of living or for a US economy revival.

Can anyone picture the US and the world in 2100?

2006-05-01T20:58:00.000-04:00

Boycott's Impact - No Lids For My Coffee Cup

Let's share our boycott experiences so that we could all assess the tremendous impact our illegal aliens have on our lives.

Morning commute was as usual. Lots of slowdowns. I wish more people stayed home.

Arrived at the office. The Chica who normally locks herself inside men’s' room under the pretext of cleaning it and puts a 'closed' sign on the door stayed home, apparently, so I didn't have to climb down the stairs to pee. This probably added to my productivity.

The cafeteria looked as usual.

I had a meeting in the afternoon. The pantry was well supplied with Styrofoam cups but... HORRORS!!!! THERE WERE NO LIDS!!!! Suddenly I felt that all illegal aliens should be legalized immediately so that lids were available and plentiful again.

On the way back home, I saw 4 or 5 muchachos by the roadside, looking stoopid - normal, that is. I showed them my middle finger but I'm not sure they noticed it. I moved on. Stopped at Wal-Mart to buy a tree and pool chemicals. I ended up spending over $140, presumably to the great delight of our Chinese trading partners or... I'm not sure. Most of the stuff I bought wasn't really made in China. At the cash register, 2 Chicanos actually buying stuff - paying cash, of course. The cashier girl, an overweight Chica, nice girl - she smiled at me.

I stopped for gas. The price was 1 penny per gallon less than last Friday. I must be because of the reduced demand from the aliens.

I am home now and there are no illegal aliens within a mile all around. It feels good and, interestingly, I never missed a lid over my coffe cup when drinking coffee at home.

2006-04-29T08:42:00.000-04:00

Hunter-gatherer?

From Bush's mouth: we shouldn't worry about competition from China and India. And because -- we can out-compete those countries if we're wise about what we do here at home. And one of the wisest things we can do is to make sure our children have got the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century.

It's funny how much cow manure can come out of W's mouth. I happen to know how outsourcing is done. The managers are asked to identify the high tech jobs that can NOT be outsourced and explain WHY such jobs can not be outsourced. Everything else is outsourced to India. No one cares if the people who are fired have 'the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st' or even the 22nd century. If the Indians can do it for less money then highly-educated Americans lose their jobs and that's that.

Or... maybe, in Bush's brilliant mind, the jobs of the 21st century are: waiter, cabby driver and hunter-gatherer.

2006-04-26T19:56:00.000-04:00

Tough, Tougher... no TOUGHEST yet? I am disappointed.

And Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is also correct when he said last week that “the first thing we want is tough border control.” - Newt Gingrich, National Review Online.

"It would have worked if they had enforced it," says Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., who played a leading role in the 1986 debate and in passage of a much tougher measure in the House in December. [...] Even if the Senate passes a bill, it would have to reconcile its version with the bill passed in the House in December, which takes a far tougher approach. [...] But he and others involved in the debate then, including Specter, said another piece of the earlier plan, tough employer sanctions, never fully materialized. [...] Last December, Sensenbrenner led the House effort to pass tougher legislation. - BY CHRIS MONDICS, Knight Ridder Newspapers.

From the desk of Teddy Kennedy

Our plan is even tougher and more effective than the others on the table because not only does it include these strong enforcement provisions but it will also break the cycle of illegality."

Some people have tried to frame the debate between the Judiciary Committee bill and Senator Frist's bill as a debate between those who would be tough on enforcement and those who would not.

The differences between these two bills, and the issues at stake in amendments being considered, concern what we do in addition to these tough new enforcement provisions.

Our bill is not only tough on immigration enforcement; it also takes necessary steps to repair the broken immigration system so that enforcement can be effective.

The Frist bill is tough on enforcement. Our bill is tough and smart.

So let's have an honest debate: do we want comprehensive reform which combines tough enforcement, earned legalization, and a sensible temporary worker program. Or do we want enforcement only?

2006-04-25T21:30:00.000-04:00

Why nukeing Iran is advantageous to the Bush?

I am going to be very brief because it's late so, here it is:

The Bush will find it most convenient to nuke Iran because, once he drops the nukes, he can make any claim he wants on what it is that it was nuked. Let's face it: no one is going to go to 'ground zero' and check it. So, unlike Irak, where the Bush dropped shocking and awesome bombs on all those places and, it turned out later that the only 'weapons of massive destruction' that were used were those used by the Bush, in Iran he will be able to say that he destroyed all kinds of nukular facilities and saved the world in the process.

IF he's got the guts to nuke Iran.

Come again tomorrow because, if I have time, I will demonstrate why nukeing Iran could be VERY good for America's middle class. Or not. We'll analyze.

2006-04-24T15:37:00.000-04:00

The Bush keeps repeating that we got all these "jobs that Americans won't do" (and I suppose the country goes down the drain if no one takes them) and he is never challenged by anyone in the audience. So, my suggestion would be for the Bush himself to challenge the nation.

This is what he needs to do:

The Bush should support his statement by posting half a dozen jobs that he believes that 'Americans don't want and the illegals must get them' and let's see if there are any applicants.

He could also post another half a dozen jobs that 'Americans are too dumb to perform so they need to be outsourced to smart Injuns'.

He could post some toll-free number for the applicants to call and he could speak with them and maybe even interview them and decide whether they are qualified or willing to take the jobs. If there are no applicants, then he should be able to push the Congress into passing 'amnesty' on all the alien law-breakers and their children and make 'outsourcing' the law of the land. If not... then maybe he could outsource himself to some country that he really, really loves. Like Israel. Or Iraq. Or Mexico.

2006-04-23T08:35:00.001-04:00

Reuel Marc Gerecht - Should 'we' bomb his house while he is in it?

I believe that we should bomb him because:

- He wears a beard.
- He has fewer relatives in the US that may attempt to avenge his death than the Iranians that we might kill if we bomb Iran.
- He advocates the bombing of other countries.
- The left corner of his mouth tends to fly up - Cheney-style.
- A good, wholesome bombing would help him stay alert for a long time.
- His air defenses are relatively weak, certainly weaker than Iran's.
- His house is not as far as Iran - the fuel economy should be significant.
- One single, very low-yield nuclear bunker buster should do the job.
- One less nut advocating the bombing of other countries on American territory.

Note: The bozo whose house 'we' may end up bombing has published an article in The Weekly Standard titled To Bomb Or Not To Bomb. And, like 'they' used to say: "you live by the bomb, you die by the bomb" - after all this IS the golden rule.

2006-04-22T09:39:00.000-04:00

Why is gas expensive today? - some of the root causes

Act one (circa 1970’s):

Nixon goes to China and Americans and Chinese play ping-pong together. All ping-pong equipment to be sold in the States soon to be ‘made in China’. The so-called ‘détente’ with East Europe allows for the beginning of timid manufacturing outsourcing in the form of ‘mixed capital’ enterprises where the communist state would hold at least 51% of the shares and provide the cheap labor while the Western partner would transfer know-how and technology.

Act two (late 1970’s):

Increasingly larger numbers of Third World immigrants, legal or not, are making it into the country. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees are followed by Iranians, then Nigerians, then the Marielito Cubans. Mexicans, Dominicans, Haitians find that settling America illegally is surprisingly easy and that there are no significant downsides.

The US population increases, the ethnic mix changes. Traffic jams become really annoyng.

Act three – consolidation (1990-2005):

The US population doubles between 1950 and 2006, from 150 million to 300 million. (It is not clear if the 300 million figure counts the illegals. It probably does not.) Most of the population increase is attributable to immigrants and their immediate offspring. Many politicians and their media partners keep repeating that 'more' people in the country is 'better'. No one bothers to explain 'why'.

Low-wage and sometime undemocratic and unfree countries such as China are increasingly successful at persuading American and other Western-based manufacturers to move production off their home base and make more things abroad. They demand that increasingly more know-how is transferred to them and sometimes they demand that certain goods are manufactured inside their country and that certain technology transfers are made before they would allow those goods on their market.

Individual 'average' Americans find it increasingly difficult to compete with cheap, foreign labor. It’s manufacturing workers first, then, increasingly, white collar workers. Paying tens of thousands of dollars for a well-rounded education or to major in fields such as ‘computer science’ doesn’t appear to be worth it, given the reality of such jobs being outsourced. The non-outsourceable jobs that natives used to find safe: plumber, roofer, cab driver are now grabbed by illegals or new immigrants who happen to be mortgage-free and hungry to make a buck. Jobs such as 'lawyer' and 'politician' appear to be safe for the time being.

Conclusion (2006 and beyond)

The increased industrialization of Third World's over-populated countries increases the world-wide demand for oil.

The doubling of the US population in 50 years coupled with the US no longer building nuclear power plants and actually destroying some salmon-unfriendly hydro-power plants causes for the US oil demand to increase.

The US government invasion of Iraq and its increase hinting that Iran may be the next major oil producer to be attacked adds to the price of oil.

The eroding purchasing power of US citizens – given that more and more good paying jobs are outsourced abroad makes oil less affordable.

The US Congress' inability to act in ways that would advance the US national interest on issues such as immigration, outsourcing and a national energy policy guarantees that the situation is unlikely to improve.

The media fascination with ‘price gouging’ can only confuse the public and prevent the nation (if such a thing still exists) from focusing on the root causes of the problem.

2006-04-21T23:38:00.000-04:00

No memories in afterlife?

:05 PM AVRWC: poor Mr. Tarkovsky - no more stuffed peppers for him :(
2:06 PM IL: he is in his afterlife, he's got something not available for us
2:08 PM AVRWC: like... total amnesia? it seems that most of our memories have a sensory basis so... absent sensory organs... do you believe there would be anything left to remember? as in 'individual memories'
2:10 PM IL: In most cases, I don't think so... That would keep them attached to this life.... But sometimes it does not work, that's why we have ghosts :-)
2:12 PM AVRWC: so the ghosts are not dead completely and they have something material that's attached to the spirit - that makes sense.
2:13 PM IL: yes, that's why some people can see them... there must be something material attached
2:14 PM AVRWC: hmmm... so you could capture them with a vacuum cleaner - like in the Ghostbusters movie.
2:16 PM IL: :-)))) was it a vacuum cleaner? they called it some sophisticated word
________________________________________ 14 minutes
2:31 PM AVRWC: yes, but it was probably a vacuum cleaner. they just made it look flashier for the movie, to make it look more spectacular.
I have an ion air filter in my room. do you think it would hurt the ghosts if they were sucked inside?
________________________________________ 5 minutes
2:37 PM IL: well if you did not see ghosts in your room, they are just probably too afraid of that filter :-)
2:40 PM AVRWC: or maybe they get sucked in and zapped as soon as they show up. I watched a great formerly TV series - on DVD - 'Kingdom Hospital' - it's a Steven King adaptation of a Norwegian TV series... great ghost story with lots of humor and horror. but they were not aware of the theory we just discussed
2:42 PM IL: you mean, vacuum cleaners, or ghost's materiality?
2:43 PM First can be patented, second one - copyrighted :-)
AVRWC: kind of both. I am sure they do a lot of vacuum cleaning at hospitals and yet the ghosts there were walking around free.
________________________________________ 6 minutes
2:50 PM IL: those cleaners were not flashy enough
2:54 PM AVRWC: it's possible that a very powerful ghost - one that has lots of materiality left in it - can't be sucked into a normal VC and can keep itself away from AC, ionic breezes or microwave ovens. on the other hand, once this theory gets wide acceptance, I would not be surprised to see some pro-ghost advocacy groups fighting to ban the use of vacuum cleaners or even the possibility of creating drafts at sites known to be populated by the undead.
2:57 PM IL: It's quite possible... :-)

2006-04-21T19:09:00.000-04:00

The Wages of Fear
_________________________________

Dear Ms. Cafferty,

Do you and your fellow journalists understand that there is some correlation between the price of oil and the price of gasoline?

Let me explain: the more expensive the oil, the more expensive the gasoline.

Now, why is the price of oil hitting new records every day? Hmmm... could there be some connection between the price of oil and Bush and crew 'all options on the table' statements when asked whether they are planning to nuke oil-producing Iraq? There probably is a connection but God forbid you, news guys over-strain your brains.
__________________________________

Hmmm... I bet Cafferty won't be reading this on CNN.

If the Bushies continue to throw empty words at Iran, oil will be at $100 by Memo Day. If the Bushies actually do something beligerent (doubtful), oil hits $200, China goes into economic crisis and turns unpredictable. If the Bushies throw a small nuke at Iran, it's the end of the US as we know it, the 'survival of the fittest' law will be the only law that matters.

2006-04-20T11:22:00.000-04:00

The American Thinker seems to be at it again. I found the following pearl of wisdom in General Amnesia: A Tale of Two Zinnis : Gen. Anthony Zinni, who has now conspicuously stated that he never saw any proof that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction or was in any way an imminent threat. Then, the 'Thinkers' are linking to another of their own articles to prove... well... that their quoted Zinni statements do nothing to contradict that he never said that Iraq had WMD's.

Anyways, let's not forget that the Bush gang sent hundreds of thousands of young Americans on a quest to find that which didn't exist. Quest which then (pre Abu Ghraib) became a fight for 'human rights', then the struggle to fix roofs on schools, then the war against the 'terrorists' that the invasion created, then the struggle for democracy and electricity.

Way to go Thinkers. After all, you're not calling yourselves 'honest'. Are you?