Dec 30, 2005

Support the troops:Rat them out!

Boots in Baghdad is a very slick blog dedicated to propagandizing spreading the good news about the Iraq war from the soldier's perspective.

Last month, the gung-ho fellow who writes to us, normally about the great work being performed by his fellow infantrymen, offered a special advisory about emails that have been circulated around the internet, allegedly by soldiers who are scared and want to come home.
These e-mails are fake. They were not written by American soldiers. American soldiers lust for the blood of their nation's enemies. They understand the commitment they have made to their nation and their fellow service members.
Private(?) Miner suggests you forward any such emails you may receive to his yahoo e-mail address

But look, If you're going to rat out some "yellow son of a bitch" who has complained about conditions in Iraq, why not just forward the emails directly the good blogger's military e-mail address.

Dec 28, 2005

Top ten things to do with 2005's leap-second

  1. List the times and dates George Bush has told the truth about the Iraq war.
  2. Watch re-runs of George Bush speeches in which Dick Cheney doesn't have his hand up George's back.
  3. Count the millions denied to Administration officials because a corporation other than the one they controled prior to gaining power, received lucrative government contracts.
  4. Count the number of bird flu victims that will be helped by an administration of Tamiflu as distributed by Gilead Sciences (Donald Rumsfield).
  5. Count the number of convictions since 9/11/2001 of terrorists arrested by the Bush Administration's Justice Department.
  6. Count the number of laws repealed by any legislature anywhere.
  7. Count the number of times your congressman didn't send you a form letter in response to one of your questions.
  8. Count the money donated to charity personally by Democrat senators.
  9. List the number of times the Supreme Court has upheld the constitution in the last 100 years.
  10. Blink if you're horny!

Dec 24, 2005

Politicizing AIDS- D.A.L.E.

I have been watching the AIDS "science" with some interest for at least 10 years. In 1984 I was a sign painter in San Diego when Dr. Robert C. Gallo announced he had isolated a virus that was believed to be the cause of the AIDS virus.

It has since been discovered that Gallo actually used samples given to him by another scientist in France, Luc Montagnier, who worked at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Neither had actually isolated a virus and Gallo's announcement that he had done so caused such an international Incident that Ronald Reagan had to meet with France's prime minister to smooth things over. Both governments took credit for discovering what is now known as HIV.

In the two decades since that announcement, the science surrounding AIDS reseaerch doesn't appear to have become any more rigorous. Previously, the Pasteur institute itself had provided the world with a repeatable protocol which would both demonstrate virulence and isolate a virus.

Today this protocol is still used. Except in the case of HIV where such practices are considered inconvenient. It would take an entire site to document the poor scientific methods used amongst AIDS researchers who treat HIV as a foregone conclusion. An acquaintanence of mine gave me a heads up about yet another salvo from the World Health Organization in the effort to politicize AIDS.

Longing to force all of Africa into submission, they've come up with a new measure of human life expectancy which claims to predict life expectancy rather than just measure it after the fact. Life expectancy has long been used to tout the efficacy of "modern" medicine. Typically, government health organizations have lumped in infant mortality with all mortality to come up with "life expectancy." Not to defend the Bible, but two thousand years ago the scribes who wrote down Judeaic laws claimed that a man lived to be about 70 on average. If that information is used as a historical benchmark, we haven't progressed as much as the medical community would have us believe.

The new measure of life expectancy, D.A.L.E. (Disability-Adjusted life expactancy), according to the WHO, is much more accurate. For myself, it is high comedy. The University of Pennsylvania "African Studies" department tries to explain the formula:
DALE summarizes the expected number of years to be lived in what might be termed the equivalent of "full health." To calculate DALE, the years of ill-health are weighted according to severity and subtracted from the expected overall life expectancy to give the equivalent years of healthy life.

Interesting to note is the fact that the new formula does not even take into consideration actual morality - at least not according to what one can find on the subject. The current hysterical proclamations about conditions around the world are projections of moratility rates for "babies born in 1999."

Lately, there have been quite who have questioned the claims of an AIDS epidemic in Africa and the numbers of deaths. When it became apparent that the diagnosis of AIDS was not based on actual test results, some health organizations looked as if they were engaged in hype. If I were less cynical I wouldn't view the new DALE formula as a way to explain away the lack of actual deaths to match the WHO's preditions.

All of the bottom 10 countries were in sub-Saharan Africa, where the HIV-AIDS epidemic is rampant. In ascending order beginning with 191, those countries were Sierra Leona, 25.9 years of healthy life for babies born in 1999; Niger, 29.1; Malawi, 29.4; Zambia, 30.3; Botswana, 32.3; Uganda, 32.7; Rwanda, 32.8; Zimbabwe, 32.9; Mali, 33.1; and Ethiopia, 33.5. [see below for full list]

No doubt, this will further solidify the HIV=AIDS argument and very few will question the accuracy of predictions that cannot come true for another 70 years.


Nov 14, 2005

How would this fly in the U.S.?

Allegedly, two suicide bombers, a man and his wife, travel from Iraq ( where there are little or no travel restrictions and no troops watching the main roads ) to Jordan, land themselves a cute little furnished apartment and prepare to bomb a wedding celebration.

Apparently her husband pushed her out of the hotel ballroom when he noticed her struggling with the detonation cord. I don't know about you but if my wife tried to detonate herself before I could get into position, I'd probably whisper in her ear that her actions were a bit premature. "Just wait honey, at least let me get to the other side of the room like we planned."

Compared to British police, who shot a "suicide bomber" 7 times in the head because they feared he might explode, Jordanian police showed remarkable restraint. They decided to pose her for cameras, still wearing the alleged explosive rig. Those guys have some serious cajones.

I wonder what an American judge would say about the prejudicial nature of such "confession" footage.

Jordanians are pretty compassionate all the way around though. After televising the woman twice..
..a TV announcer cited security officials as saying the woman gave no further details because "she was still suffering from the shock of the blasts and her subsequent arrest."

Nov 12, 2005

Codex Alimentarius: Food Rules

I am amazed at how many people just don't understand what the founding fathers of this nation believed constituted liberty. Look around you today and you won't find any resemblance of the legacy they intended to leave us.

For example, Jefferson, in 1801, received live smallpox virus from Benjamin Waterhouse, the man who first promoted Dr. Edward Jenner's smallpox inoculation. It was Jenner who is credited with discovering that cowpox serum could provide immunity from smallpox. Upon receiving the serum, Jefferson injected it into his children.

Four score and 8 years after this event, a doctor named Alfred Wallace used the health records in London to show that the mandatory smallpox vaccination program the English had instituted there, to have caused more losses of life and sickness than it was purported to have saved. In fact, since then, among the many myths that are perpetuated, the efficacy of vaccinations is tops on the list.

But that is only tangental to my first point; in Thomas Jefferson's mind, he had more right than anyone to medically defend his children and himself from any disease that may have posed a risk.

Think about that one for a while. Jefferson didn't take his children to an expert nor did he ask the permission of the medical boards to try an experimental prophylactic that had not been proven to work aside from anecdotal evidence. In fact, it has yet to be proven effective at preventing smallpox. The World Health organization claims to have erradicated the disease via vaccination programs around the world but a disease "indistinguashable" from smallpox - monkey pox - still rages on in undeveloped African nations. They still use the vaccinia serum to defend against it.

Thomas Jefferson procured the "innoculation" ( which, by the way, is not the same vaccine used during Europe's mandatory vaccine progroms - oops - programs during the mid to late 1800's ) and immediately tried it on his own children based on the word of someone he trusted.

If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the soulds of those who live under tyranny - Thomas Jefferson

In case you haven't guessed, that was his idea of liberty. That's my idea of liberty. Knowing what I know about vaccines, I wouldn't do that. But I understand why he did. And I understand why Jefferson showed a disdain for anyone who would attempt to prevent someone from determining his own medical treatment.

Let's fast forward to October 26, 2001. It was a mere forty-six days after the so-called terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. President Bush signed the inappropriately titled "Patriot Act" into law. The Senators who voted it into law hadn't read it because, it was claimed, they didn't have the security clearances to read it. So none did and it passed in the Senate 99 to 1. Bi-partisanship is over-rated.

It is only now that we are finding out what is inside and it doesn't look that good for people who value freedom.

In the bill, the government is given the power to declare martial law in the event that a "pandemic" is afoot and vaccinate everyone in the U.S., by force, and when this event occurs (not if - pay attention to what Bush has been recently peddling) you would be forbidden to sue for any ill-effects of the drugs being administered.

Now, that's just one side of the attack on your freedom to chose your own medical treatment. We are all well aware of the government's long time war on (some) drugs - those that actually work. But they are also now engaged in a war on anything that might disturb the profits of the drug companies that spend so much money keeping Senators and Congressmen in office.

Codex Alimentarius was a program initiated in the UN to create "uniform" rules on food production in order to promote trade. It has turned into one of the most disturbing campaigns against individual freedom ever devised. It classifies vitamins and herbs as "toxins" rather than food and intends to enforce a world-wide clampdown on their use.

The UN, Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization want to see that its recommendations go into effect, world-wide in 2009. The FDA (surprise!) has already agreed to them in spite of the current Federal law that classifies vitamins and herbs as food.

So, how do we get to a micro-managed food and health system? did we get to the Patriot Act? A catastrophe must occur to convince us that such micro management is necessary.

President Bush's plan includes a hefty sum for a virus "treatment" called Tamiflu that doesn't even address bird flu. The important thing to note is that the company which produces this product, Gilead Sciences was chaired by none other than Donald Rumsfeld. He was Chairman of the Board until the day he was sworn in as Secretary of Defense and still holds a significant number of shares.

It's awfully convenient that the man who headed the company which created Tamiflu is now the man who would command the troops forcing you to take it.

How many of Jefferson's views on medical freedom are shared by this bunch?


Nov 11, 2005

Bush: Those Bastards Bombed a Wedding!

Part of me wants to believe that Bush is just stupid. I mean, really stupid. But the voice inside my head that whispers "what a moron", is overruled by another voice. The other voice tells me that Bush isn't stupid, he is, quite obviously, evil. Bush thinks..perhaps knows, that the general population has an infinite capacity for stupidity. Though it pains me to agree with Bush on any subject, it would seem that his apparent assessment is correct. It's certainly obvious that the mainstream media, which republicans accuse is out to get Bush, refuses to call him on the blatant hypocrisy he demonstrates on a daily basis. And according to his supporters, any alleged hypocrisy by the Bush administration is actually an indictment on those who notice it occurring. You can think of this as the "I know you are but what am I" syndrome of modern politics.

Even while the Abu Gahrib incident was blowing up in his face, Bush displayed a strategy of pulling down the other guy's pants to show the world skid marks while himself wading in shit. During a joint press conference with Vicente Fox in January of 2004, Bush acted as if U.S. actions were always justified.
Iraq is more free every day. The citizens are beginning -- the lives of the citizens are improving every day. And one thing is for certain; there won't be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms.
Yesterday, after speaking with the King of Jordan, Bush uttered this gem:
and during my conversation, as he described the fact that these bombers went into a wedding and killed people there that were there to celebrate life, killed innocent -- the bombers killed innocent women and children, it struck me, Mr. Ambassador, that -- once again, that we face an enemy that has no heart, an enemy that is defiling a great religion, of Islam.
Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Here is the same man who attempted to justify the Army's bombing of a wedding party in Iraq, killing 27 men, 10 women and 15 children, as if the act upon which he is commenting is unprecendented. "Hello! McFly!"

Then again, the event that occurred on May 19, 2004 was not the first time U.S. forces had attacked a wedding. In July of 2002, celebratory fire into the air during a wedding celebration prompted a U.S. response in the form of a B-52 bombing raid coupled with a C-130 gunship straffing and a ground assault.

One hopes that the Bush twins do not suffer such a fate if ever they chose to marry.

Sep 22, 2005

Dan Wetzel is an Ass

Sir, you really need to get a grip.

About 90% of the time, I am going to shake my head when somebody plays the race card. But in the case of Barry Bonds, I think we should look at the way the media in general has handled the question of drug use by American athletes.

Let's examine, for example, another unquestionably good athlete, Lance Armstrong.

When the French Press was breathlessly reporting that a lab had tested urine samples Armstrong had provided in 1999, and had found traces of performance enhancing drugs, the sports media merely scoffed.

I can't think of one writer who took the allegations seriously, in spite of the fact that nobody has bothered to deny that the samples were indeed Armstrong's; other than Lance, that is.

Let's juxtapose that with Barry Bonds, who, during his incredible carreer has never even once tested positive. The media has, in spite of this inconvenient fact, insisted that Bonds has taken steroids. In fact, the more strident, such as yourself, assert that Bonds' guilt or innocence is decided merely on the suspicions of the public.

One of your respondants even had the audacity to claim that he couldn't have faced aggressive pitchers. Yesterday, Bonds homered, his 4th homer in 4 consecutive games, off of pitcher number 416. The opposing team could only shake their heads as they headed into the dugout. The pitch was not a hanging curveball or fastball left over the plate like the one Livan Hernandez offered him on Tuessday night. It was a perfect cutter low and inside.

I have been a Giants fan since about 1985. I was actually upset when Barry was signed. His arrival was sure to supplant my favorite Giant at the time, Will Clark. But I have since been won over. I have never seen anyone who could hit the way that Barry hits. Barry was no slouch before coming to the Giants organization and he just keeps getting better.

But Barry doesn't like the media. And most hack writers - there are very few good sports writers left - like to take cheap shots at Barry because it fuels controversy and ratings.

You can believe whatever you wish to believe, but without any evidence, and I mean not even a shred, to bolster that belief, you and all of the other bandwagon devotees merely look irrational and just plain mean.

If gaining weight and body mass were evidence of steroid use, Congress had better stop worrying about drug testing within Major League Baseball and start testing the hamburgers over at McDonalds. Half the school children in America are chronic steroid users, apparently, and something needs to be done immediately.

Furthermore, chronic steroid use shortens carreers and can even cause serious illness and death. Lyle Alzedo is a fairly good example of this.

And if all of that has no bearing on the seemingly irrational thought process of Barry's detractors, consider that he has come back this September and hit 4 home runs in 4 consecutive games, would have hit his first pitch for a dinger had it not been interfered with by an overzealous fan, has a .318 batting average and enjoys record sellout crowds in opposing team's stadiums.

For all of the talk that Barry's "cheating" has turned the public against him, the reality seems to vastly contradict his self-aggrandizing critics.

Barry is simply the best hitter to ever play the game and most who deride him do so only because they don't want him to overtake the fat, beer-guzzling, mouth-breathing, white guy who preceded him. The mostly-white sports analysts and writers wouldn't bat an eye if this was Derek Jeter or Mark McGwire. In fact, McGwire still has a few apologists in the media. But let's be fair. McGwire hasn't tested positive either.

Look at how many sportswriters are still pining away for Charlie Hustle's induction into the hall of fame, in spite of a mountain of evidence proving he bet on baseball.

Barry is better than either of those two in my opinion. And no. I don't believe he was a steroid user. I have no evidence that would give me any reason to believe otherwise.

But to be honest, I don't care if anyone uses steroids. I think it's a non-issue. I don't think that drugs ever enhanced anyone's performance behind the plate. Hitting a 101-mile-per-hour fastball out of the park is equally improbable whether or not one uses steroids.

Aug 30, 2005

Thank Nebraska! Your daughters are safe!

Thanks to the nanny state of Nebraska, parental decisions are moot and newborn babies are evidence of rape.

A 14 year old girl's parents gave permission to 22 year old Matthew Koso to marry their daughter. Nebraska doesn't allow anyone under the age of 17 to get married so Matt and his fiancee (pregnant at the time) crossed the border to Kansas where such marriages are legal.

Nebraska is charging Matthew with statutory rape, a charge that has a maximum sentence of 50 years in prison.

Kansas' governor is "embarrassed" that her state still allows parents freedom to determine when their daughters are eligible for marriage and has proposed that the minimum age be raised.

To the prosecutors "shock" most of the responses he's gotten from his constituents are in support of the couple. Looks like there are more libertarians out there than the statists would have you believe....

Aug 29, 2005

Look Ma! No Dues!

Seems like the Libertarian Party has had the best idea they've had in a long while. No More Dues!

I am sure there will be people complaining about this if they haven't already started, but I think it's a great idea. I don't think it's going to grow the LP coffers, but it will grow the membership rolls and increase the mailing lists just by virtue of the free membership.

Way to go guys.

LibertyForum: RIP?

Looks like maybe John Deere's experiment has finally come to an end. From my machine the site is no longer reachable. I do know that the DNS entry was set to expire soon.

Seems as if there must have been a catastrophic outage of some kind, intentional or otherwise. I do hope it comes back online but if not, it was fun while it lasted. Thanks JD, for the memories and opportunities.

Aug 24, 2005

I'm talking and I can't shut up!

At the risk of sounding hypocritical, why can't right wing pundits ever just shut up?

Pat Robertson today decided to "apologize" for saying the U.S. should assasinate Chavez. I don't really see the big deal about his original remarks. We live in a country where it is alleged that free speech is revered.

Whenever somebody says something controversial and then "takes it back" you've got to wonder about their sanity.

Rush Limbaugh attempted to back out of his own stupid comments by telling his listeners that they hadn't actually heard him say what he said the day before. That's pretty funny. But that's Rush for you. 100% chutspah, 0% kosher.... Unfortunately, most of his listeners believe him. He at least didn't apologize. Of course given his numerous criticisms of those who offer vacant apologies, he had little choice but to claim the statements, over which he was so thoroughly criticized, were never uttered.

Trent Lott is another of the right-wingers who hasn't got the sense to just shut up or stand up. Back in 2002 he lost his job over his praiseful comments about Strom Thurmond. He didn't really say anything all that remarkable. The Civil Rights Act of '64 was an abomination. Thurmond, as much as I dislike him, was right to resist its passage.

The UC Berkeley Daily Californian apologized back in 2001 for running an ad saying that reperations for slavery was a bad idea. Perish the thought. It's a good thing they apologized. What would have happened had they stood their ground?

More recently, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) apologized for comparing Abu Gahrib and Guantanamo to Soviet Gulags. No, he's not a right winger, and he's to the left of Stalin himself, but he was right. Why apologize? Because, like his right-wing counterparts, he's not sincere about what he says.

I sometimes wonder if the "right wingers" aren't doing their best to destroy what's left of the old classical liberals and paleo conservatives. Both Rush and Lott have marginalized the libertarian leaning conservatives and constantly promote collectivist ideas, passing them off as inherently conservative. Wasn't it democrat FDR who brought us so many of the welfare programs Rush and other republicans are today legitimizing?

And then there are the folks who should actually apologize. Like President Bush for insance who is responsible for the deaths of around 30,000 Iraqi civilians, killed due to false pretext. Will it ever happen? It's about as likely as the U.S. ever withdrawing troops from the more than 190 countries in which they are stationed.

Help!!!! I'm talking and I can't shut up! .....stay tuned....

Aug 22, 2005

LP Party results?

One thing that has always troubled me about the national and local Libertarian party organizations is the lack of office-holder tracking that occurs.

The party exclaims that there are over 300 libertarian office holders and occassionaly we get some great stories about their exploits in office, but there is no clearing house of information regarding what results are obtained by LP elected officials. Granted, some of these office holders are in so-called non-partisan offices. However, in more than one case, I have heard of libertarian office holders pushing to abolish the office, saving taxpayers thousands of dollars.

These sorts of stories need to be shouted from the rooftops.

The problem with most politicians is that they rarely, if ever, deliver on their promises, and if they do, the promises themselves are egregious violations of personal liberty.

It is my opinion that the LP would grow by leaps and bounds if only their elected officials' exploits were properly publicised. Protests and lawsuits are merely activism that will come to fruition at a later date, if ever. What have you done for me lately?

Aug 19, 2005

Home of the Unfree

Claire Wolf reminds me of one of my pet peeves. The entry there talks about a restaraunt in S. Korea which serves dog to those who have a taste for it. She mentions how some countries, put on the list of "oppressive" regimes are probably more free than the U.S. when it comes to personal choice.

I made a trip to Mexico a couple of years ago and was astounded at the number of unlicensed street vendors and businesses in Mexico City. Try that in any U.S. city.

Remember Iraq when it was run by an evil dictator? Virtually every citizen in that country had a fully automatic AK-47, not the phony SKS knockoffs we have access to in this country. By phony, I mean semi-automatic. What was the first thing U.S. forces started doing after "hostilities" were over? Why, going door to door, confiscating those firearms and dictating that any given family could only posess one firearm - a semi-automatic handgun or revolver.

That's how you spread freedom around the globe isn't it? Try obtaining a full-auto AK-47 in your fair city. Let me know how it works out.

Try smoking within the walls of a restaraunt in any major metropolitan area of the U.S. Chances are, you'll be either run out or ticketed or both.

In Europe, you'll find cats and dogs in any given bar or restaraunt. Cats are cheap pest control (and far less toxic than the chemicals used here in the U.S. to erradicate pests) and dogs are just pleasant to be around. I can't tell you how many times I saw a dog sitting on a barstool while visiting Scandanavia.

Think you'll see that in this "free" country? Not unless it's your dad's makeshift bar in his garage. We have healthcodes here. Security and safety are far more important than your freedoms.

Christianity, religion of peace?

Ever wonder why the right isn't as hard on Christianity or Judaism as it is on Islam? How many times have you heard some right-wing nutcase bash Muslims because they have been broad-brushed as being terrorists merely because they are Muslims?

What aboutDennis Rader?

Do we get to apply the same faulty logic used by those shilling for the War Party? Rader sexually molested an 11-year-old girl before hanging her in a basement. He had just previously murdered the rest of her family.

He also just happened to be the leader of his Christian Church. Christianity: religion of peace.....

Aug 18, 2005

Imagine that: Israeli soldiers and police treat Israelis nicer than Palestinians

Who would have guessed? Obviously not the reporter who wrote this:
But the eviction operation over the past two days showed a soft face of the army that is unfamiliar to outsiders. They refused to rise to the bait of the worst verbal attacks -- epithets such as "Nazi" and "terrorist" were common -- and showed restraint and even tenderness toward their abusers
The fact that their abusers weren't Arabs didn't have anything to do with it. Israeli soldiers and police have just coincidentally and recently turned over a new leaf.

Typical Government: "Oops I killed another innocent citizen again!"

Well here we go again. Rush and a whole host of apologists for the global police state claimed that Jean-Charles de Menezes, shot at point-blank range by British police back in July, was "running from police" and wearing a "heavy coat" (obviously suspicious to any patriotic person).

The media reported this and quite a few talk show hosts ran with it as if it were absolutely true. Here in Austin, the terminally brain dead Sgt. Sam, part of the KLBJ AM morning radio crew, fell all over himself to justify the slaying.

At the time, the commissioner of police in London said that the shooting was "directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation." That makes it perfectly legit. Just ask the drug-addict Rush Limbaugh.

Well surprise, surprise!

Turns out that not only was Menezes not running from police when he was approached by police, he also was not wearing a heavy coat - the justification offered after police shot him in the head 7 times! (and one more time in the arm for good measure). It's a miracle the police firing didn't end up shooting each other given the obvious panic that was occurring at the time of this murder.

The current estimate for completion of an official investigation? Three years! Don't let it be said that justice is served slowly. Oh, sorry, that's assuming that justice is ever served in this case. Let me predict here and now that no government official will ever be prosecuted for an obvious case of murder under color of law.

Lon Horiuchi was protected for 10 years until an appeals court finally ruled that he was "just following orders" when he shot Vicki Weaver in the head while she was holding her 10 month-old, still nursing baby. Don't let it bother you that FBI agents the next morning were shouting over loudspeakers "Good morning, Mrs Weaver! What's for breakfast!"

After all, it is for your own good. George Bush and Tony Blair are making sure we're safe from terrorists.....that is, the non-badge wearing, dark-skinned terrorists.

The institutionalized terrorists are still roaming the streets and murdering us. Think it will ever be time to shoot back?