They Want Us Out

They being the Iraqi government.

While most observers are focused on the U.S. Congress as it continues to issue new rubber stamps to legitimize Bush's permanent designs on Iraq, nationalists in the Iraqi parliament -- now representing a majority of the body -- continue to make progress toward bringing an end to their country's occupation.

The parliament today passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the U.N. mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose cabinet is dominated by Iraqi separatists, may veto the measure.

The law requires the parliament's approval of any future extensions of the mandate, which have previously been made by Iraq's prime minister. It is an enormous development; lawmakers reached in Baghdad today said that they do in fact plan on blocking the extension of the coalition's mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now.

Reached today by phone in Baghdad, Nassar al Rubaie, the head of Al-Sadr bloc in Iraq's Council of Representatives, said, "This new binding resolution will prevent the government from renewing the U.N. mandate without the parliament's permission. They'll need to come back to us by the end of the year, and we will definitely refuse to extend the U.N. mandate without conditions." Rubaie added: "There will be no such a thing as a blank check for renewing the U.N. mandate anymore, any renewal will be attached to a timetable for a complete withdrawal."

Without the cover of the U.N. mandate, the continued presence of coalition troops in Iraq would become, in law as in fact, an armed occupation, at which point it would no longer be politically tenable to support it. While polls show that most Iraqis consider U.S. forces to be occupiers rather than liberators or peacekeepers -- 92 percent of respondents said as much in a 2004 survey by the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies -- the U.N. mandate confers an aura of legitimacy on the continuing presence of foreign troops on Iraq's streets, even four years after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Read the rest of the article.

President Bush said two weeks a go that if they wanted us out, he would leave. My guess is he won't, and the Democrats will continue to provide him the resources and authority he needs as long as they get their pork.

Ain't politics fun?

Video of the day

Lest We Believe the Myth....

.... that foreign policy some how changed in America when George Bush was elected or 9/11 occured, or the now popular stance that America was somehow at peace during the Clinton years. Or the ever prevaltant myth that Democrats and Republicans are, you know, different. A short, two minute John Stossel clip from the 90's (aka the Clinton years) showing quite the opposite. And who's that lone man speaking truth in the face of the mainstream tide?

Interview Meme

I volunteered to be interviewed by tshmom as part of this interview meme thing. Goes like this...

1) I've noticed, from your comments on my husband's blog, that you enjoy PC gaming. What's your favorite game?

I’m not too good at the all time favorite type questions. I usually can’t narrow it down to one game/movie/song, etc. I’m definitely a fan of PC gaming over the systems, though I have been enjoying my son’s Wii that was a gift from my wife’s sister and her husband. I think the game I’ve played more than any other in terms of hours is the John Madden football series, so I suppose that’s my favorite sport game. I like strategy games more than action games, stuff like SimCity, the Sims, or Civilization are always enjoyable. Though there have been some good times with a few action games like Half-Life or Mafia. So it’s really all over the place I guess. Like I said it’s hard to narrow it down.

2) What role do you fill, in the homeschooling of your children?

Beyond helping with homework I haven’t taken on any subjects yet. We’ve been focusing on the basics up to this point (reading, writing, math, basic science and history) but starting this summer I’m going to be doing more advanced history and philosophy. Plus I’m planning on doing a logic course of some type.

3) You seem to be a fellow history geek. What is your favorite period of history?

Nothing too ancient I suppose. I like the period around the American Revolution and shortly after, when Liberalism was somewhat at its peak. War times are of course always interesting, though its tough calling periods of mass death and famine that always accompany war as a “favorite”. The years leading up to World War 1 and 1919 are all very fascinating, just to see how much things were screwed up for the whole World by just a handful of men.

4) Do you cook? If so, what is the best meal you prepare?

I do cook, though not all that often. My best recipe is a slow cooked chili that I make with steak and NO beans. Beans are the worst thing you can do to good chili.

5) What's your idea of the "perfect" vacation?

lol vacation

Really we’ve never been able to afford much of a vacation. Even our honeymoon was a two day trip to Iowa. Yeah, Iowa. The only thing we’ve ever done really is take a trip to Washington D.C., which really was quite enjoyable. I guess I like road trips with the family. Not all that exciting, I know, but we have a good time. I’d like to drive to California with the family, that’d be fun. Anything is better than the way I’ve spent all my vacation time this year and last; in a hospital room with my daughter.


Well that wasn’t too difficult. A nice break from all the politics and what not. I think I’m supposed to offer to interview anyone else, so if you want 5 questions of your own say so in the comments and I will supply them.

Later.

Little stuff

A few things to chew on while I do tshmom's interview questions.

First, for Zombieslayer, it turns out fully automatic weapons do come in handy during a zombie invasion. Also we saw 28 Weeks Later last nite and it's really pretty intense. Not exactly a "zombie" movie I guess, since it involves a virus not the undead, but still pretty good.

Second, for Rudy Giuliani, if you ever do take Ron Paul up on his offer to debate foreign policy, it might help if you read this first. Facts are fun!

And lastly, regarding this article. I'm fine with the silly little photoshoped picture of Ron Paul and Micheal Moore. I don't really care if someone wants to call Ron Paul nutty. I don't expect much more from left/right political "thinkers", but this quote really got me upset:

Strict constructionism and original intent are fine things, but shoving every problem and every issue through the Founder’s Intent meat-grinder is lunacy. Besides, this rigid orthodoxy brings him down on what both Andrew and I consider to be the wrong side of the gay marriage question.

Heck yeah, if the NeoCons want to kill a few thousand innocent Iraqi's and Iranians we, as good Christians, can live with that. Just so long as they say some nice things about gay marriage being bad.

When did Christians sell their souls to the Federal government in exchange for the privilege of ruling over a minority of gays? It makes me rather ill. We sure as heck can't support a guy who doesn't think the federal government shouldn't be the enforcer of God's Will. No, what we need is a man who will kill us some Muslims and hate us some gays. That's the kind of leader we need. That's conservatism.

Anything else is just nutty.

Non-Intervention 101

Watch it.



Giuliani is a fool.

Hearing that made my blood boil. Ignoring his absurd assertion that his proximity to the event somehow makes his opinion more valuable, his statement and demand for a recant from Paul is totally baseless.

We don’t have to guess why we were attacked on September 11th, we’ve been told by the very person who planned it. In Bin Laden’s manifesto he stated the exact reason why he declared war on the United States a full 5 years before the 9/11 attacks.

The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places -the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka'ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims- by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies. (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah").

In fact, Bin Laden wanted to make the point that our intervention was one of the main reasons he declared was so clear that he entitled the declaration “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.”

I’m not at all justifying their actions so don’t even bother getting all worked up about that. That’s not even the issue. Read again what Dr. Paul said (Paraphrased):

I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our own risk. If we think we can do what WE want around the World and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there.

Why is Ron Paul the only one suggesting we don’t have to take part in building and running other countries? Why is he considered a “fringe” candidate anyway just because he’s anti-war? The vast majority of the country wants to end Iraq TODAY and there are only three anti-war candidates from both parties. (Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel) All of whom are considered long shots.

The United States citizens did not invite 9/11, its government did. 9/11 was the culmination of one hundred years of US politicians playing a game of chess with the World as its board and our money as its pawns. While THEY (politicians) experimented with regime changes, foreign aid, and alliances WE (citizens) did nothing to piss off the rest of the World. Just a handful of men have decided for the rest of us who around the World should be pushed around and for what reason, doing it all in the name of the United States and democracy.

On September 11th a few thousand innocent civilian lives were ended as a result of that game.

Anti-War.com needs help

Please keep going on the King for a Day post, but I wanted to bring up the fact that AntiWar.com is having a fund raising drive. They are on the verge of bankruptcy and need help. If you were frustrated with the mainstream media's lack of information leading up to the Iraq war, then you should know that not only did AntiWar columnists like Ron Paul write and predict the chaos that is now Iraq, others called the lies the government was telling. And just in case you think they're simply anti-Bush, or anti-Republican, they actually started the site to speak out against Clinton's actions in the Balkans and Iraq.
You can read about their history here and their mission here.
If you have a few bucks, consider helping. If not, carry on with your day. Later.

Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.~Joseph Goebbels

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.~James Madison

King for a Day

Towards the end of next year we’ll all be able to run to the polls and use our immense power of voting to influence our World leaders. But imagine for a moment that YOU were the one elected King of America. Suspend reality long enough to think about how you’d run things.

What three things would you do first to change the country?

You have complete dictorial power here. Forget about that pesky Constitution thing, it has no binding power anyway. A little piece of paper has never stood in the way of any of OUR greatest leaders. Want to bomb Iran? Go ahead! Heck, bomb Canada while you’re at it, what good have they ever done us? Nothing is off limits. Want to raise taxes to pay for your brilliant health care plan? Want to seal the borders with a 20-foot wall and armed military guards? This isn’t some utopian fantasy, whatever you say should be what you REALLY would do, it should make economic sense, and it should make sense for the country and it’s citizenry, not just for you it’s benevolent King.

Crazy foreigners can play too, even though all us Americans know you’re crazy. Either rule over your own country, or you can even rule over ours. After all, we’ve already disregarded the Constitution.

I’ll start:

1) I would abolish the Federal Reserve. The Federal Government would lose the ability to print money from nothing and to regulate interest rates. We’d go back to a commodity-backed dollar. No more inflation.

2) I would dramatically alter foreign policy to make it neutral to all nations. In accordance with this all military bases in foreign lands would be shut down and sold to those countries and all military personal would be brought home day one. This would also entail immediate withdrawal from the United Nations and elimination of financial aid to other governments. Private citizens would still be free to trade with other countries.

3) An immediate end to the War on Drugs and the de-criminalization of all narcotics, including a presidential pardon for all current inmates who are convicted for nothing other than use or possession. This would not only put thousands of violent drug dealers out of business, it would cut funding to criminals and terrorist regimes around the World. Not only that, it would change drugs from a legal issue, to a health issue. Making it a issue to treat with medicine instead of jail time.

Comment on my list or post a list of your own. Or both.

Post

I’m struggling with what to blog about. On the one hand I know this blog didn’t start out as all that political and has evolved to being maybe overly political, and that may bother some people. On the other hand, politics really interest me so I like to write about it. I’m really not sure why anyone reads this blog other than the people who I know personally, but the tracker seems to suggest that the readership numbers are increasing for whatever reason. (Which, by the way, I really appreciate)

I think for this post at least I’ll just share a few stories I’ve had my eye on. First, the guy who wrote the story I posted in my last post, the man who was leaving the Republican Party, is back and wrote about where he is heading since he left. Here’s the link and I’ll just post a few lines here (read the whole article if it interests you, it really is well done)

The country has devolved so much into a two-party system that many folks believe that if you abandon one party, you must necessarily take up common cause with the other one. Yet if a restaurant gives you a choice between eating food laced with rat poison or with arsenic, you might want to eat somewhere else, even if it's a long drive until the next rest stop and even if the new restaurant hasn't gotten great reviews.

Indeed. This gets back into the discussion at the end of the last post. The choice between murder and suicide is no choice at all. I’ll take the path to escape, no matter how unlikely the chances of surviving.

I'm convinced that if many Dems had their way, there would be virtually no area of life beyond their prying eyes, no source of income beyond their prying hands (hence their hostility to property rights), no place where we could retreat to get away from their unceasing desire to regulate us, tax us, prod us, improve us, instruct us, educate us and control us. And, of course, there's nothing Dems love more than a good moral crusade (i.e., global warming) to bludgeon the rest of us into giving them more money and power.

Yep. The thing is, at least the Democrats come out and SAY they are the party of big government and social control programs. The Republicans still are trying to promote themselves as the party of personal liberty, despite doing quite the opposite since it’s inception. I believe most people who vote Republican, like Greenhut are not and never were Republicans, they are just anti-Democrat and their desire to run people’s lives. Hence, they vote and pledge allegiance to the “other” party. Correct me if I’m wrong, please.

Now, for the answer to the question that most people have asked me: What party am I joining? Nothing wrong with registering as "Decline to State" and avoiding any new entangling alliances. But I'll hang around the GOP long enough to vote in the Republican primary for Rep. Ron Paul, the only consistent defender of freedom in Congress. Then I'll probably re-register as a big "L" Libertarian, if they don't mind having me. I've got some issues with the Libertarian Party – i.e., I wish it were more serious about fielding winnable candidates in local races, and it has sported some weird candidates on the ballot at times. But it's filled with good, albeit cantankerous folks who love freedom. So I should fit in pretty well.

The second story is one involving our hate-hate relationship with the RIAA.

Record shops: Used CDs? Ihre papieren, bitte!

New "pawn shop" laws are springing up across the United States that will make selling your used CDs at the local record shop something akin to getting arrested. No, you won't spend any time in jail, but you'll certainly feel like a criminal once the local record shop makes copies of all of your identifying information and even collects your fingerprints. Such is the state of affairs in Florida, which now has the dubious distinction of being so anal about the sale of used music CDs that record shops there are starting to get out of the business of dealing with used content because they don't want to pay a $10,000 bond for the "right" to treat their customers like criminals.

Even more attempts to stop piracy by making buying legal music even harder than it already is. Will they never learn?

It's sometimes lonely promoting the virtues of individual rights. Nothing can be more clear to me than the fact that we live in a post-liberal world. The idea of live and let be is gone and the new age of happiness manufactured through good governance is upon us. So, one might ask, why bother really? What is the point of railing against the inevitable?

Well the answer to that is that there really was something to what the Founders envisioned. The thought that the sum of individuals, operating in their own self interest, can manage themselves and that Government's only task was to preserve the rights of those individuals. That these wars, these national debts, these shortages of resources, they are all nothing more than symptoms. Symptoms of big government, not our leaders, but the only possible result of bureaucratic rule. It's the system, not the officials that are corrupt.

There are also occasional moments when you find a person who agrees and puts those ideas into words better than I can. My only disagreement with the man is that the Republican party never WAS the party of limited government and maximum personal liberties. From the word go it was the party of Internal Improvements through Federal corporate welfare and fighting any wars necessary to meet those ends.

The biggest scam in American history may be the Republicans claiming to be the party of the Individual.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_1673189.php

Breaking up with the GOP

Is the battle of individual liberty against big government over? A lot of Republicans seem to have declared 'mission accomplished'
By STEVEN GREENHUT

Senior editorial writer and columnist for the Register

Have you ever been in one of those destructive long-term relationships that, at some point, you really just needed to end?

I'm not referring to my marriage to my lovely wife of 23 years, but to my 25-year relationship with the Republican Party. In recent years especially, I have found fewer things in common with the party. I feel used and abused. We've obviously grown in different and incompatible directions.

It's a groan-inducing cliché, I know, but it applies here: I didn't leave the party; the party left me.

I grew up in one of those East Coast Democratic households, where FDR, JFK and even LBJ were lionized, and where the GOP wasn't so much loathed as ignored. I never met an actual Republican – at least anyone who admitted as much – until I went away to college. I became a Republican during Ronald Reagan's first term, having been inspired by his appeals to liberty, to his recognition of the freedom-stifling aspects of big government, to his unabashed embrace of the traditions of America's founders.

Reagan never actually rolled back government, but I can forgive a failure to achieve lofty aims. I cannot forgive abandonment of those aims. And it has been obvious for years, especially under the leadership of our current Republican president and our previously Republican-controlled Congress, that the "pro-liberty" stance has become nothing more than an applause line at those syrupy Flag Day dinners.

Under Republican leadership, the federal government has expanded – without even including war-related spending – far more quickly than it expanded under Bill Clinton. And when it comes to security matters, Republicans have been zealous in giving the feds additional powers to trample our privacy and liberties. Republicans have been unwavering in their support for embarking on nation-building experiments of the sort that traditional conservatives would abhor. The presidential candidates most committed to a muscular central government – Rudy Giuliani and John McCain – are leading the pack.

Now even the rhetoric of freedom is mostly gone. Most "mainstream" Republicans don't talk about liberty anymore. The advocates for this emerging New Republican Party are becoming surprisingly outspoken. A good example is New York Times "conservative" columnist David Brooks, a former editor at the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal that shilled vociferously for war in Iraq. (Hint: The results of that policy might offer some warning to Republicans before they jump too quickly on his latest advice.)

In a column reprinted today (beginning on Page 1 of Commentary), Brooks rebutted those of us who argue that "in order to win again, the GOP has to reconnect with the truths of its Goldwater-Reagan glory days. It has to once again be the minimal-government party, the maximal-freedom party, the party of rugged individualism, and states' rights. This is folly."

Obviously unaware of the ever-growing Leviathan around him, Brooks claims that the old days of oppressive government are over. The idea of limited government – that silly, fuddy-duddy notion advanced by our Constitution, and ensconced in the Bill of Rights – is so 18th century. Time for something more appropriate for our time!

He's got a new idea (actually, the oldest of ideas, the one that says that government and power are what matters, and that freedom and individualism are outdated). And he's even got a catchy slogan for it. He calls it, Security leads to freedom.

Forgive me a Dave Barry moment, but I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. Doesn't this sound like something out of an Orwell novel? War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Security is freedom. Brooks argues that the "liberty vs. power paradigm" is passé. Government doesn't necessarily mean less personal liberty, he writes. Modern voters aren't worried about an overweening state. Instead, the public wants to be protected from the complex modern threats to their existence: "Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation."

Maybe a large segment of the public wants those things, but it's the job of statesmen to lead the People, to frame the relevant issues, to set a course that is at times bigger and more noble than the current small-scale debates – not just to slavishly follow the People's basest desires. By the way, I'm not picking on Brooks per se, but using him as an articulate example of a form of thinking common today among many in the GOP.

Has the world been turned on its head? I see no signs that the classical liberal thinkers were wrong, that government is no longer wasteful, abusive and corrupt. Government continues to grab a larger share of our resources, even as it becomes less capable of doing its legitimate jobs with any degree of competence. Yet Brooks and others like him believe that the government can save us from all our neurotic worries, even ones as nebulous as "economic and social segmentation" – whatever that means.

When people are secure, Brooks wrote, they are "more free to take risks and explore the possibilities of their world. ... People with secure health care can switch jobs more easily. People who feel free from terror can live their lives more loosely. People who come from stable homes and pass through engaged schools are free to choose from a wider range of opportunities."

At this point I want to tell the People to grow up already. Brooks' point in the paragraph is true enough. But – here I go again with an arcane notion – in a free society, individuals need to take care of these matters mostly themselves, rather than to plead for bureaucrats and politicians to take care of things for them.

Our government is based on the radical idea that government should be limited to a handful of tasks, most of which revolve around protecting our natural rights. These are negative rights. They implore the government to leave us alone to pursue our own dreams and desires. Positive rights demand a positive response. If I have a "right" to education, then you must be forced to pay for it or provide it for me.

Traditionally, Republicans believed in negative rights. Yet Brooks thinks that's a mistake. He writes that the GOP needs to be "oriented less toward negative liberty (How can I get the government off my back?) and more toward positive liberty (Can I choose how to lead my life?)."

Instead of worrying about government spending, and regulating and snooping and launching foreign wars and eroding our civil liberties and imposing crushing tax burdens, and all those silly old fixations, Brooks argues that Republicans have to compete with Democrats in appealing to every soccer mom's desire for more social programs, more regulations, more protections from hobgoblins. He argues, in a refreshingly albeit frighteningly direct manner, for the final, total rejection of the American founding experiment.

Sure, the Republicans will focus more on terrorism and security issues, and the Democrats will focus more on health care and domestic regulation, but in this Brave New Paradigm, no major party will echo the words of that outdated crank, Thomas Jefferson, who argued that "the sum of good government" is one "which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned."

Perhaps that world already is here. Which is why I'm divorcing myself from the Republican Party, and keeping my distance from any group that doesn't place the defense of liberty as the prime goal of the political system.

Wilco

A Ghost is Born sucked. Here's to hoping their new album is a major rebound for them.



See, they're not all that country. :)

The Myth of Society and the Common Good

If you were to look up the definition of society in the dictionary it would be listed as a noun. But if society is a person, place, or thing than what does it look like? How big is it? How can it be described? Truly, society is nothing more than a theoretical mental construct. Actual society is made up of nothing more than a number of individuals, who operate in their own self-interest, and have their own values. But belief in society as a noun is what allows people to claim society has it’s own set of hopes, fears, wants, needs, emotions, and values. All the things that make actual individuals different and individual.

We can claim that “society” wants certain laws passed, and so passing those laws benefits the common good. Individuals, of course, have no rights versus this imaginary common good, and yet it is individuals themselves who suggest these laws, not society. Society is the concept that allows a small group of people to tell a large group of people what they can and cannot do.

The belief in society and the common good is what drives men, who would otherwise be bakers and butchers, to goose-step with rifles in their hands. It is the myth that allows the rights of the minority to be stripped in favor of the majority. It is, above all, the complete absence of rational thought, and the surrender to romanticism that allows a few leaders to bend the will of many people.

After all, there really is no answer to the common good, or worst of all “The Children”. A politician can sell anything if it’s under the guise of being for The Children. Every rational argument can be repressed and refuted by just the emotional call to an imaginary group of children who supposedly all share the same hopes, fears, wants, needs, emotions, and values. We all know that private individuals are better at providing hot dogs and shoes than the government, so what’s the rationale argument for Public Education? There is none, only an appeal to the romantic ideas of society and the common good.

Local fire

A few weeks a go the local lumber yard caught fire and turned into 5 alarm blaze. We didn't get to see it because we were sleeping I think, but there are pictures available on the web if you click here, as well as a press release for download here.

Declare

Some time ago I wrote a post that quoted from Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason”. The post was centered on the obvious notion that tax is theft. I concluded the post with a disclaimer stating that while Spooner was an anarchist, I was not. There have, in fact, been many occasions in the past where I have found myself trying to distance myself from the anarchist label and all that it is perceived to mean.

Well people change, their worldviews evolve, their philosophies become more defined, and I am writing this to declare myself an anarchist. I know it’s a label that evokes a pretty strong, and often negative reaction from so many people. I also know it’s a movement that has been largely dominated by Luddites and those who use violence to get what they want. I fall under neither of these categories. If an adjective needs to be added to it, I’d call myself a Private Property Anarchist; one who sees natural law and private property rights as sufficient for society to run itself, without the presence of an organization that is nothing more than a parasite known as the State.

Comment and criticize as you see fit, but at the same time I’m curious how and why your political views have changed over the past year or so, if at all. Declare for yourself what you are, politically. I’m not talking about how you vote every 2-4 years, but rather what political philosophy you hold as truth more than any other.

Happy National Legalized Extortion Day everyone!

Politics without rhetoric

Ron Paul is running for President in '08, but will not make much a splash in the scheme of things due to lack of funds. Welcome to democrazy in America. His name doesn't show up much next to the likes of Giuliani or McCain, let alone the elites like Obama or Clinton II.

I wouldn't necessarily endorse Paul, but he certainly is better than any GOP candidate that's going to run in the next 5 elections. He is, in fact, not a Republican at all, but a Democrat. A Democrat in the line of Grover Cleveland or many of our political leaders prior to the Civil War. Part of a political party that exists only in name in America, as the principles that once loosely held it together have long since dissolved. Much in the same way the name Liberal is bestowed upon those who are anything but liberal.

This is how our political system has evolved. It matters little what a politician says, save the occasional "clean and articulate" slip of the tongue, and much more what they are called. Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, Greens, Libertarians, independents, and the worst of all, the cursed Neo-Cons! Now I'm not writing this to defend or persecute any of these groups, but does anyone really know what defines them? Neo-Con has become the most tossed around pejorative lately, slapped on anyone who dares to oppose the goals of the mainstream left.

Modern politics have become nothing more than a rhetoric filled sound bite with the left blaming "corporate fat cats" for all the ills of society and the right blaming crazy Muslims. Neither has a plan for change, and admittedly that is because the Federal Government can't fix many of the problems that we wish it could. But the sad thing to me is that so many have given up learning what is the cause of this out of control government. They're fixed on Government as the solution, not the problem. What's the solution to Neo-Conservatives? Vote Democrat.

But how did we come upon this Neo-Conservative movement? Where did this idea of preemptive war come from? How about the expansion of the welfare state during a Republican administration, is that something we could have foreseen?

Ron Paul laid out and assessment of the Neo-Conservative movement a few years ago and it has been preserved on Google Video (God bless the Internet). Sure it's a long lecture and starts out a little slow, but simply put some things take more than a 30 second sound bite to say. Maybe if we sat down and actually listened to what the Neo-conservatives believed BEFORE the past elections things could have been different today. Then again the only other option was Democrats so it's hard to believe it could have been all that much better.

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul

"Authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of humanitarian undertones." -Ron Paul

Follow-up reading:

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (1996)
The End of History? by Francis Fukuyama (1989)

A dangerous ruling in Britain

Britain bans paid military interviews

LONDON - Britain on Monday banned all military service members from talking to the media in return for payment, reversing its decision to allow the 15 marines and sailors held captive in Iran to sell their stories.

Defense Secretary Des Browne issued a statement saying the navy faced a "very tough call" over its initial decision to allow the payments, which came under sharp criticism. The new ban will not affect those who already gave accounts, a Defense Ministry spokesman said.

On Monday, in one of the first accounts, Faye Turney, the sole woman in the detained crew, said that she "felt like a traitor" for agreeing to her captors' demands to appear on Iranian TV and that she believed they had measured her for a coffin.

The Sun newspaper also reported that Turney, 25, was told by her captors that her 14 male colleagues had been released while she alone was being held.

Another sailor, Arthur Batchelor, 20, said he was singled out by his captors because he was the youngest of the crew.

The financial arrangements for Turney and Batchelor were not disclosed, but Turney said the offer she accepted was not the largest she had been offered.

Browne said lessons must be learned from a review the Ministry of Defense is now conducting regarding the regulations that affect service members talking with media.

"I want to be sure those charged with these difficult decisions have clear guidance for the future," Browne said. "Until that time, no further service personnel will be allowed to talk to the media about their experiences in return for payment."

The British sailors and marines were searching a merchant ship on March 23 when they and their two inflatable boats were intercepted by Iranian vessels near the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway, U.S. and British officials said. Iran claimed the British had strayed into its territorial waters, a charge that Britain denied.

During the crew's captivity, Britain accused Iran of using the group for propaganda for putting them on Iranian television in appearances in which they "admitted" trespassing in Tehran's waters. They were freed last week by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who called their release a gift to Britain.

Turney, who also sold her story to British broadcaster ITV1, told The Sun that she feared at one point that she would be killed.

"One morning, I heard the noise of wood sawing and nails being hammered near my cell. I couldn't work out what it was. Then a woman came into my cell to measure me up from head to toe with a tape," The Sun quoted Turney as saying.

"She shouted the measurements to a man outside. I was convinced they were making my coffin."

Turney said she asked one Iranian official where her male colleagues were.

"He rubbed the top of my head and said with a smile, 'Oh no, they've gone home. Just you now,'" she said.

At another time, Turney said the same official asked her how she felt about dying for country.

By her fifth day in detention, she said she was told that she could be free within two weeks if she confessed that the crew had intruded into Iranian waters.

"If I didn't, they'd put me on trial for espionage and I'd go to prison for several years. I had just an hour to think about it," The Sun quoted her as saying.

"If I did it, I feared everyone in Britain would hate me. But I knew it was my one chance of fulfilling a promise to Molly (her daughter) that I'd be home for her birthday on May 8.

"I decided to take that chance, and write in such a way that my unit and my family would know it wasn't the real me."

Turney told ITV1 that she "felt like a traitor" when she was forced to write letters of confession that were shown on Iranian television.

Batchelor said in an interview with the Daily Mirror that he found his capture "beyond terrifying."

"They seemed to take particular pleasure in mocking me for being young," he said. "A guard kept flicking my neck with his index finger and thumb. I thought the worst."

Retired Maj. Gen. Patrick Cordingly said Monday he believes the sailors and marines were being used "almost as a propaganda tool" by the British government.

"I was depressed because I thought the team were so good on the press conference — they didn't overplay their unpleasant experience and we could all imagine what they had gone through," Cordingly said in a British Broadcasting Corp. radio interview.

Turney said she was offered "a hell of a lot of money" for her story and said she was not "taking the biggest offer."

"I want everyone to know my story from my side, what I went through," she told ITV1. She added part of the money she was paid would go toward helping personnel on her ship, the frigate HMS Cornwall.

After their release last week, the crew members told reporters in Britain they were subjected to constant psychological pressure in detention.

In an attempt to dispute that claim, Iran broadcast new video Sunday showing some of the crew playing chess and watching television during their captivity.

Some of the footage, briefly aired on Iran's state-run Arabic satellite TV channel Al-Alam, also showed crew members watching soccer on TV and eating at a long table decorated with flowers. The crew members could be heard laughing and chatting.

A newscaster said the video proved "the sailors had complete liberty during their detention, which contradicts what the sailors declared after they arrived in Britain."

At a news conference Friday, Lt. Felix Carman, who was in charge of the crew, said the sailors and marines were only allowed to socialize for the benefit of the Iranian media.

Apparently this isn't a permanent solution, but it sets a dangerous precedent. Governments should not be the only witness to the events of their own wars. Taking the incentive away from veterans to tell their story of what happened limits the amount of people who can afford to take time off of their normal lives to give an account.

This story calls to light the never ending need for historical revisionism.

What's there to say?

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/070403/K040323AU.html

Swedish couple fights for right to name their baby girl Metallica

Metallica may work as a name for a heavy metal band, but a Swedish couple is struggling to convince authorities it's also suitable for a baby girl.

Sweden's tax agency rejected Michael and Karolina Tomaro's application to name their six-month-old daughter after the legendary rock band. "It suits her," Karolina Tomaro, 27, said Tuesday of the name. "She's decisive and she knows what she wants."

Although little Metallica has already been baptized, the Swedish National Tax Board refused to register the name, saying it was associated with both the rock group and the word "metal."

In Sweden, parents must get the names of their children approved by the tax authority, which is in charge of the population registry and issues personal identification numbers.

Tomaro, who has appealed the decision, said the official handling the case also called the name "ugly."

The couple was backed by the County Administrative Court in Goteborg, which ruled on March 13 that there was no reason to block the name. It also noted that there already is a woman in Sweden with Metallica as a middle name.

The tax agency appealed to a higher court, frustrating the family's foreign travel plans.

"We've had to cancel trips and can't get anywhere because we can't get her a passport without an approved name," Tomaro said.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Worth it just to hear from Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace who left the organization after seeing it for what it really is. Not a environmentalist group, but a anti-industrial political organization. If you're looking for an environmentalist view that's a little more sensible than sociopathic Luddites like the Unabomber Al Gore, than give Moore a listen. (Not Michael of course)

I lol'd

Democrats with guns?!? What's next? Republicans increasing the size of the Federal Government?

Oh wait...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/03/28/MNG8LOT1K31.DTL&type=politics

Webb Aide Pleads Not Guilty to Charges

Washington -- Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., one day after his aide's arrest for carrying a loaded pistol into a Senate office building, called the incident "unfortunate" Tuesday and offered a ringing endorsement of the right to bear arms.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Webb said, it has been "a more dangerous time" for people in government.

"I believe that it's important for me, personally, and for a lot of people in the situation that I am in, to be able to defend myself and my family," Webb told reporters in the Capitol. "I believe that wherever you see laws that allow people to carry (weapons), generally the violence goes down."

Webb's aide Phillip Thompson was arrested Monday when, according to Capitol police, he tried to enter a Senate office building with a loaded handgun and two magazines of ammunition.
Police said the weapon was inside a briefcase Thompson placed on an X-ray belt. Thompson said the gun and magazines belonged to Webb, although Webb said he had not given them to Thompson.

"The defendant further stated that he inadvertently left the gun" in the briefcase, the police report on the incident said.

Webb told reporters that he was in New Orleans at the time of the arrest. He described Thompson as "a longtime friend."

"He has worked for me since the beginning of the campaign last year," Webb said. "I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. I think this is one of those very unfortunate situations where, completely inadvertently, he took the weapon into the Senate."

Webb, Navy secretary under President Ronald Reagan before switching parties and running as a Democrat for the Senate last year, said he had long held a permit in Virginia to carry a weapon.
Webb pointed out that police are assigned to protect the president and other high-ranking executive-branch officials but not members of Congress.

"We are required to defend ourselves, and I chose to do so," he said.

Thompson, whose 45th birthday was Monday, spent the night in a District of Columbia lockup and was freed without bond after appearing at a Superior Court hearing, where he was charged with one felony count of carrying a pistol without a license. Another court hearing was scheduled for May 1.

Thompson is a former writer and Marine who fought in the Gulf War, said Robert Hodierne, senior managing editor for Army Times Publishing Co., where Thompson used to work as an editor.

"He's a fine fellow," Hodierne said. "He's married with kids, a family man, a solid citizen."
Army Times, a Gannett Co. subsidiary, publishes four weekly newspapers covering the military: Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times. Most recently, Thompson worked as an editor in the features and lifestyle section that appeared in the papers, Hodierne said.

He left last March to work for the Webb campaign, Hodierne said. According to an online biography, Thompson is from Mississippi and is the author of two books: "Into the Storm," a memoir of his time in the Gulf War, and "The Enemy Within," a novel.

So now police officers, secret service agents, and politicians have the right to defend themselves. No word yet on how long until the rest of us get the right. I think it's a good thing that we don't though, after all regular citizens are just plain crazy. They do insane dangerous things that enlightened people like government police officers and soldiers would. Just. Never. Do.