Sunday, July 31, 2005
Was it absolutely necessary to raze two cities populated mostly by children, women, and old people?
Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese Second Army and about 10,000 of the dead were Japanese soldiers.
The bomb had no military justification; the defeat of Japan was a fact and its unconditional surrender was a question of a few months...The new artefact contained a message of world power...whose real addressee was the Soviet Union...The United States wanted to show that it had the bomb and that it was willing to use it without moral reservations, without limits, without the brake of pity. Why did the United States choose the cruelest option?
In summer 1945, American casualties were about 1000 a day, 7000 a week, 30,000 a month. The sooner the war ended, the fewer Americans would die. The American government's goal was therefore quite obviously to end the war as soon as possible, not "in a few months."
Japan was clearly defeated after the battle of Midway in 1942, but was unwilling to surrender. Instead, it fought on for three more years, and it wanted to fight to the death. Japan had 10,000 kamikaze planes, 2,350,000 trained troops, and a civilian militia of 28 million armed with bows and arrows, spears, and muzzle-loading muskets ready to resist the Americans. No Japanese force, not even a single battalion, ever surrendered to the Americans during the whole war until its very end. As late as August 9, 1945, after the bombing of Nagasaki, the Japanese inner cabinet (the "Big Six") was split three-to-three on surrender and Hirohito finally broke the tie. This was the very first time surrender was even considered.
Conventional bombing was not going to make Japan surrender. We had hit their sixty largest cities beginning in February 1945 and pretty much burned them out, and we created a firestorm in Tokyo that killed more than 100,000 people on the night of March 9, 1945, more than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
The number of people killed if America had invaded Japan, which it planned to do in two stages, an invasion of Kyushu in November 1945 and then a final assault on Tokyo in March 1946, while the British invaded the Malay Peninsula and retook Malaya and Singapore in November 1945, would have dwarfed the number of victims of the atomic bomb. We now know that the Japanese anticipated the Kyushu invasion and had fourteen divisions on the island. The US military estimated that there would have been 100,000 American casualties in the landings, and these calculations were based on fighting only three Japanese divisions, which is what we thought they had on Kyushu. It's more likely that American casualties would have been on the order of several hundred thousand, and if we had had to invade Honshu, over a million. The American planners assumed that fighting in Japan itself would have been like fighting on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the most horrible battles fought in modern history. At Okinawa we lost 12,500 dead and the Japanese lost 185,000 dead, half civilians. More than a million Japanese would certainly have been killed in an American invasion.
Meanwhile, the Americans had wiped out Japan's merchant fleet, as the Japanese had no concept of submarine warfare. And what we learned in Germany, after years of trial and error, is that the best bombing targets are railroad junctions. The plan was to hit a dozen key bridges and about fifty key railway yards and junctions along the Pacific coast of Honshu and destroy Japan's capacity to transport food. Tokyo, for example, produced only 3% of the food it needed. With no ships or trains to deliver food, literally millions of Japanese civilians would have died within a few weeks--they were already down to rations of fewer than 1500 calories a day--and the country would have been completely destroyed. And we were planning to use chemical warfare on their rice crop, if necessary, as well as poison gas. There would be no Japan today.
As for charges that the Americans were trying to scare the Soviets, the answer is quite simply no. They were trying to put an end to the war. The Soviets already knew we had the atomic bomb, as the Klaus Fuchs spy ring had kept Stalin informed.
To quote Richard Frank, "The atomic bomb was the least abhorrent choice." And to quote Paul Fussell, "Thank God for the atom bomb."
I'm not sure whether Carter is evil or just extremely stupid. I think both, but that's just me.
You think this guy is pro-democracy and anti-terrorist? I certainly don't. As a matter of fact, I think he is despicable. And I am amazed that he didn't fuck up our country a lot more than he managed to do.
Possibly the greatest thing that happened in American history after the victory in World War II was Reagan's defeat of Carter in the 1980 election, when the American people convincingly repudiated the weak and irresponsible Carter. As an incumbent President, he was only able to swing 44% of the vote, the most pathetic showing for an incumbent since William Howard Taft had to run against both Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson in 1912.
Look at these very recent quotes from Carter.
BIRMINGHAM, England — Former President Jimmy Carter said Saturday the detention of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval base was an embarrassment and had given extremists an excuse to attack the United States.
Carter also criticized the U.S.-led war in Iraq as "unnecessary and unjust."
"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," he told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England.
"I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."
"What has happened at Guantanamo Bay ... does not represent the will of the American people," Carter said. "I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people."
Carter, who won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war.
"I thought then, and I think now, that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and unjust. And I think the premises on which it was launched were false," he said Saturday.
Gee, I dunno, but that sounds like sabotaging the war effort to me, not to mention insulting the President, the Congress, and the military. By far the worst thing, of course, is calling the President a liar with zero evidence. Sounds like Jimmy wants America to lose. Typical. What a piece of shit Carter is.
By the way, I figure that winning the Nobel prize for Peace or Literature is an excellent sign that you are a complete asshole. If you can't find anyone better to honor than Jimmy Carter, Dario Fo, Jose Saramago, Rigoberta Menchu, or that dumb Costa Rican president, whoever he was, it's clear that the point is giving out money to leftists rather than actually honoring people who have made a contribution.
If I ever meet Carter I'll spit in his face, and he's probably too much of a pussy to take a swing at me. If he does I'll deck him and I hope they charge me with assault because that would give me a platform to prove in court that the bastard is a traitor. He is forty years older than me and it wouldn't be a fair fight, but who cares when it's Jimmy Carter. Of course, his bodyguards will drag me away, but it'll be worth it.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
I am shocked, disgusted, sickened, and angered.
These poor kids were hanged just for being homosexual. What a miscarriage of justice.
The Europeans constantly bash the Americans for executing some murderers, though they don't seem too outraged when Japan or India or Thailand or Malaysia or Jamaica or the Philippines(all democracies) does the same thing, and it's been years since I read a complaint about the way the Communist Chinese dictatorship hands out death sentences like they were popcorn. They spend pages and pages of newsprint calling us evil for toasting Ted Bundy and his ilk. And we're even worse because we very occasionally fry some bastard who did his evil deed while under 18.
Where is the European anger at this atrocity? The Iranian government hanged two kids under 18, not for murder, but for playing with one another's penises. Where is the outrage? Where are the calls for international sanctions against Iran? Where are the calls for the overthrow of such an evil regime?
The answer is there isn't any. They're saving it all up for the next time the Americans kill some terrorists. The difference in the number of pages in the Spanish press devoted to the poor Brazilian who was shot by the police in London and the two boys hanged in Iran is 100 to one. The difference in the rage shown against Middle Eastern crimes against humanity and Western attempts at self-defense is 1000 to one. Even after the Islamists murdered 192 people here in Spain just seventeen months ago.
I can't wait until Mumia Abu-Jamal has his date with the executioner. La Vanguardia will undoubtedly publish a special edition.
The Europeans are a bunch of fucking hypocrites, and the Spanish press is the worst.
Al Qaeda and Islamist national-fundamentalism must be destroyed.
Meanwhile, if you're an investor, here's where you ought to put your money. As soon as I get some this is where I'm going to put it.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Veteran reporter Helen Thomas, the "dean of the White House press corps," says she would not be able to live if Vice President Cheney were to run for the highest office.
"The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself," she told The Hill newspaper. "All we need is one more liar."
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
My mother's father's family comes from Bukovina in the old Austrian Empire and from Berlin. They're 100% German. The Berlin branch left town in 1848, showed up in Rock Island, Illinois, and then moved out to Ellis County in western Kansas. I assume their leaving had something to do with the 1848 revolution. There they met up with the Bukovina branch, who had originally come from Wurttemberg in southern Germany and moved out to Bukovina, now divided between Romania and Ukraine, in the early 1700s when it was part of the Austrian Military Frontier. That was mostly vacant land recently conquered from the Turks and repopulated with people from all over the old Hapsburg empire. The Bukovinians didn't get to Kansas until 1888. Those are the most recently immigrated ancestors we have.
My mother's mother's family were probably more victimized than victimizers. Half of them were poor white folks from Mississippi who moved out to West Texas after the Civil War. My I think great-great grandfather was a buck private in the Confederate army and got shot in the ankle at Antietam/Sharpsburg (in fighting near the Dunker church, for you Civil War buffs). He survived and then went AWOL, though it was cleared up and he was discharged. He was a soldier, no perpetrator of atrocities. The rest of the family were Cherokee. They show up in Cherokee lands in Alabama in the 1830s, and they got deported west. Most of the family wound up in Oklahoma, but our ancestor went to West Texas where he met up with the Confederate soldier's daughter.
The Cherokees' story is particularly poignant. What happened is that a man called Balljack Shoemake, who was a white frontiersman, married a Cherokee woman and had five children. All of them are known only by Cherokee names. The Cherokee woman died and her children were later deported west. No one knows what happened to them. They probably died. Balljack then married a woman named Annie Bone, who was either full Cherokee or half Cherokee, who had a son by a previous liaison, and Balljack adopted the son and gave him his surname. We are descended from the son and not from Balljack. He could have been as much as full Cherokee or as little as one-quarter. Of the son's children, most went to Oklahoma, probably not voluntarily, along with Balljack's half-Cherokee children by his previous marriage.
As for my father's family, they probably came out of Virginia and North Carolina, and they show up in central Tennessee in about the 1820s, specifically in the town of Shelbyville. At least some of these people had some money; my great-great grandfather, John Alexander Stuart Shannon, was a miller and owned a few slaves. He was an officer in the Confederate army. As far as I know he was never in combat, and he was discharged in 1862 as millers were necessary workers. I'm not going to blame this guy, either. He did what was done in his society. He was a low-level leader, not from the ruling class.
The family went west to Lamar County, Texas, after the Civil War. You have to remember that Lamar County is a lot more like Oklahoma than it is like most of Texas. It was frontier territory during the late 1800s, only fifteen miles away from Indian Territory, which didn't become the state of Oklahoma until 1907. There aren't too many black people there; Lamar County's not the Deep South. They grew some cotton there, but it was marginal cotton land, and it's mostly been taken over by ranching now. What Lamar County is is hillbilly highland South. Nobody who's not from there has moved there in the last hundred years, unless they come from one of the even crappier next-door counties of Red River and Delta, and this means everybody from there is from Tennessee and Kentucky. British. Specifically, Scotch-Irish, Ulster Protestants.
Another thing hillbillies were was fanatically anti-black. They were not rich, and they despised blacks. The middle and upper classes in the South were racist, too, but rather benignly most of the time, if that's possible. Or at least not horrifically so. The hillbillies committed maybe three-quarters of the about 5000 lynchings that happened in America between the Civil War and the 1950s; the other quarter probably had the approval of the local middle and maybe even upper classes.
The difference between the two types of lynching is that the "condoned by the society of the time" kind were generally akin to vigilante actions. They occurred all over the country except New England, more frequently in the West and Southwest. More of their victims were white rather than black, and all of them were believed to be guilty of heinous crimes by what were then considered respectable people. (Of course probably some were innocent.) The executions were carried out without unusual cruelty in an orderly manner. The leaders were persons of some substance and influence in the community. There are several cases of black-on-black lynchings, in which black community leaders lynched other blacks who were thought to have committed heinous crimes. As late as 1933 there was a notorious lynching in San Jose, California, of two white kidnap-murderers. I am certainly not condoning this kind of lynching, but worse things have happened in frontier communities.
Like "hillbilly" lynchings. The "hillbilly" kind were different. They almost always happened in the South, more often in the highlands than in the Deep South. The victim was almost always black. He was usually thought by the mob to be guilty of some crime, but not always, and often the crime was being "uppity" or "disrespecting a white woman". He was generally killed quite horribly.
People in Paris, Texas, the seat of Lamar County, are and were mostly hillbillies. The weird Lamar County thing is that the local upper and middle classes weren't too far removed socially from the hillbillies, and so Lamar County lynchings combined the planning of an organized lynching and the cruelty of a hillbilly lynching. They were spectacularly atrocious events, and they had eleven of them.
These are the atrocities our people were in. Have a look at this local newspaper squib from 1932 about important events in county history. The boldface is mine.
Important Dates in the History of Paris, TX
Taken from Backward Glances by Alexander White Neville, Volume Two, edited by Skipper Steely - Column dated March 15, 1932
HERE are some facts that will serve to settle arguments that sometimes arise. I have from time to time been called on to give several of these dates. I have documentary evidence of each and they are not based on my memory.
The coldest officially recorded weather in Paris was Sunday, February 12, 1899. At 7:30 that morning it stood at 14 below zero on a private thermometer, which later was found to register one degree higher than the government Instrument. It had reached zero at 8 o'clock Saturday night.
Henry Smith, negro, was burned by the people of Paris the afternoon of Wednesday, February 1, 1893. The crime for which he died was committed the night of Thursday, January 28.
The first great fire in Parts was on Friday, August 31, 1877, beginning about noon. The second began Tuesday, March 21, 1916, about 5 o'clock in this afternoon and burned about twelve hours. Yet another devastating fire occurred on April 27, 1896.
Organization of Lamar county was authorized by act of Texas Congress December 17, 1840, and organization was made early in 1841, the first court being hold in George Wright's store house 1n the present corporate limits of Paris February 22, 1841.
John A. Rutherford was the first presiding or county judge (1841-45) William Brown was the first sheriff (1841-44) and John R. Craddock the first county clerk (1841-52.) The first court house, a frame structure, was built at Lafayette, about three miles northwest of Paris, in 1841. Court site was moved to Mount Vernon. about six miles south of Paris, in 1843 and to what afterwards became Paris, in 1845.
The first brick court house in Paris was built by Epps Gibbons and Claiborne Chisum in the center of the square, 1846-47.
The first store was kept by James Johnson, near where 1s now the corner of South Main and Sherman streets. George Wright had his soon after near where is now the northwest corner of the Plaza.
Claiborne Chisum's residence was the first in what is now the corporate limits of Paris, but George Wright's was the first in the first corporate limits.
The first marriage license was issued February 28, 1841, to John C. Bates and Mrs. Nancy O'Neal and executed March 28, 1841 by Willard Stowell, justice of the peace.
Lamar county voted for prohibition in August, 1904 and delay in the courts prevented closing of the saloons until the latter part of April, 1906.
Clip and preserve this--it will settle an argument sometime.
Yeah. The argument it settles is whether Lamar County was a very sick society or not. I'm amazed that it's gotten so much better in so little time. It's still pretty racist and pretty redneck, and the local poor whites are as bad as poor whites can get, but it's not an awful place anymore like it was then. Its redeeming qualities have become much more visible than they were then.
He's one more victim of Islamist terrorism.
The cops are on maximum alert because of the July 7 bombings and then the failed attempts of last week. They are tense and nervous and under orders to shoot to kill. Especially in the tube, since it's clearly the main terrorist target.
I don't blame the cops for shooting the guy. He looked suspicious and then took off running. If he were really a bomber he might have killed hundreds of people.
Here's the problem. Cops shouldn't have to worry that suspicious-looking people are mass murderers. In the old days, suspicious-looking people were maybe gangsters or thieves or dope dealers and the cops didn't have to worry that if they didn't get them, it might result in mass murder. So they didn't shoot if the guy was trying to get away unless he did something like pull a knife.
It was the Islamist terrorists who created the situation in which the police have to shoot to kill.
Blame them.
Minor point of order: The Spanish press has been full of articles calling the Americans paranoid and living in fear and panic ever since 9-11. It has also been full of articles praising the famous British pluck in the wake of 7-7.
I don't remember the American cops blowing away any suspected terrorists who turned out to be innocent in the middle of the New York subway, though. It seems to me that the climate in Britain is intense right now, much more so than it ever was in Kansas City or Tennessee or Texas. Maybe not in New York, I don't know anything about New York. This is not a slam on the British, of course. We all hate and fear terrorism.
Al Qaeda must be destroyed.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Friday, July 22, 2005
A Short Discourse on Spanish Politics
1) The Socialists are incompetent, but then we knew that. No matter how incompetent they are, however, there's a limit to how badly they can screw things up. First, Spain is still in the middle of a huge economic boom. Spain is Europe's Sunbelt. Good weather, comparatively cheap labor and land costs, educated workforce, tourist attractions, high-value agricultural exports, pretty good light industry and construction sectors. There's no way they can stop Spain from growing unless they do something dumb like renationalizing the phone company, which even the PSOE isn't going to do. Second, Spain is part of the EU for better or for worse, and I think generally for the better. What this means is there's a limit to what the government can do before Brussels calls it on the carpet and says the budget's out of whack or whatever.
2) The PSOE is weak on several fronts. The most important values held by the majority of Spaniards, and I don't mean hip Barcelona urbanites, are, more or less in this order: family, security, equality, solidarity, Spain as a nation, the Church. The PP has very intelligently been hammering on most of these issues. In about May they organized three large demonstrations. They were 1) against government negotiations with ETA, 2) against sending part of the Civil War archives to Salamanca, and 3) against gay marriage.
These demos were good for appealing to the PP's base voters. The problems that most people see with negotiating with ETA are a) why negotiate, they're losing and b) what they want is for their prisoners to be let out of jail. They'll compromise on everything else. Well, most Spaniards are against turning their prisoners loose, and the PP needs to keep hitting this issue hard. It appeals to the security and Spain values and also to family, as the PP has been successful in framing the ETA issue in the context of the victims of ETA terrorism and justice to them.
The Civil War archives issue is a red herring, completely meaningless. A big deal has been made over whether Catalan regional government papers from the Civil War archive should stay with the rest of the archive in Salamanca or be transferred to Catalonia. The Cataloonies made a big deal out of this, and the rest of Spain decided they were a bunch of jerks and this was a symbolic issue that was worth making a stand on. The Cataloonies have made themselves so unpopular everywhere else in the country that anything they're for, everyone else is automatically against. The PP does well in appealing to the Spain value.
As for gay marriage, a lot of people are against it. The PP again does well in appealing to the family and Church values.
Other issues I would hammer on are: Abortion. That's a major Church and family value, and the fact is the abortion law is regularly broken here. Abortion is only legal in Spain in case of rape, incest, an abnormal fetus, or danger to the woman's health. The problem is the abortion clinics will certify any abortion as necessary for the woman's health, so the law is regularly flouted. I would bring this issue up.
Immigration. It's unpopular, but we need at least some, and opposing it not only looks bad but is counterproductive in the long run. What we do is support immigration, but make a big deal about how we love the majority of immigrants who come here to work and to integrate themselves more or less into Spanish society. And we slam the hell out of the minority of immigrants who come here to do crimes, and we slam the Socialist administration for not deporting them. This way we look liberal for supporting the decent immigrants and tough for wanting to lock up the criminals. In fact, the crime issue is also always a root value. Everybody's for law and order, and there's way too much street crime now. Pound on both of these issues. Hard. Support mandatory prison for everyone who commits a violent crime. Appeal to the family values people by declaring we want to make this especially true for domestic abusers, which we of course would like to do.
Housing. That's seen as a major problem. It's not an emotional issue. What I would do is come up with some kind of housing plan that would make it easier and cheaper for municipalities to license housing starts and thus increase the supply. This is the issue you can use to show you're respectable and have a responsible program. Gotta appeal to the voters who imagine they don't vote on emotional issues.
Schools. They're going straight to hell and have been ever since the Socialist "reforma" of the mid-'90s. What pretty much everybody, especially the teachers, wants is to go back to the basics. This is a family and solidarity issue, and everybody's always in favor of the children. Run on a conservative education platform, promising to actually teach the kids to read and do math. That'll also look responsible. Support Church schools. That'll get them on your side, and besides they're generally better than the public schools. As far as religion classes in the public schools, make it look like it's a big deal that you'll compromise and allow it to be an optional subject rather than obligatory; in exchange demand that it count for the students' grade average. That ought to make everyone happy.
Islamist terrorism. Get a plan together right now for how we're going to deal with it when Al Qaeda bombs something else in Spain, which I'm afraid they will sometime before 2008. Islamist terrorism is one thing everybody's against. We should be able to blame it on the Socialists just like the Socialists blamed us for the last one. If for some reason it doesn't happen, which we all of course hope, then we just stow the plan and avoid the issue. If there is some kind of success by the government against terrorism, we credit the police, who are the ones who actually did the work in the first place.
AVOID a) foreign policy. Spain's anti-American. When the PP is challenged, profess no deep love for the Americans but stress it is necessary for Spain to be friendly with America as a practical matter. Call the Socialists incompetent but don't look like you're in bed with the gringos. b) the March 11 bombings. Stop refighting the past. That is actually the only thing the voters like about Zap. They supported the pullout from Iraq and they're not going to change their minds. Let the whole thing be swept under the rug. We lost that battle. Think about winning the next one. c) Bringing back memories of Aznar. He was an excellent prime minister, and also highly unpopular personally. Nobody liked him except us. Stop making a big deal about him. Don't disassociate ourselves from him, that would be wrong, but let's not intentionally bring him up. d) Getting bitter and angry at the Socialists. Yeah, we hate them, and we think they stole the last election from us unfairly, but the public does not like constant negativism. Let that slide.
EXCEPT: When the Socialists screw up massively in administration questions. The example is the furor over the oil tanker Prestige that sank off the Galician coast a couple of years ago. The Aznar administration had to make a quick decision and chose to tow the sinking tanker away from the coast, which might well have been the wrong choice, but it's rather unsporting to second-guess a crisis decision, which the PSOE did very successfully, as if it were the PP's fault the ship sank.
Well, we blast them on this. They've already had two major screwups, the subway tunnel in Barcelona that collapsed, leaving dozens of families homeless, and now the Guadalajara fire that killed eleven volunteer firemen. Second-guess the hell out of them on both these issues and don't let up. In fact, bring up the subway tunnel at every opportunity. This one is especially fun because the Socialists, in alliance with the Communists and ERC, have been running Barcelona since 1978 and anything that goes wrong can easily be blamed on them. As a matter of fact, I would bring up a third disaster, the Barcelona Forum, and hammer them with that, too.
Now. The next municipal and regional elections are in 2007 and the next national election is in 2008. That means we have plenty of time. We have the advantage that there is no responsible party on our right. In fact, I would intentionally make a big deal about totally disowning far-right movements like the Plataforma per Catalunya. We avoid being outflanked on the right by making it clear that anyone to our right is untrustworthy and undemocratic.
So strategy is to continue along with nailing down the right-wing base for at least the next year. Don't let up and hit them hard with the basic issues. Make sure all your core voters are going to come out. Then move toward the center and pick up the disgusted swing voters, of whom there will be plenty.
Part of our problem is image. Our least popular leaders are Acebes and Zaplana. They're attack dogs. Only the base likes them. Keep using them while we're still riding the right wing hard, since they keep the core voters fired up. But when we swing center sometime in 2007, get rid of them. Well, no, don't just kick them out, they've been loyal, but they have to drop out of sight for the campaign. Center voters hate these guys.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
I mean, I'm a liberal and all. I really supported gay rights, and women's rights back in the day, back in the Seventies and Eighties when it wasn't cool in some places, like certain junior highs I attended, to object to disgusting hateful comments. And I don't mean fag jokes or silly race jokes like the one about sticking velcro on the ceiling to keep black kids from jumping on the bed, I mean really nasty niggers ought to be lynched stuff, which is what a few of these Texas rednecks were hearing at home. Try standing up for gays under those circumstances. I'm not pinning a medal on myself, among other things because I bought into the nuclear peacenik stuff when I was in college the first time around and then was proved, fortunately, wrong.
I was of little help in getting rid of Communism, but people like me, and there were millions around that time, were the vanguard of the shift in social climate, in which we're now debating not whether gays shouldn't get beaten up but whether they should adopt kids.
And there's only so far people like me can go with the free sex do what you will stuff. You know, having sex with another man, that's not too gross if you don't get anal. That's revolting, whether you're gay or straight. I'm sorry. Nature was not designed for that. But if you want to do it, I can deal with it. Don't ask me to celebrate it, but I won't complain at all if you do it.
As for lesbians, of course, they're totally cool, especially if you're the meat in the sandwich, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.
I understand this is a double standard, but come on, there are contradictions in all philosophies.
This sex with children stuff, now, that's totally out of the question. Unless, of course, you're in ninth grade and the French teacher with the big knockers nails you. Then it's cool, even though they'll put her in jail if they catch her.
OK, that's a contradiction, too, but bear with me.
This sex with animals thing, though. I'd find it hard to stand up for people into bestiality. In fact, I'd probably be part of ostracising them. No violence, but that doesn't mean we have to be friends.
And I am completely weirded out by what appears to be this large pervo bestiality ring that extends all over the world on the Internet. Jesus Christ. I thought there might be fifteen or twenty freakjobs around the world into this.
Next thing I know we're going to find a necrophilia message board.
Not that this turns me against the Internet. I still think it's the greatest invention since antibiotics.
But you can't distribute kiddie porn on the Internet, and you shouldn't be allowed to distribute bestiality porn, either, since a crime has to be committed in most jurisdictions in order to produce the porn.
I don't know whether bestiality is legal or not in Kansas, but if it's illegal, and I were the attorney general, I'd use that to close these guys down.
Black and white flag at Tour de France
I've done some searching for this and can't find anything. At the Tour de France, which I watch every afternoon in July, I see fans waving flags in the pattern of the American flag, but with black and white stripes and what appear to be about twelve small pine trees on a white field. I've been seeing this for the past several years. As far as I know it's not a Basque or Catalan separatist flag, and as far as I know it doesn't represent any of the teams. I can't figure out what it means, and I see it several times every day. This is starting to get on my nerves. Please help.
Monday, July 18, 2005
http://www.beastforum.com/index.php?s=0cb036fcb68f7fe5c5a908b1293af7df&act=idx
SEATTLE - A Seattle man died after engaging in anal sex with a horse at a farm suspected of being a gathering place for people seeking to have sex with livestock, police said Friday.
The horse involved in the incident was not harmed, and an autopsy of the unnamed man concluded that “the manner of death was accidental ... due to perforation of the colon,” a police spokesman said.
“The information that we have is that people would find this place via chat rooms on the Web,” said Sgt. John Urquhart of the King County Sheriff’s Department.
Although sex with animals is not illegal in Washington state, Urquhart said that investigators were looking into whether the farm, located in Enumclaw, 40 miles southeast of Seattle, allowed sex with smaller animals that resulted in animal cruelty, which is a crime.
“If you’re talking about sheep or goats, there could be some issues,” Urquhart said.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Al Qaeda must be destroyed, and squatter terrorism needs to be stopped right now before this turns into Renteria or Durango or Irun.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Frabetti says London dead are not “innocent victims” if they voted for Blair
Self-proclaimed "writer and mathematician" Carlos Frabetti published an article on Thursday analyzing the June 7 bombings in London, Frabetti wondered, "Is London itself an innocent victim?" and answered, "Of course, if any of those affected had supported the invasion of Iraq or voted for Blair, then he would not be an innocent victim." Frabetti also said that a Muslim who kills supporters of Bush, Blair, Aznar, Berlusconi, or Zapatero would be the same as a Jew who killed a supporter of the Third Reich.
Frabetti's column, titled "Accomplices and victims," was published on Thursday in the newspaper Gara, the paper that Basque terrorists use to express their ideas and warn about their attacks. In that column, Frabetti, who is also an author of children's books, continued his support of Muslim terrorism, as he already had after September 11 and March 11. According to Frabetti, the only terrorism is committed by the State, and everything else is the way of struggle of the poor.
Frabetti cited French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre and his thesis that all men are "half-accomplices, half-victims." However, he then declared that said thesis is not completely true since some are only accomplices and not victims at all, and then applied this thought to the victims of the June 7 bombings.
He asked, "In what measure are the Londoners who suffered the June 7 bombings victims and in what measure are they accomplices? Are they innocent victims as the politicians and the media keep repeating, 100% victims on Sartre's scale? Is London itself an innocent victim? Regarding individual persons, they should be analyzed case by case, and, of course, any of them who supported the invasion of Iraq or voted for Blair in the last election would not be an innocent victim." Regarding London itself, Frabetti asked, "Was destroyed Berlin at the end of the Second World War an innocent victim? If the answer is negative, the same is true for London."
As if this were not enough, Frabetti continued with his "comparisons, which are the only way to understand things." He asked, "How would we judge a Jew who during the Third Reich had attacked a supporter of Hitler? Do we have the right to judge any more harshly a Muslim who attacks a supporter of Bush or Blair? Or of Aznar. Or of Berlusconi. Or of Zapatero, who is expanding the naval base at Rota so that American bombers will be able to continue massacring Afghans and Iraqis."
This is not the first time Frabetti has expressed this sort of ideas. After the March 11, 2004 bombings in Madrid that killed 192 people, he said, "Without the criminal embargo that killed two million Iraqis, and without the massacre of the Palestinian people, there would have been no March 11. Without the criminal conspiracy of the 'trio of the Azores,' there would have been no March 11." In the same article, Frabetti said, "Compared to the invasion of Iraq, 'Islamic terrorism's' greatest atrocities are mere incidents." Regarding ETA terrorism, which has attacked Spain for more than four decades, he said, "We cannot talk about ETA terrorism without also talking about, and above all, State terrorism."
In September 2001, Frabetti wrote, "Hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims will become human bombs against the United States, to use Kim Il Choi's words. And dozens of millions of us Westerners, including many Americans, will support them. And Ben Ladin was right: there will be no peace in the United States while there is no peace in Palestine and in the other countries stained with blood and looted by the most evil of empires."
The image of an imperialist, uncultured, rapacious, hypocritical, capitalist, and generally offensive United States is very common in Europe and especially in Spain. Just for example, here are some quotations from an article published in a Spanish magazine which deals with ideas and culture. I've left them in the original Spanish. I put the quotes in bold and italic so they'll be easier to read.
"He aquí un imperio fallido: Norteamérica. Este pueblo anglosajón ha sido dueño en los últimos años de los resortes triunfales. Cuando en la historia universal un pueblo lanzaba sobre el resto del mundo la cantidad de apetencias que el mundo actual debe al pueblo yanqui, ese pueblo convertía todos sus afanes en afanes imperiales. El imperialismo yanqui existe ciertamente, pero en forma ramplona, cobarde y, a la postre, según ha de verse, ineficaz...
"Yanquilandia es, en efecto, una república despreciable. Pueblo sin grandeza que se entrega a un centenar de banqueros y les encomienda la indicación de las rutas. Los banqueros prefieren un imperialismo hipócrita, la captura de las aduanas y el falso respeto a la libertad de los pueblos, a esa otra tarea fundamental que exigiría hondas sinceridades y peleas gravísimas: el ejército imperial agarrotando pueblos más débiles y truncando destinos pequeñitos...
"No ha faltado voluntad de imperio a los magnates que dirigen la república yanqui. Pero, repetimos, afanes mediocres, sin dar la cara, temiendo las complicaciones leguleyas, huyendo el escándalo internacional, sin firmeza, cobardemente, como quien hace un delito y teme que lo vean...
"Los yanquis han controlado los últimos veinte años. Su influjo está ya en decadencia, y un día cualquiera veremos que se rompe en mil pedazos su pretendido poderío. No se peca en balde contra los valores eminentes ni deja de castigarse de algún modo la mediocridad. Hispanoamérica tiene ahora la palabra...
"¡Nada con Yanquilandia, pueblo desleal, mezquino e hipócrita!"
This article isn't from one of those pro-Castro magazines run by a few ex-hippies. Nor is it from one of those anarchist tracts published by the squatters. It isn't from one of those pseudointellectual websites belonging to a bunch of postmodern desconstructionists.
It comes from a magazine called La Conquista del Estado. The editor-in-chief was a fellow called Ramiro Ledesma Ramos. Among other contributors were Ernesto Giménez Caballero and Juan Aparicio López.
The issue is dated April 4, 1931. The magazine disappeared a few months later when it was integrated into the organization of the Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
In Kansas City, in the middle of the most prestigious commercial area, where thousands of people pass by each day, there is a statue of Winston Churchill. And his wife. Churchill is presented as a man like the rest of us. He is sitting down, next to his wife. He's not standing over us or a man on horseback. He is a human being. And the British flag, lighted up, flies 24 hours a day over the statue. It's quiet recognition, the best kind.
How about if we all do that about 20 years or so from now with another British prime minister?