World War III

My prediction: By the end of 2008, there will be a global war pitting the United States, Britain, Italy, Australia, Israel, Germany (yes, Germany), Iraq (yes, Iraq, the new one) and Japan against Iran, Russia, China, Palestine, and numerous independent Islamic terrorist groups.

I hope this never happens, but I think it is inevitable.

That kook of a leader in Iran announced today that if he is attacked by the U.S., he will strike back two-fold. And I would not put it past that man to stub his own toe and blame it on George W. Bush, who nowadays is the popular scapegoat for every conceivable problem in the world.

Iran leader issues warning to US

Ayatollah Khamenei says Iran will not heed US threats US interests around the world will be harmed if America launches an attack against Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said. "The Iranian nation will respond to any blow with double the intensity," he added, in comments reported on TV.

Iran has been reported to the UN Security Council, amid Western fears Iran is seeking atomic weapons. The UN is seeking a diplomatic solution but the US has not ruled out military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites.

Addressing workers in Tehran on International Labourers' Day, Ayatollah Khamenei said Iran would not heed US "threats and intimidation".

"The Iranian nation and its officials are peace-seekers and the Islamic republic would not invade anybody," he added.

Calls for tough action
The Security Council demanded on 29 March that Iran comply with the demands of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for a "full and sustained suspension" of its uranium enrichment work.

The head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, is expected to report back to the council at noon on 28 April.

The US is trying to rally support from the Security Council for tougher action against Iran, including sanctions - a move currently being resisted by Russia and China.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes only.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that Iran's "enemies" would not be able to use the Security Council and the IAEA to punish Iran.

"The illegitimate and right-nullifying decision could not get legitimacy under cover of council and the agency," he said, according to a state TV broadcast.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4946102.stm

We should cut ties with China now. They are perhaps the worst human rights violators in the entire world, and the more money we give them, the more money they have to use against us.

Russia is desperate for an economy and Iran is feeding them oil. And war produces economic opportunities.

Of course the American far left will justify the actions of our enemies, this is predictable. Rallies at Columbia and Harvard against "American Imperialism." I am convinced that if modern liberals were around in 1941, there is no way we would have won WWII. They would have defended the attack on Pearl Harbor, much like some liberals (like Noam Chomsky, my favorite linguist but least favorite political pundit) defended Al-Qaeda after 9/11. It is a sick anti-authoritarian pathology. A rebellion against anyone who says "X is right, Y is wrong." So they demonize America. Imagine the liberal media going wild over losses in Operation Market Garden, or the Battle of the Bulge! And imagine Normandy not being covered.

I think my grandfather, God rest his soul, was pretty lucky to have lived in the time he did. The peak of his youth was the peak of the United States of America. More and more I am convinced that in the late 60s, the country began picking up speed in its gradual descent.

And, today is my 25th birthday! I should be happier on my quarter-century anniversary, no??

Well, here are some things to be happy about - I will be in Sevilla in less than 3 weeks. In exactly a month, I'll be somewhere in Barcelona. Maybe I will meet my future bride over there?

I am realizing how negative my blog is. All I do is complain! Tone does not affect validity of a point, but it can certainly affect moods! I have to try to make my blog happier. In other words, I won't only post here immediately after I read some news article that pisses me off! (as has been my habit...)

I often criticize the media for never showing good things. All night on the news we hear of another Marine dead in Iraq, a woman raped in the suburbs, 2 kids gunned down in the city, robbery, arson... nothing good. Well, I am a hypocrite! My blog is just as bad! I hardly ever have good news here. So, it's going to change, beginning NOW! :) <--- SEE, A SMILEY FACE = GOOD.

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani

Today is Good Friday. Almost 2,000 years ago today, God sacrificed Himself for those whom He loves, His creations, the human race.

G.K. Chesterton, my favorite author, writes:

There were solitudes beyond where none shall follow. There were secrets in the inmost and invisible part of that drama that have no symbol in speech; or in any severance of a man from men. Nor is it easy for any words less stark and single-minded than those of the naked narrative even to hint at the horror of exaltation that lifted itself above the hill. Endless expositions have not come to the end of it, or even to the beginning. And if there be any sound that can produce a silence, we may surely be silent about the end and the extremity; when a cry was driven out of that darkness in words dreadfully distinct and dreadfully unintelligible, which man shall never understand in all the eternity they have purchased for him; and for one annihilating instant an abyss that is not for our thoughts had opened even in the unity of the absolute; and God had been forsaken of God.

Honesty and openness are so hard to find...

Saying one thing, meaning another.

Labels are telling, quite telling. Especially when people choose strictly positive labels to cover their true aims. The labels say nothing about the aims, but they say a lot about the people, that these people have no qualms with generally deceiving the public.

Example: "Women's Rights." Who, besides misogynists, are truly opposed to women's rights? Every human is born with rights, and it is our job to see that they are not trampled. But what does "Women's Rights," really mean today? It means that grown females should have the full opportunity to plan and execute the murder of their female (or male) unborn infants. The little girl in the womb isn't benefitting much from "Women's rights," is she?

Yes, infanticide is one of the most horrible evils of the millenium (maybe the worst? after all, what did the babies do?) but I want to discuss the deceit involved in calling this "Women's rights."

I can imagine some Southerner in the 1850's promoting "White Rights," such as, the right to own another human being. That is no true right at all, and neither is the "right" to kill another human being. I'm sure if you opposed that Southern KKK forerunner, he'd tell you that you were against white people.

Since I oppose murder of infants, am I opposed to the rights of women? This is what they would have you think, in order to discredit my position before I can even explain it. I really have no tolerance for dishonesty, and I give these murderers and their propaganda no quarter.

Samantha Singson writes:

Last week, a coalition of U.S.-based women’s groups sent a letter to the United Nations to demand that the world body "more powerfully represent women’s empowerment and gender issues" and specifically to ask for a new UN agency dedicated to feminist issues.

In an open letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan on International Women’s Day last month, the coalition of international women’s groups wrote, “We are disappointed and frankly outraged that gender equality and strengthening the women’s machineries within the U.N. system are barely noted, and are not addressed as a central part of the U.N. reform agenda.”

There are already several U.N. bodies which focus on issues affecting women, including the U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues (OSAGI) and the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW).

The women’s groups complain that none of them, with the exception of UNFPA, is a principal agency that could equate to the fully-resourced agencies such as UNICEF, the U.N. Development Program or the U.N. High Commissioner for
Refugees.

Stephen Lewis, U.N. special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa and a former top official of UNICEF, has vociferously called for the creation of a new agency for women. Last month Lewis stressed that an international women’s agency, within the United Nations, was needed to advocate for women the way UNICEF does for children. Many may recall that it was during Mr. Lewis’ stint UNICEF that the Vatican decided to withdraw its annual symbolic donation because of mounting evidence that the agency was promoting abortion.

In a March press release, Mr. Lewis stated, “What we now have in place – whether it’s UNFPA or UNIFEM or the Division for the Advancement of Women – cannot do the job that needs to be done. This is not to disparage their good work; this is only to say that it has to be combined and then enhanced a hundred-fold.”
Not all women's groups are supportive of the new initiative. Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, which is the largest women's public policy group in the United States said, “A UN women’s agency – particularly one created in response to radical feminists – would not advocate for women but for certain ideologies espoused by those in charge. They will claim to represent ‘all women of the world’ as they work for the abolishment of respect for motherhood, the killing of unborn babies, prostitution as a women’s right to economic empowerment, and sex-based quotas that disadvantage women who rely on their husband’s income.”

Discussing religion in the workplace.
Why is it that people are scared to discuss religion? Or try to be as nondescript as possible? I briefly overheard two people talking, and the woman said in response to the man's question: "It's kind of a, Judeo-Christian festival weekend?"

A Judeo-Christian festival weekend???? Sounds like a klezmer Grateful Dead weekend campout!

First of all, if someone doesn't know either that Passover began last night, or today is Good Friday, or Sunday is Easter, well they shouldn't be working here, as they are obviously out of touch with society as a whole!

But why can't the woman say "The Jews celebrate Passover and the Christians celebrate Easter this weekend." Why "a Judeo-Christian festival weekend?" Perhaps if you heard the tone (one of those "I'm telling you what my name is but for some reason I'm unsure of myself and am telling you my name as if I'm asking you a question?" kinds of tones).

Well, I suppose there are bigger things to complain about.

Another reason I voted for Bush

Even though he is some sort of Protestant, his mind is far more Catholic than John Kerry... the pro-abortion so-called "Catholic."

Bush Hails Church's Contributions
Addresses National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 7, 2006 (ZENIT.org).- President George Bush spoke on the Church's contribution to freedom, defending life, and immigration in his address to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in the U.S. capital.

The Catholic Church, the president said today, "offers a vision of human freedom and dignity rooted in the same self-evident truths of America's founding."

"This morning we ask God to guide us as we work together to live up to these timeless truths," he added.

"Freedom is a gift from the Almighty," continued Bush, "and the Catholic Church and its institutions play a vital role in helping our citizens acquire the character we need to live as free people."

Bush also recalled the role of Pope John Paul II in fighting for freedom in Europe.
"Pope John Paul told us, 'Be not afraid,' because he knew that an empire built on lies was ultimately destined to fail," he said. "Like his predecessor," continued Bush, "Benedict XVI understands that the measure of a free society is how it treats the weakest and most vulnerable among us."

The president also expressed gratitude for the "leading role that the Catholic faith-based organizations play in our nation's armies of compassion," especially for their work to welcome newcomers to the country.

Bush then commented on immigration: "An immigration system that forces people into the shadows of our society, or leaves them prey to criminals is a system that needs to be changed."

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=87379

I am sick of all this diversity crap. Really sick of it. It is completely shoved down our throats everywhere, especially in the workplace and at universities. It is like every institution feels they have to make a conscious effort to "prove" that they worship this god named "Diversity," and if somehow they don't scream about it loud enough, they are not good institutions.
So they always have a diversity page or disclaimer. Something that basically says "We are not racist, but we discriminate based on race." Yes, that is exactly what it says. When I cannot get into a school because there are too many whites and not enough blacks, that is racial discrimination. Call it affirmative action or diversity if you want, I don't care, it is racial discrimination as well.

I found this article online, it is 6 years old, it is from the San Francisco Chronicle of Higher Education. This is a pretty reputable publication, and I am pretty relieved to find that people outside of right-wing websites share my nausea with the diversity that we are forced to swallow, and pretend that we like, each day.

I agree with the author of the article below. I just don't care about diversity. Frankly, only a racist will care about the color of someone's skin. I could not care less! All of this forced diversity is completely unnatural. It's the same reason why I'll never allow myself to be set up on a blind date... it isn't natural. Certain things must flow naturally and cannot be forced. Anyway, I'll shut up now and let the author speak:

Why I'm Sick of the Praise for Diversity on Campuses

By ROGER CLEGG

We hear a lot about diversity these days. Colleges declare that they celebrate diversity and strive for a diverse student body. Companies hire diversity consultants and fall all over themselves in professing that diversity is good business.

It's hard to be against diversity. Who in America would speak out for uniformity or homogeneity, let alone monotony or sameness?

Nonetheless, I'm sick of diversity. Not because I have anything against non-European Americans in our colleges or workplaces. Let's be honest: Despite the unsubtle hints of the pro-diversity crowd, almost no one is arguing along those lines anymore.

The opposite of being pro-diversity is not being anti-diversity. It's being diversity-indifferent, and that's me. My T-shirt would not say "Diversity Sucks." It would say "Diversity -- Who Cares?"

Why am I sick of all the praise for diversity? Because it cloaks an agenda that is anti-merit, pro-preference, and anti-assimilationist.

As the Jim Crow era fades into the past, the rise of new discrimination to make up for old discrimination becomes increasingly hard to justify. So those committed to preferences based on race and ethnicity have had to come up with another approach -- one that has nothing to do with present or past discrimination.

For that, diversity is perfect. It's an excuse for preferences that can last forever. But if a touchy-feely rationale like diversity is compelling enough to justify racial discrimination, then anything is.

The diversity-mongers want higher education to make special efforts to achieve some predetermined racial and ethnic mix. The mix that would naturally occur if people were selected on their merits isn't good enough. In other words, colleges and universities should develop preferences -- that is, discriminate -- in favor of the underrepresented and against the overrepresented.

Diversity proponents give two basic rationales for their views -- rationales that, incidentally, contradict each other. The first one holds that a focus on diversity helps people see that race and ethnicity don't matter: Good students, faculty members, and administrators come in all colors. That makes sense only if the different individuals admitted or hired have the same qualifications. For example, if you're expecting to teach white students that black students are just as good academically as the white students are, you had better be sure that the black students that you admit really are on a par with the white students. Otherwise, you won't erode bigotry -- you'll reinforce it.

The sad truth, however, is that as colleges give pluses to certain races and ethnic groups in an attempt to achieve diversity, they are, by definition, selecting those who would not have been chosen on the merits. It's difficult to convince people that skin color and ancestry don't matter when everyone knows that you are deliberately considering them.

The other rationale contends just the opposite: We should make greater strides toward diversity precisely because of the differences among races and ethnic groups. Diversity is important, this argument goes, because those with different skin color and ancestry have different insights and perspectives as well.

Does anyone really believe that? Does anyone really believe, for instance, that all Asian-Americans, but only Asian-Americans, share certain vast quantities of knowledge? I'm prepared to believe that women will never quite understand some things about men, and that men won't ever understand some things about women. But I draw the line at "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand."

Go ahead and try me, I say. I have a pretty good imagination. Most people who use the "you wouldn't understand" line aren't willing to try to explain it, because they know, deep down, that it doesn't make any sense.

Skin color does not equal ideas, and ethnicity does not equal experiences. The position to the contrary used to be called stereotyping. Moreover, since the invention of the printing press, it has not been necessary to meet people in order to learn their perspectives. And show me a college where most of the learning results from exposure to other students, and I'll show you an institution that isn't worth the tuition it charges. You will see more real diversity by working a summer at a blue-collar job -- and you'll get paid for it.

Speaking of the workplace, discrimination is not justified on the basis of diversity there, either. Having a particular color or ethnicity might be advantageous in some isolated circumstances: Perhaps a Mexican-American recruiter for a college will do better than an Anglo at attracting students from a predominantly Mexican-American high school. But not always. And for those who use such an argument, does that mean it's OK to give a preference to the Anglo woman so that she can recruit at Anglo schools? No, I didn't think so.

For most jobs, and most disciplines, it's irrelevant whether someone is of a particular racial or ethnic background. Do we ever speak of black mathematics, Asian chemistry, or Hispanic economics? Of course not. The situations in which one's ethnicity or race really makes a difference are few and far between. When we exaggerate the number of those situations, we engage in nothing more than sloppy stereotyping.

If colleges and universities lower standards to achieve diversity in admissions, diversity advocates will inevitably pressure those institutions to rig the requirements in grading and for graduation. After that, diversity advocates will move on to the college workplace and start questioning how institutions determine who gets promoted. And so on. All this in the face of the statutes that make it illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Implicit in the praise for diversity is the notion that we shouldn't have rules or standards, and shouldn't require people from other cultures to conform to them. That is ethnocentrism, we are told.

Some folks have cultures that are louder and more obnoxious -- excuse me, less inhibited -- than others, and we must accept them all. Being on time and being polite are less important to some groups, you see. And heaven forbid that we would require people to speak English, let alone proper English, in school or college. That would have a disparate impact on people of some national origins -- which violates civil-rights laws.

Finally, we cannot expect individuals from some racial and ethnic groups to do well on timed, paper-and-pencil tests. They will perform better building something with Legos and displaying interpersonal skills, an approach used in an admissions test that some selective institutions are considering.

Such arguments are not only condescending, they're wrong. It's fine to eat different kinds of food and to have pride in one's ancestors. But in matters of language and our civic culture -- as well as, more broadly, our manners and morality -- assimilation should be the goal. An America that is multiracial and multiethnic, yes. Multicultural, no. E pluribus unum: Out of many, one.

To assert that we need more diversity is just another way of saying that we have too many members of groups that we'll have to start setting quotas for. Without a concerted push for uniform diversity (a nice oxymoron), many colleges will undoubtedly have "too many" Jewish students and "not enough" black students, "too many" Hispanic faculty members and "not enough" Asian faculty members. But that's not the end of the world. Diversity is one of those things, like falling in love, that works only when it comes about naturally. It cannot and should not be forced.

When we impose diversity upon an institution, we create resentment and stigmatization, break the law, compromise a college's mission, and tell some people that they aren't going to be admitted or hired or promoted, because they have the wrong melanin content or ancestry.

Whatever the dubious benefits of diversity, is it worth all that?

http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/free/v46/i45/45b00801.htm

Why is....

Why is Literary Praise not an academic discipline?

Why are lawyers even bothering to try Saddam Hussein? (just today he denied all charges of illegal executions).

In a way the Saddam trial is pretty funny. It highlights the idiocy of people who are so caught up in theory that they have no clue how to do things in real life. And when Saddam talks back to the judge I think it is hilarious! Like yesterday:

When told by the judge to refrain from political statements, Saddam Hussein said: "You're scared of the interior minister, he doesn't scare my dog."

and:

Throughout Wednesday's questioning, Saddam — dressed in a black suit and white shirt — appeared relaxed, frequently shooting grins at chief prosecutor Jaafar al-Moussawi and even reciting a short bit of poetry to the judge.

Hussein still says that the whole trial is illegitimate! I do not know if he is truly insane or he is just treating this whole thing as a huge joke. It could be either. But it is funny to read his comments.

Why won't Democrats and Republicans admit that they would rather leave the borders wide open than potentially lose Hispanic votes?

An Open Letter to Michael Schiavo

I am convinced that Michael Schiavo (pronoucned skee-avo, by the way) tried to murder Terri the first time, then succeeded in murdering her again. He will stand before God for his actions, just like all the rest of us. I do hope he takes Fr. Pavone's advice below.

From: Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, and an eyewitness to Terri Schiavo's final hours, released the following open letter to Michael Schiavo. Fr. Pavone read it to a worldwide audience on an internationally broadcast religious service on Sunday morning, March 26:

A year ago this week, I stood by the bedside of the woman you married and promised to love in good times and bad, in sickness and health. She was enduring a very bad time, because she hadn't been given food or drink in nearly two weeks. And you were the one insisting that she continue to be deprived of food and water, right up to her death. I watched her face for hours on end, right up to moments before her last breath. Her death was not peaceful, nor was it beautiful. If you saw her too, and noticed what her eyes were doing, you know that to describe her last agony as peaceful is a lie.

This week, tens of millions of Americans will remember those agonizing days last year, and will scratch their heads trying to figure out why you didn't simply let Terri's mom, dad, and siblings take care of her, as they were willing to do. They offered you, again and again, the option to simply let them care for Terri, without asking anything of you. But you refused and continued to insist thatTerri's feeding be stopped. She had no terminal illness. She was simply a disabled woman who needed extra care that you weren't willing to give.

I speak to you today on behalf of the tens of millions ofAmericans who still wonder why. I speak to you today to express their anger, their dismay, their outraged astonishment at your behavior in the midst of this tragedy. Most people will wonder about these questions in silence, but as one of only a few people who were eye witnesses toTerri's dehydration, I have to speak.

I have spoken to you before, not in person, but through mass media. Before Terri's feeding tube was removed for the last time, I appealed to you with respect, asking you not to continue on the road you were pursuing, urging you to reconsider your decisions, in the light of the damage you were doing. I invited you to talk. But you did not respond.

Then, after Terri died, I called her death a killing, and I called you a murderer because you knew - as we all did - that ceasing to feed Terri would kill her. We watched, but you had the power to save her. Her life was in your hands, but you threw it away, with the willing cooperation of attorneys and judges who were as heartless as you were. Some have demanded that I apologize to you for calling you a murderer. Not only will I not apologize, I will repeat it again. Your decision to have Terri dehydrated to death was a decision to kill her. It doesn't matter if Judge Greer said it was legal. No judge, no court, no power on earth can legitimize what you did. It makes no difference if what you did was legal in the eyes of men; it was murder in the eyes of God and of millions of your fellow Americans and countless more around the world. You are the one who owes all of us an apology.

Your actions offend us. Not only have you killed Terri and deeply wounded her family, but you have disgraced our nation, betrayed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and undermined the principles that hold us together as a civilized society. You have offended those who struggle on a daily basis to care for loved ones who are dying, and who sometimes have to make the very legitimate decision to discontinue futile treatment. You have offended them by trying to confuse Terri's circumstances with theirs. Terri's case was not one of judging treatment to be worthless - which is sometimes the case; rather, it was about judging a life to be worthless, which is never the case.

You have made your mark on history, but sadly, it is an ugly stain. In the name of millions around the world, I call on you today to embrace a life of repentance, and to ask forgiveness from the Lord, who holds the lives of each of us in His hands.

- Fr. Frank Pavone

Website: www.priestsforlife.org/Terri