Friday, January 03, 2003


Parenting just got easier

"The US Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) said on Friday that it has approved Eli Lilly & Co.'s Prozac (fluoxetine) to treat depression and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) in children and adolescents aged seven to 17 years."

"Side effects associated with Prozac use among children and adolescents were similar to those observed in adults and included nausea, tiredness, nervousness, dizziness and difficulty concentrating."

"The FDA noted that in one of the clinical studies, after 19 weeks of treatment with Prozac, children gained, on average, about 1.1 cm less in height (about a half an inch) and about one kilogram less in weight (about two pounds) compared with children treated with a placebo. According to the agency, "the clinical significance of this observation on long-term growth is unknown."

Why don't we go ahead and approve tranquilizers for kids? I mean, if just sitting them down in front of a TV doesn't keep them quiet then we gotta do something don't we?

Oh, they'll be a little shorter and weaker than the average kid but they'll have artificially aided SELF ESTEEM!

Prozac, ritalin...what in the world are we doing to our children. How about spending time with them, getting involved in their lives, making sure they spend enough time outdoors, taking them to church? A little discipline perhaps? These things seemed to work OK when I was growing up.

Parents may have occasionally medicated themselves but at least they didn't try drugging their children to make them behave. But not now, we can't spank a kid because that's abusive, but we can make them take drugs to sedate them. Hell, when I was a kid, my mother would have to pry my mouth open to take allergy pill.

The less artificial additives we put into our kids, the better off they'll end up.


Al Sharpton, the lying, racist scum, wants your vote

"I am running for president to finally put the issues concerning most Americans on to the front burner," the 48-year-old civil rights activist said in a statement.
He expects to file papers with the Federal Elections Committee on Jan. 21, spokeswoman Rachel Noerdlinger said."

No, Al. You are running to put the issues concerning most big-government loving, racist pimps on the front burner (and to line your filty pockets).

"I'm qualified, probably more qualified than any other person who is expected to be on the Democratic ticket for 2004, because I actually have a following and I speak for the people," said Sharpton, who has never held public office."

Sharpton isn't qualified to sell subway passes much less be the cheif executive of the most powerful country in the world.

I think this is great for the Democrats though. What a stable of candidates they have "Gebhart", Daschle (probably), Sharpton...maybe they can get Walter Mondale to run again...hey, Hubert Humphrey hasn't been dead that long - maybe they can put some make-up on him and stick him in front of the camera. He'd make a hell of a lot better leader than Sharpton.


Victor Davis Hanson at NRO talks about why charity to killers doesn't work:

"True, the so-called masses of the Middle East have grounds for redress — who wouldn't without elections, free speech, sexual equality, religious tolerance, or the rule of law? But their want arises largely from self-created failures and runs the gamut of tribalism, corruption, fanaticism, and frequent apartheid of women and non-Muslims — not a lack of dollars and euros. The depressing ruins that are now a large part of Kabul, Beirut, and Cairo or the moral black holes of Teheran, Riyadh, Damascus, and Baghdad were the dividends of indigenous Middle Eastern genius, not of outside Western machinations. Promoting democracy, not handing out food, practicing appeasement, or tolerating suicide bombing, will do far more for the disenfranchised on the West Bank."

"Tragically, evil states and cabals always exist; and they sometimes have only contempt for more moral peoples who choose not to use their superior power that might entail messy wars. Had we offered still more charity, the Arab street might have appreciated such generosity about as much as the Jordanians and Egyptians now show gratitude for billions in American debt relief, grain, and military assets or our past salvation of Islamic Afghans, Kuwaitis, Somalis, Kosovars, and Bosnians."

Thursday, January 02, 2003


TED RALL is always good for a laugh:

"A Presidential Impostor Turns Political Assassin"

"NEW YORK--First he appointed himself President. Now George W. Bush has declared himself God."

Golly Ted, I musta missed that one. Neato!

"As Americans begin their third year of Supreme Court-ordered political occupation, Bush has just signed an impressive new executive order. You may be surprised to learn that it grants him the right to order your execution. No judge, jury or lawyer. No chance to prove your innocence. One stroke of Bush's pen, and bang--you're dead."

Yes, Teddy, the Ashcroft stormtrooper brigades have you high on the list. We are aware of your subversive anti-state activities. Better keep your rearview mirrors tilted up towards the sky 'cause those black helicopters are awful quiet.

"Not even your American citizenship, according to Bush, will save your life if and when he decides to kill you. The only reason you're reading this right now--instead of meeting the Entity Formerly Known as God--is that neither Bush nor one of his "high-level officials" has yet signed a piece of paper declaring you an "enemy combatant." Once they do the paperwork, Administration officials assert, they have the right to murder you."

No the only reason I'm reading this right now is because I'm bored and knew that I can always drop by your website for a quick laugh. The only thing you are in danger of, dear asswipe, is the orderlies from the mental institution finding out where you're hiding now that you've escaped.

Please, please, please go take a ride in the Yemeni desert with some terrorists so we can watch your charred remains smoking in the burned out vehicle after one of Bush's "high-level officials" declares you an "enemy combatant"! But let me know first, I want to be sure I catch the video on TIVO...I'm really busy out there setting up the new police state. After all, you're far from alone on our list, numbnuts.


Charles Johnson points us to this story:

"Massoud Mahlouf Elon, a resident of Moshav Menahemya, regularly traveled to the Israeli-Arab village of Tubas - where his abandoned vehicle was found Thursday - to hand out clothes to the children who live there, his son Yaacov told Israel Radio."

"A flyer issued Thursday morning by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed that one of its members shot and killed an Israeli in the Jordan Valley. The pamphlet said the group was avenging the killing of one of its members by IDF soldiers several months ago in the West Bank village of Tamun."

They kill Christians attending church services, they kill Christians running hospitals, they kill Jews doing charity work - the religion of peace? Maybe PBS thinks so, but I call them something else - the enemy.

Not all Muslims are my enemies. I know an especially wonderful Muslim girl of whom I particularly fond; but she isn't a fundamentalist maniac. She's an American. But these lunatics who believe that God will reward them for killing Jews - they are all my enemies and must be the enemies of all civilized human beings.

We are told by the Hollywood glitterati and the root cause leftists that we must try to understand them. If only we would build schools and bridges and hospitals for them then we could all live in harmony. They tell us we must apologize to the world for our sinful American heritage and then we will earn redemption. Fortunately we have a president in the White House who relies on common sense rather than psycho-babble claptrap.

I will not apologize for being a proud and patriotic American; I will not apologize for calling these monsters our enemies. As Charles Johnson and so many others do, I will continue to view the world with open eyes and call for action against the radical Islamic nationalists who threaten America, Israel and our allies. Someday Patty Murray, David Bonior, Charles Rangle and Cynthia McKinney will get it (I hope).


Republican's can't fall for Charles Rangel's gutter politics and support his call for reinstituting the draft. I know that some sort of mandatory public service is has been popular in conservative circles as a way to increase civic pride and patriotism, but this is a terrible idea.

You have to give Rangle credit though; with this proposal he manages to combine two of the Democratic parties big themes: It's all about RACE! and STOP THE BLOODTHIRSTY IMPERIALIST PIG BUSH!

It must be insulting to the men and women in the armed services for a US Representative to imply that they enlisted because they were poor and had no other options in life. It stinks of the same old, "You can't advocate war unless you've fought in one" argument.

It would be fun to draft some of the anti-globalisation protesters though and run them through basic training. I bet it would be a real eye-opener for those snot-nosed whiners.

Hamas - Al-Qaeda Ties

Evan Kohlmann writes at NRO:

"As the result of an extensive, decade-long federal investigation, former U.S. resident Musa Abu Marzook, also the acknowledged "political bureau" chief of the Palestinian Hamas terrorist organization since 1991, has been indicted along with several other Palestinian Americans for repeated and deliberate violations of U.S. export regulations and the material-support provisions of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). While living as a U.S. resident during the mid-1990s, Abu Marzook also had a series of disturbing connections through family and personal associates to a known al Qaeda activist living in the U.S. named Ziyad Helmi Khaleel."

I think we'll eventually discover that all of the Palestian/Islamic terrorist groups are loosely affilliated. Aid to one indirectly aids all of them.

Wednesday, January 01, 2003



The United States doesn't import that much of its current oil supplies from Iraq. According to the Department of Energy, the US imported approximately 290 million barrels of oil from Iraq out of 3,404 million barrels of total imports in 2001 This represents about 8.5% of imported oil or 4.5% of total US demand. Mexico (508m), Canada (495m), Venezuela (471m) and Nigeria (307m) all exported more petroleum to the US.

An increase in Iraqi production would reduce world oil prices, but then again, so would the opening of ANWR to new exploration. It is estimated that ANWR has between 5,700 million to 16,000 million recoverable barrels of oil. It would be much less expensive (essentially it would cost nothing) for the US to allow ANWR production than to wage a war against Iraq which has been estimated to cost anywhere between 60 billion to 200 billion dollars.

It has been widely speculated that the US had to agree to respect Iraqi oil contracts with the French and Russians in exchange for their support in the Security Council. If that is indeed the case, there doesn't seem to be very much immediate interest for US energy companies. Additionally, the export of oil is almost the only way revenue can be generated for rebuilding Iraqi society. Since the administration appears to be committed to building a democratic post-war Iraq, it would be counterproductive to siphon off oil industry profits to privite US interests when the funds would inevitably have to be replaced by American taxpayer money (also not very politically savvy).

It is true that oil plays a primary role in strategic US thinking in the Gulf. The prospect of a sadistic dictator possessing nuclear weapons which he could use to intimidate his neighbors, where two-thirds of the world's known petroleum reserves lie, is not one America or the rest of the industrialized world can afford to ignore. After all, the oil reserves of his neighbors are no more for Saddam to control that they are for America, but control them he will if he is allowed to develop nukes.

His attack of Kuwait proved that he would use force to gain control of the world petroleum supply and he might not have failed if Iraq had possessed nuclear weapons at the time.


Its hard to understand how the "Arab street" could hate us more. The Saudis have funded madrassas all across the Muslim world which teach the hatred of Jews and "Crusaders"; it isn't going to get worse be cause we take out Saddam.

In fact, the Afghan people seem to be pretty happy that we rid them of the Taliban and have troops there to keep rival warlords from running amok. Afghan women can now leave their homes and attend school. This will cause resentment from the Islamic fundamentalists, but they already hate us and nothing we can do (short of converting to Islam) is going to change that. And besides, it is this sort of ignorance, intolerance and racism that we are fighting against; you don't defeat your enemies by becoming like them.


The war against al-Qaida is not going to flare into conventional military operations very often. Since the fall of the Taliban, the fight has mostly been waged by international law enforcement and intellegence agencies. We aren't going to send in an army division or a carrier task force to take out five terrorists in Yemen; a single Predator does the job just fine.

Regardless of what the anti-war crowd claims, al-Qaida is linked to other terrorist organisations. They share the same philosophy and hatred of the US and Israel and all places not-Muslim. Saddam is funding suicide bombers in Israel with cash bounties to their families (while children in his country are denied proper nutrition and medicine by the way) and it won't stop until he is removed. Hamas and Hezbollah are our enemies just as much as al-Qaida.


This is one of the dumbest arguments that is made against action. If we made some policy mistakes in the past, it is hardly a reason not to rectify the situation now.

The CIA helped the Afghans repell a Soviet invasion. We were on the right side of that struggle. Another instance where we helped a Muslim nation and get no credit for it.


The ICC is not only a terrible idea but it violates the US Constitution. Without the participation of the developing world, Kyoto is an ineffective joke that NEVER would have been ratified by the US Senate (oops, there goes that bothersome Constitution getting in the way again).

There is no doubt that we have to cut down on carbon emmissions over the long run. There is quite a bit of doubt as to whether the Kyoto treaty is the most effective way of approaching the problem. We do know, however, that it would be a very expensive approach for the US economy.

At a time when the world needs the US to be strong (whether they admit it or not) it would not be a good idea to lump on the costs of Kyoto to cripple the US economy.

Besides, since when are majorities always right? Just because the EU and Japan disagree with us, does that make us wrong? The adminstration still has a responsibility to attend to US interests first and regardless of what they say, every other nation does the same thing. In these two instances we perceive our interests to be in conflict with theirs...so what.


So, the solution is to bribe people, then they will like us!

According to The Heritage Foundation: "(t)hroughout the past 50 years, the United States has given more than $500 billion in foreign assistance to less-developed countries. Yet the people in many of these countries are no better off today in terms of per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) than they were decades ago; some, in fact, are actually poorer."

That number only includes government foreign aid. Oh...wait, Islamofacists kill Christian hospital workers when they volunteer in the middle east (see Yemen)...I guess Christian charity doesn't count.


The official stance of the United States is that the Palestinians should have a state of their own on the West Bank. All the Bush administration is asking is that they present an honest negotiator/leader and cease strapping themselves with poison nail spiked explosives and blowing themselves up in Israeli shopping malls. That's a pretty low bar to set for statehood. Especially considering that the West Bank belonged to Jordan before 1967 (when they joined in an attack on Israel with other Arab countries) and Jordan IS a majority Palestinian state.

Frankly the Kurds have a much larger grievance against the Iraqis, Turks and Iranians than the Palestinians do against the Israelis.

I know that 5, 6, and 7 aren't arguments against war (but rather "why they hate us") but they are always trotted out by the anti-American left so I left them in.

Saddam missed his chance to stay in power by complying with the terms of the Gulf War cease fire agreement. He should have been removed after the attempted assassination of ex-president Bush in 1993. Again he gave us ample reason to take decisive action in 94 when Hussein Kamel revealed the extent of the hidden WMD programs and in 98 when he expelled UN inspectors.

Diplomacy has been tried and it has failed. Unless Hussein voluntarily steps down or is removed by coup military action is unavoidable.

Tuesday, December 31, 2002

Sand in the Gears has an opinion about the US role in the world (via Instapundit):

"So to answer your question, no, we aren't the world's policeman, but when there are people out there who want to kill me and my children, and they are actively seeking the means to do so, then my personal philosophy is that you kill them and everything within a ten-mile radius of them, post freaking haste. And if the U.N. doesn't like it, they can pack their louse-filled bags and hold their busy little seminars on gender inequality and structural racism on somebody else's dime. Since you asked, I mean."

Read it. It will make your day!

Silflay Hraka makes this observation:

"In other words, until potential human life becomes actual human life, current law allows a woman to do whatever she likes with her own cells. Not allowing me to do the same is discriminatory, even if what I do is grow a 19 week old fetus, then harvest it for its organs."
"Not that I would do that, though I suspect you might get a different answer when I'm 80 and need a new bladder. Even then I would think that we would have the ability to grow organs without having to wrap them in a fetus, but that will likely depend on how far the science has advanced, and if Pat Robertson and his cronies have their way, I'll have to piss my undies like the oldsters do now."

Growing a "19 week old fetus, then harvest(ing) it for its organs"? And for what - so you can pee better when you're 80?

No thanks. A future where we grow humans and then terminate their lives to extend the lives of others (their "owners") is too horrifying to contemplate. And I WILL still maintain that human cloning is wrong even when on my deathbed in need of a heart transplant.

Monday, December 30, 2002


Joe Biden believes that North Korea is a more immediate threat than Iraq. But a threat to do what? Attack the South? Nuke Japan? And if it is a larger threat then what do we do? Put off dealing with Iraq while we attack North Korea?

See Den Beste (preceeding post) for the answers.

Of course Joe also thought that national missle defense was a bad idea back in March 1999:

"What are we doing here today? We are debating what I believe to be a political document, not a substantive piece of legislation that adds anything to the concept of what our strategic doctrine should be. We are saying that Taepo Dong missiles in the next 1 to 5 years -- the Koreans may be able to get up to five of them -- may be able to hit the United States, assuming the regime in North Korea lasts that long or outlives the research that would be required to get this done. We are talking about building a thin nuclear defense system to counter that immediate threat and future threats from Iran, Iraq, and other rogue states, and we are talking about it in almost total disregard of what impact it will have upon the ABM Treaty. "

Hmm, North Korea, Iran and Iraq...the "Axis of Evil"? In early 1999 we were debating this issue and Biden was arguing that the threat was insignificant in comparison the the damage to the ABM treaty. And later in the same document:

"Let me make one more point. You may say, “Well, Biden, what does the ABM Treaty have to do with the START agreement and reducing these nuclear weapons?” Well, there are two kinds of truisms in this nuclear theology. One is, if you are incapable of building a missile shield, and you think the other side might build one, then there is only one thing you can do: build more missiles to overwhelm the defense system. That is axiomatic, it is cheaper, it is consistent with old-line policy, and it is doable. At a minimum, you would say, don't destroy the number of weapons you have."

Or, Biden, you might talk to the Russians and persuade them to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles while the US goes forward with anti-ballistic missle research as the President has done. Neat trick don't you think, Senator?

And yet later:

"Thus, an article in Sunday’s Washington Post noted that North Korea has already offered to cease exporting its missile technology in return for only one billion dollars."

"We rejected that proposal, and I think we can get that deal for a lower price. But we should remember our experience in negotiating access to that suspect underground site in North Korea. In this time of famine, North Korea would settle for food aid instead of cash. And a billion dollars spent on food aid goes to American farmers, rather than to North Korean weapons."

Wrong again Joe. We tried bribing them and it didn't work. Any more great suggestions about how to proceed?

USS Clueless on the North Koreans:

"One analyst in South Korea that I read about speculates that the real reason that North Korea is creating a crisis now is because it hopes to take advantage of America's preoccupation with Iraq. By banging on its cage bars now, it hopes that the US can be panicked into making a quick agreement with North Korea, or that US allies can be panicked into bringing pressure to bear on the US for such a quick agreement."

"It is a truism of negotiations that if one party is up against a deadline and the other is not, the one in a hurry is at a disadvantage. So it is frustrating the North Koreans mightily that the US government refuses to even talk to them, and shows no sign that it considers the situation urgent."

"Most of the announcements made by various US government officials recently have been intending primarily to indicate to the North Korean government that we're not impressed by what they've been doing the last few days, and that we're not going to be rushed into making a foolish deal with them. That is exactly the right message to be sending to North Korea right now, and I'm glad that's what our government is actually doing."

Den Beste, as usual, is on target in this post.

The North Koreans have no real leverage in this situation. They were taught, by their negotiations with the Clinton Administration, that when pressured, the US will grant concessions to avoid the prospect of a nuclear armed NK. But since it is already accepted that the North has one or two nukes, what is the crisis for the Bush Administration?

It will be some time before the plutonium can be processed to assemble more nukes. If we put a really tight embargo in place, Kim Jong-Il won't last long enough to make any more. Besides, as Steven also points out, if the North were to use a nuke against any target for any reason, its leaders (along with a huge number of unfortunate nearby citizens) would be incinerated. Assuming that Kim is not completely delusional (and this is where it gets tricky) he knows this and therefore cannot contemplate the use of his nukes.

If the utility of nuclear weapons is limited for the North, why did they make the sacrificies to its economy necessary to develop them? One can only assume that the North Korean dictatorship mistakenly believed that an invasion from the South was a real possibility and that only the possession of a nuclear deterrent could stop it.

Given where we are, the Bush and Powell are handling the situation quite correctly. This will only become a grave crisis if we panic and let the North Koreans dictate the agenda.


Daniel Pipes asks why PBS is glorifying Islam:

"Other apologetics are more consequential. What Muhammad did for women, viewers learn, was "amazing" - his condemning female infanticide, giving legal rights to wives, permitting divorce, and protecting their inheritance rights. But no commentator is so impolite as to note that however admirable this was in the seventh century, Muslim women today suffer widely from genital mutilation, forced marriages, purdah, illiteracy, sexual apartheid, polygamy, and honor killings."

"The film treats religious beliefs - such as Muhammad's "Night Journey," when the Qur'an says he went to heaven and entered the divine presence - as historical facts. Muslim wars are presented as only defensive and reluctant. All this smacks of a film shown by missionaries, not a prime-time documentary."

"Move to the present and the political correctness is stifling. Hostility is said to be "hurled" at American Muslims since 9/11 - but there's no mention about the prior and vastly greater Muslim hostility "hurled" at Americans, killing several thousand. The narrator exaggerates the number of American Muslims, overestimates their rate of growth, and wrongly states they are the country's "most diverse" religious community."

"But these are details. "Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet" is an outrage on two main counts. First, PBS has betrayed its viewers by presenting an air-brushed and uncritical documentary of a topic that has both world historical and contemporary significance. Its patronizing film might be fine for an Islamic Sunday school class (the Philadelphia Inquirer calls the film a "blessed opportunity for rest and reflection"), but not for a national audience."

"For example, PBS ignores an ongoing scholarly reassessment of Muhammad's life that disputes every detail - down to the century and region Muhammad lived in - of its film. This silence is especially odd when contrasted with the 1998 PBS documentary, "From Jesus to Christ," which focuses almost exclusively on the work of cutting-edge scholars and presents the latest in critical thinking on Jesus."

"Second, the U.S. government must never fund a documentary whose obvious intent is to glorify a religion and proselytize for it. Doing so flies in the face of every American tradition, custom, norm, law, and regulation. On behalf of taxpayers, a public-interest law firm should bring suit against the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, both to address this week's travesty and to win an injunction against any possible repetitions."

If you inserted "Christianity" for "Islam" and "Jesus" for "Muhammad" in the documentary what would have been the reaction from the ACLU and other groups who champion separation between church and state? Contrast PBS's treatment of Islam with the Christmas Eve broadcast on NPR of a segment about the view of Christ in OTHER religions (I commented on this in an earlier post). NPR presented the view of "some" Hindu scholars that Christ did not die on the cross but travelled to India later in life.

This is the problem with public funding of television and brodcast programming (or artwork for that matter) - it grants the material an imprimatur which is not within the power of government to give.

If PBS or NPR want to flack for Islam or against Chritianity that's fine with me as long as they don't reach into my pocket to finance this trash.


OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today makes this note about Senator Murray:

"Murray's remarks, incidentally, probably reflect stupidity more than a genuine animus toward America. In the Washingtonian magazine's annual survey of Capitol Hill staffers, conducted several months ago, Murray placed first among senators in the "No Rocket Scientist" category, edging out Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) and Rick Santorum (R., Pa.)."

Yeah, I'd kind of figured that out by now.


The Washington Times reports:

"Frightened Christians yesterday stayed away from services in this tiny Pakistani village, where a Christmas Day attack killed three girls and wounded 13 others. Many said they were too traumatized to return to their church."
"There are no Sunday services in the church because people can't bring themselves to visit it," said the Rev. Rehmat Asim, head of the Protestant congregation, outside his simple, cottage-sized church. "They're in shock."
"Two assailants in burkas, the all-encompassing garment worn by women in some Islamic countries, burst into the white cement church on Christmas Day and tossed grenades at about 40 worshippers. Blood still stains the floors and walls."

When will America and (especially) Europe wake up to the real motive behind the Islamo-terrorists - religious hatred?


Apparently Abid Abdulrazzaq al-Kami doesn't know that he is supposed to love Americans when they do nice things:

"Authorities were questioning a suspected Islamic extremist who allegedly shot dead three U.S. humanitarian workers and wounded a fourth at a missionary hospital in southern Yemen, the U.S. ambassador to Yemen told CNN.

Shortly after the attacks, the suspect, Abid Abdulrazzaq al-Kamil, 30, told authorities he did it "to get closer to God," but the motive for the shootings remained unclear, said Faris al-Sanabani, a Yemeni journalist."

"Authorities aren't sure whether the gunman acted alone and are probing al-Kamil's background, al-Sanabani said."

"Yemeni sources said the gunman "was unhappy with the activities of medical personnel" at the hospital, said U.S. Ambassador Edmund J. Hull."

Maybe Senator Patty Murray needs to go to Yemen and explain to these people that hospital workers are trying to HELP THEM. Or maybe she should just wake up and understand that radical Islam doesn't WANT our help, they want us to CONVERT TO ISLAM OR DIE.


I read, with some amusement, a story in the Dallas Morning News this weekend regarding the presence of American troops in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

The thrust of the report, featuring several quotes from locals, was that Kandahar (the former Taliban stronghold) was a much safer place since the Americans showed up. The citizens commented that US troops had not interfered in the practice of their religion (Islam) in any way. They also noted that rival warlords were much less likely to cause trouble with the Americans around. Summing it up one local stated that he liked having the troops in his town and thought that they would be needed for a long time to insure stability until the Afghan government could train security forces of its own.

Hmmm. Isn't this exactly the opposite outcome predicted by chicken little's like Chomsky and Fisk? Aren't the Afghan people supposed to be enraged at US troops for the massive civilian casualties that were assummed to have taken place during the war? Don't they beat up and shoot at white men like Booby Fisk because of their rage and envy of us? Chomsky stated that the US government was planning the Afghan campaign under the assumption that mass genocide would occur; he predicted a humanitarian disaster. I guess he was a little bit off, huh?

Once again the Conspiracy Theory Idiotarians of the Far Left prove that their anti-capitalist, anti-US bias prevents them from making anything resembling a cogent analysis of current events. When will they admit that they've been terribly, terribly wrong?

I'm not holding my breath.

Tim Blair fact checks the Slovenly Stooge in his editorial in The Australian (MooreAlert via Instapundit):

"A mind given to conspiracy theories might conclude that an element of cover-up is involved. For the record, and because you apparently won't read it elsewhere in the Australian press, here is a brief list of things believed wrong about Columbine, from sources ranging from Salon.com and Forbes to London's Sunday Times (these and more may be found at www.moorewatch.com):"

"* The title refers to two teenagers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who shot up Columbine High School in 1999, killing 13 people and themselves. Moore asserts that they went bowling on the morning of the massacre. Police now say they did not.
* Moore shows a television ad for the 1988 Bush/Quayle presidential campaign targeting the "revolving door" prison system run by Michael Dukakis in Massachusetts. Superimposed on the ad, as though there originally, are the words: "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." Moore added that line, which in any case is wrong; Horton didn't kill, but raped a woman while released.
* Moore theorises that the Columbine killers were inclined towards murder because their town is home to a Lockheed-Martin weapon-making facility. The plant in question actually builds devices that launch TV satellites.
* Moore implies that the US-led bombing of Kosovo on the morning of the killings possibly motivated Klebold and Harris. He doesn't mention their alleged Nazi fixation, or that they killed their classmates and teachers on Hitler's birthday.
* A graphic superimposed over footage of the second jet slicing into the World Trade Centre reads: "Sept. 11, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to kill 3000 Americans." Sure, Mike. Moore wrote the day after the attack that the victims "did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him . . . Why kill them?" Soon afterwards he deleted these words from his website.
* Although his film is about US gun violence, Moore avoids speaking to any black victims of gun violence ? in a society where 55 per cent of gun murder victims are black."

"* Columbine spends much time praising peaceful, multicultural Canada, where everybody leaves their doors unlocked and nobody shoots each other. Moore doesn't mention 1989's Ecole Polytechnique massacre in Montreal, when gunman Marc Lepine killed 14 women due to his hatred of feminists."

"* Moore largely dodges the issue of gun crime in cities, where 70 per cent of US gun murders occur. A crime of the type that took place in Columbine (more than five dead in a mostly white suburban area) represented less than one-tenth of one per cent of murders in 1999.
* Moore claims that the US provided tens of millions worth of aid dollars to Afghanistan's Taliban rulers in 2000-01. That money was provided for famine relief and was distributed by the UN and non-government organisations."

"No wonder Moore is so popular in France, where Thierry Meyssan's book Effroyable Imposture (which argued that September 11 was engineered by the American government) became a bestseller."

It has been well established in the blogosphere that "Columbine" is a shameless piece of anti-gun propaganda. Moore time and again crosses over the line from advocacy to outright fabrication.

The problem with this piece of garbage is that it is still being reviewed uncritically in the mainstream media. This is understandable in FRANCE where, as Blair points out, a substantial portion of the book-buying public gives creedence to the theory that the American government was responsible for 9/11. What I don't understand is why people in more sane societies like Australia and the US itself still view Moore's work as a "documentary".

All of this noise is being created over what...around 16,000 gun related deaths per year in a country of 275,000,000 residents? Granted any unnecessary death is a tragedy, but if you look at the numbers do they really suggest America is as violent as it's critics at home and abroad would have you believe?

And what kind of an idiot suggests that bombing in Kosovo was a "root cause" of the shootings? I agree wholeheartedly with Tim Blair..."Go to hell, Mikey."

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=