"Making" the "News" for Hezbollah -J :)

WARNING: Photographs at the link are graphic. They depict the extended desecration of the bodies of dead children for terrorist propaganda purposes.

(Links may also be found at Lucianne.com and Rush Limbaugh's site.)

From a EU Referendum Blog illustrated post, Milking it?:

Monday, July 31, 2006 [/] Milking it?

For an update on this post, see here.

Certainly, the photographs are distressing, and indeed they are meant to be. As this piece tells us:

Until recent years, images of civilian casualties in wars often took days to appear in newspapers, but now they can be captured and transmitted around the world to newspaper Web sites, where they are posted immediately, adding to the shock value that sketchy words by reporters often cannot capture. This happened again Sunday morning in the case of the Israeli air strike on the Lebanese village of Qana that left dozens dead, reportedly at least half of them children sleeping in their beds overnight.

The photos, taken by The Associated Press, Reuters, and others, showed bodies in the rubble, or being taken away; survivors digging or wailing

But the photographers, it seems, are not too fussy about how they go about "adding to the shock value". These two sequences illustrate the extent to which photographers on the scene are prepared to ensure that the "shock value" is maximised.

In this first of the two sequences, we see a shot by Reuters and taken by Adnan Hajj, timed at 2:21 pm. It has the caption:

Rescuers pull the body of a toddler victim of an Israeli air raid on Qana that killed more than 60 people, the majority of them women and children, in south Lebanon, July 30, 2006.

Note the "rescue worker" in the foreground, complete with olive green military-style helmet and fluorescent jacket, with what appears to be a flack jacket underneath. His glasses, "designer stubble", blue tee-shirt and jeans make him quite a distinctive figure. Note also, he has a radio in his jacker pocket and he has bare hands, things which becomes relevant later.

The next shot in this sequence is credited to AP's Kevin Frayer. Timed at 4.09 pm, it shows the same "rescue" worker, and has this caption:

Lebanese Red Cross and Civil Defense workers carry the body of a small child covered in dust from the rubble of his home that was hit in an Israeli missile strike in the village of Qana, east of the port city of Tyre, Lebanon, Sunday. Lebanese Red Cross officials said 56 people died in the Israeli assault on the village, including 34 children. Rescuers dug through the debris to remove dozens of bodies.

This is horrific, but a scrutiny of the framing does suggest that the subject is offering the victim to the photographer.

Just in case you missed it, however, we get another view, courtesy of Reuter's Adnan Hajj, with a time given of 4:30 pm - some 20 minutes after the first shot. The caption reads:

A rescuer carries the body of a toddler victim of an Israeli air raid on Qana that killed more than 60 people, the majority of them women and children, in south Lebanon, July 30, 2006.

Interestingly, in this sequence, the pocket radio is missing. And, although the positioning of the child looks the same, the angle of the shot looks to be about ninety degrees from the first, but in each case, the "worker" is facing towards the camera. The shots are clearly posed.

But now, timed at 12:45 pm, an hour and twenty minutes before the child's body is pictured being pulled from the ruins, we get a picture from AP's Kevin Frayer of the same child's body being paraded by our ubiquitous helmeted rescue worker.

Lebanese Red Cross and Civil Defense workers carry the body of a small child covered in dust from the rubble of his home that was hit in an Israeli missile strike in the village of Qana, east of the port city of Tyre, Lebanon, Sunday, July 30, 2006. Lebanese Red Cross officials said 56 people died in the Israeli assault on the village, including 34 children. Rescuers dug through the debris to remove dozens of bodies.

At 12.53 pm, after an interval of eight minutes, Frayer photographs the child's body again, from a different angle. The caption is the same. This time, though, our helmeted worker is showing some distress, which was absent in the previous photograph.

The photographs show the characters moving down the hill, with little distance between the scenes, which suggest that they have been taken sequentially and spontaneously. But they have not. The eight minute interval has allowed a crowd to gather around "green helmet". Furthermore, "orange jacket" has switched from left to right. Note also the tee-shirted man in the centre of the picture.

Then, timed at 1:01 pm, eight minutes on, we get another picture from Frayer. Once again, the caption is the same but this time the child's body is being paraded aloft by our ubiquitous helmeted rescue worker, but the tee-shirted character had moved from centre to right and is taking his turn to displaying his emotion to the camera. The UN soldier in the background has turned away, confirming a time lapse. The scene is clearly staged, as have been those preceding it.

Next, we have the second of the two sequences, the first shot of which, timed at 7.21 am shows a dead girl in an ambulance. Taken by AP, the caption reads:

Among others, the body of a child recovered under the rubble of a demolished building that was struck by Israeli war plane missiles at the village of Qana near the southern Lebanon city of Tyre, is placed in an ambulance Sunday July 30.

In the next frame, we have the same girl, this time apparently being placed in the ambulance. Also taken by AP,this time by Mohammed Zaatari the caption here reads:

A Lebanese rescuer carries the body of a young girl recovered from under the rubble of a demolished building that was struck by Israeli warplane missiles at the village of Qana, near the southern city of Tyre, Lebanon, Sunday, July 30, 2006. Dozens of civilians, including many children, were killed Sunday in an Israeli airstrike that flattened houses in this southern Lebanon village - the deadliest attack in 19 days of fighting.

Intriguingly, though, the dateline given is 10.25 am, three hours after she has already been photographed in the ambulance.

Also from AP's Nasser Nasser, we see the same worker, showing obvious distress, carrying the same girl. But now he is wearing his fluorescent jacket and helmet and has acquired latex gloves. He has also got his radio back. The photograph is timed at 10.44 am and the caption reads:

A civil defense worker carries the body of Lebanese child recovered from the rubble of a demolished building that was struck by an Israeli airstrike at the village of Qana near the southern Lebanon city of Tyre, Sunday, July 30, 2006. Israeli missiles struck this southern Lebanese village early Sunday, flattening houses on top of sleeping residents. The Lebanese Red Cross said the airstrike, in which at least 34 children were killed, pushed the overall Lebanese death toll to more than 500.

Here we are now, same "worker" and same girl, but this time it is done for the benefit of EPA, the photographer, Mohamed Messara, the worker rushing towards a uniformed Red Cross worker. This caption (without a time) reads:

A rescue worker carries the body of a Lebanese girl after an Israeli air strike on the village of Qana, east of the southern port city of Tyre, on Sunday 30 July 2006. At least 51 people were killed, many of them children, and several others wounded in the raid Sunday, witnesses and rescue workers said.

But now, for the benefit of AFP, the photgraph taken by Nicolas Asfouri, we have the same unfortunate child being handled by another worker, the original worker showing in the background, having passed the casualty on. The timing of the photograph is 7.16 pm (now apparently corrected to 6:46 am) and the caption reads:

A rescue worker puts the body of a dead girl on a gurney after Israeli air strikes on the southern Lebanese village of Qana. Israel agreed to temporarily halt air strikes in south Lebanon a day after 52 people were killed, many of them sleeping children, when Israeli warplanes bombarded the Lebanese village of Qana, triggering global outrage and warnings of retribution for alleged "war crimes".

Remember, however, earlier in the sequence, the girl is being carried to the ambulance, by the other worker, sans jacket, helmet and gloves.

Finally, in this sequence, we get another shot from AP's Nasser Nasser, again without a timing but with this caption:

A civil defence worker carries a body of a young Lebanese child recovered from the rubble of a demolished building that was struck by Israeli war plane missiles at the village of Qana near the southern Lebanon city of Tyre, Sunday, July 30, 2006.

Whatever else, the event in Qana was a human tragedy. But the photographs do not show it honestly. Rather, they have been staged for effect, exploiting the victims in an unwholesome manner. In so doing, they are no longer news photographs - they are propaganda. And, whoever said the camera cannot lie forgot that photographers can and do. Those lies have spread throughout the world by now and will be in this morning's newspapers, accepted as real by the millions who view them.

The profession of photo-journalism thereby is sadly diminished by them, and the trust in those who took them and in those who carried them is misplaced. Truly, we are dealing with loathesome creatures. [My ellipses and emphasis]

And Now, The Good News

Let us give thanks to the Father of mercies, the God of all comfort.

From a Real Clear Politics .com article, And Now, The Good News
(Linked by Lucianne.com (L dot) Daily Must Reads. Referenced source of concepts used in article: Thomas Barnett.):

July 31, 2006 [/] And Now, The Good News [/] By Michael Barone

The world seems aswirl. Where do we stand today?

Let's use the analysis of bestselling author Thomas Barnett, who divides the world into a functioning "Core" (North America, Europe, East Asia, rising China and India) and a nonfunctional "Gap" (the Middle East, most of Africa, part of the Andean chain in South America). Barnett argues that our task is to expand the economically interconnected core and establish what he calls connectivity to shrink the gap.

How are we doing? Actually, not badly. Let's look at the hot spots.

First, the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon. It looks as if the Israelis are encountering more military resistance than expected, and it's not clear that they can wipe out Hezbollah as an effective force. Nor is it clear that the United States can install some combination of European and Lebanese military force to control southern Lebanon. But if -- a big "if" -- the Israelis succeed and Hezbollah is reduced to impotence, that would amount to a significant shrinking of the gap. If not, we're back where we started.

Second, the collapse last week of the Doha round of trade negotiations. They might be revived later, but in the meantime we've missed a chance to open up North America and Europe to agricultural exports from Third World countries that desperately need dollars and euros. That's a shame. But the zone of free trade continues to expand as the United States, during this administration, negotiates one free-trade agreement after another -- Oman and Jordan, Central America and Australia, Peru and Colombia. All are increasing connectivity and shrinking the gap.

Third, immigration. The bill sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, with border security and free-market guest-worker provisions, has some small chance of passing the Senate and House. A law that regularizes illegal immigrants would close the internal gap we have with 12 million illegals.

Fourth, Latin America. Venezuela's oil-rich demagogue Hugo Chavez continues to pal around with dictators and tries to stir up trouble. But Latin American voters have been rejecting Chavezism. The victories of anti-Chavez candidates in Peru, Colombia and Mexico in the past few months show that irresponsible demagogy is not popular in the region. Connectivity is increasing, not decreasing, to our south.

Fifth, China and India, with one third of the world's population, continue to have scorching economic growth -- 11 percent in China, 8 percent in India. And they're growing increasingly interconnected with the thriving economies of the core. Hundreds of millions of people are rising out of poverty, and despite high oil prices, we have solid economic growth in North America and Latin America and even some growth in sclerotic Europe. The world economy has never been in better shape.

The cloud. Do we still face problems?

Sure. Iran, to name one -- though its ally Hezbollah seems to have overreached. North Korea, to name another. Baghdad is a mess with sectarian violence. Islamist terrorists continue to plan mayhem against us, and in Europe, Muslim immigrants threaten to impose their values on free and liberal societies. But as we ponder these problems, we need to take a deep breath and reflect on the larger picture, as Thomas Barnett does in his blog (www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog):

"Plenty of people look at the world today and see only decline and violence and chaos since 9/11. I am amazed at how little the Functioning Core of globalization has suffered since that date: no real violence or threats of same amidst our ranks, slow but steady political integration that's still not keeping up with the economic bonds that are booming, spotty but emerging sense of shared security values, and the usual pinpricks of harm inflicted by terror and God, but all in all, nothing really bad despite all this 'tumult' centered in the Middle East and the rising price of oil."

Even so, most Americans continue to moan and groan about our situation, and to yearn for the holiday from history we seemed to be enjoying in the 1990s. As Barnett argues, "Time is on our side, as are all the major dynamics that count -- energy, investments, demographics, sheer firepower, enduring ingenuity, strength of our societies, our enduring resilience." With fits and starts, the core is expanding, connectivity is increasing, and the gap is closing. [My ellipses and emphasis]

"Peace Now" Lesson Learned??? - J :)

Esther 8:11 KJV Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey,

From a New York Daily News article, Peace, the formidable foe:

Peace, the formidable foe [/] Thursday, July 27th, 2006

In every generation they will come to kill us, the Torah instructs.

And the Chosen People too often choose not to believe it.

So now with the greatest army in their chosen land, Jews live in underground shelters, rocketed by those they chose to ignore in the name of Peace Now.

All they got was war now, and the nation will survive, once again. The question is, will the peaceniks survive and live again to help destroy their one and only Jewish state?

If they don’t get the message that everything they have done has led them to this, the next time might be the last time for Israel.

Now, fortunately, for the first time, Israel has an American President who backs its efforts in the war against terrorism. George W. Bush, unlike his daddy, unlike every American President since the rebirth of Israel in 1948, is not preventing Israel from attempting to destroy its Arab enemies.

The Arabs give no credit for this; they blame the U.S. not only for "creating Israel," but for enabling the Jewish state to keep the Palestinians in an "apartheid" state.

It’s all baloney. America did absolutely nothing to create Israel — Harry Truman recognized it, but immediately placed an embargo on it, while the British continually armed the Arabs.

From then on, in every event — the War of Independence of 1948; the Sinai campaign; Six-Day War; the Yom Kippur War; the Lebanon war in 1982, and the intifadehs of 1989 and 2000. Each time, the U.S. stopped Israel from completing a victory. The result: Israel never lost a war, Israel never won a war.

The turning point was the Oslo Accords in 1993, resulting in the great handshake at the White House garden, when Bill Clinton happily got Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to make "peace" with then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

This was the politics of hope at its apex. It was the beginning of the end for peace. All it did was embolden the Palestinians, who understood that Israel was willing to surrender its true hegemony over them, in return for nothing but promises that proved less than the talk of love from the mouth of a hooker.

Finally, in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, without conditions, left Lebanon, both betraying the Southern Lebanese Army and leaving Hezbollah with its rocket capability.

This surrender to terrorism was widely praised by the Israeli Labor Party, led by Shimon Peres and Amir Peretz, who is now the Israeli minister of defense.

The irony is great. Those like Peres and Peretz, who organized the Peace Now movement to move Israel out of Lebanon, now want the nation to destroy Hezbollah.

Well, maybe something good will happen. Maybe the peaceniks will understand that appeasement never worked, never will.

Only if the Jews, at long last, believe that the Torah had it right: In every generation, they will come to kill us. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Exterminate the Vermin???

From my MS Notebook .LOG file of notable quotations:

8:15 AM 7/26/2006 [/] In recent days I have visited embittered residents of the north [of Israel], and the message I have been hearing has been unilateral: We are prepared to withstand these difficult times, provided the government carries out the destruction of Hizbullah to the very end. - Ephraim Sneh, M.K., ynet [My emphasis.]

The dragging on of the Terror War is the worst possible future for all concerned.

In war, there is no substitute for victory.

And, in war, nothing succeeds like excess.

More from Mr. Sneh, member of the Israeli legislature, and a former commander of Israeli occupation forces in southern Lebanon:

From a ynetnews.com article, Go all the way:

14:03 , 07.23.06 [/] War in North [/] Go all the way [/] If the IDF doesn't finish the job now, residents of the north will have suffered in vain [/] [by] Ephraim Sneh

Hizbullah was created by Iran as part of the ayatollahs' overall strategy. The organization has two principle purposes: One, to take control of Lebanon in order to turn it into an Islamic republic supported by Iran. And two: To right Israel and to present a strategic threat to this country and to Israeli society. Iran wants to "blanket" Israel with missiles and rockets, from Gaza in the south the West Bank in the center of the country, and from Lebanon in the south.

When Iranian President Ahmadinejad speaks about destroying Israel, he means exactly that. And before he obtains nuclear weapons, he is trying to hammer and weaken Israeli society with various types of rockets and missiles. Therefore, the war against Hizbullah is part of the wider war between Israel and the evil, hate-filled regime in Tehran that openly aspires to destroy Israel.

Complete the mission

It is clear why Israel cannot cease its fire in Lebanon before its mission is complete. The mission is to destroy Hizbullah's infrastructure in Lebanon and to push the organization away from the Galilee once-and-for-all. If we complete this mission, it will be our first victory over Iran and will constitute an unmistakable message that we have no intention to shy away from Iran's nuclear and terrorist threat.

It will also be a lesson to other Western democracies, who are afraid to take on Tehran, about what needs to be done vis-Ã -vis Iran.

For six years Iran has stockpiled rockets and missiles in south Lebanon and managed to create a balance of fear with Israel. The threat of hundreds of rockets on Israeli settlements has forced Israel to restrain itself in the face of repeated provocations along the Lebanese border. I believe the high price a ground war with Hizbullah would surely exact from IDF soldiers deterred previous Israeli governments from taking such action.

Strong home front

The decision not to hold back after the kidnapping of two soldiers and the killing of their comrades was the correct decision. There is no way to root out Hizbullah by stopping the operation with some political agreement that could restore the status quo in south Lebanon. Were that to happen, the suffering of residents in northern Israel would have been in vain.

In recent days I have visited embittered residents of the north, and the message I have been hearing has been unilateral: We are prepared to withstand these difficult times, provided the government carries out the destruction of Hizbullah to the very end.

Told you so

And on a personal note: In 2000 I warned against a unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, because of the vacuum that would be created by an IDF pullout. I said that Hizbullah would take over the area in all its force, and would deploy opposite our settlements in the north.

This is exactly what happened. Now, the IDF is correcting the mistake. I warned that the message we would be sending to the Arab world would be that it is more worthwhile to draw Israeli blood than to negotiate with us. This also came to pass.

Four months after the pullout from Lebanon the second intifada broke out. We lost more than 1,000. I hope we have learned the bitter lesson.

MK Ephraim Sneh is the leader of the Labor Party Knesset faction and was the commander of IDF forces in south Lebanon during Operation Peace for Galilee [My ellipses and emphasis]

Innocent Civilian Victims???

From my MS Notebook .LOG file of notable quotations:

6:29 AM 7/23/2006 [/] We need a new vocabulary to reflect the realities of modern warfare. A new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the Middle East: "the continuum of civilianality." Though cumbersome, this concept aptly captures the reality and nuance of warfare today and provides a more fair way to describe those who are killed, wounded and punished. - Alan Dershowitz

Dershowitz is a Harvard law professor, not a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but rather one of the chief victims of isolation in the Vast Left Wing Bubble.

However, he stumbles into the truth about the "innocent civilian victims" of those who are providentially authorized to bear the sword, such as the armed forces of Israel.

(I am reminded of one of the greatest book titles of the last century, "Confessions of a Guilty Bystander". (By Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk and best selling author.))

More about Dershowitz's useful concept of "the continuum of civilianality" is linked and partially copied with comments from my favorite blog below.

From a Captain's Quarters blog post, A 'Continuum Of Civilianality'?:

July 22, 2006 [/] A 'Continuum Of Civilianality'?

Alan Dershowitz has made a career out of his contrarian rhetoric. Usually a firebrand liberal, he caused a huge controversy -- and enjoyed it -- when he suggested after 9/11 that torture may have some necessity in the fight against Islamofascist terrorists. He continued challenging conventional wisdom today in a Los Angeles Times column that called into question the status of civilians in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories:

THE NEWS IS filled these days with reports of civilian casualties, comparative civilian body counts and criticism of Israel, along with Hezbollah, for causing the deaths, injuries and "collective punishment" of civilians. But just who is a "civilian" in the age of terrorism, when militants don't wear uniforms, don't belong to regular armies and easily blend into civilian populations?

We need a new vocabulary to reflect the realities of modern warfare. A new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the Middle East: "the continuum of civilianality." Though cumbersome, this concept aptly captures the reality and nuance of warfare today and provides a more fair way to describe those who are killed, wounded and punished.

There is a vast difference — both moral and legal — between a 2-year-old who is killed by an enemy rocket and a 30-year-old civilian who has allowed his house to be used to store Katyusha rockets. Both are technically civilians, but the former is far more innocent than the latter. There is also a difference between a civilian who merely favors or even votes for a terrorist group and one who provides financial or other material support for terrorism.

Finally, there is a difference between civilians who are held hostage against their will by terrorists who use them as involuntary human shields, and civilians who voluntarily place themselves in harm's way in order to protect terrorists from enemy fire.

I suspect that Professor Dershowitz will have some problems with his usual philosophical and political allies with this argument, although he certainly makes a good point. Most wars do not have bright delineation between civilians and combatants. In Eastern Europe, partisans abounded throughout the areas dominated by the Nazis, some of whom did a lot of damage to German military personnel. Their standard response was to conduct reprisals to the civilians they claimed supported the partisans, usually on a 10-1 basis for German casualties. The nadir of this policy came in the Czechoslovakian village of Lidice after the assassination of Reinhold "Hangman" Heydrich, the original author of the Final Solution and a brutal SS leader. The Nazis killed all of the men in the village, sent most of the women into labor camps, dispersed the children, and razed the town to the dust.

However, Dershowitz is not discussing reprisals against unarmed civilians, which are rightly war crimes. He wants a distinction made between civilians killed in the course of battles as to their involvement with the engagement, especially in terms of terrorist attacks. That sounds good in theory, and one could easily apply the same concept in Iraq -- where many of those killed during battles harbored insurgents, if not actively assisted them in targeting Americans or other Iraqis. One could also apply the same thought process in Afghanistan, and pretty much any place where terrorists stage attacks that get military responses.

In practice, however, it becomes much more difficult to do. One cannot interrogate dead people, and the bombs tend to destroy most of the evidence along with the civilians. Witnesses, such as neighbors and family, tend to see their loved ones as complete victims. It would be hard to imagine a Lebanese woman telling CNN that her dead husband often helped Hezbollah move arms or ammunition and therefore his death was justified.

Dershowitz obviously understands this. What he wants is the media to recognize the "continuum of civilianality" when reporting on war in general, and the Israeli conflicts specifically. I would find it helpful if the media remembered that the reason Israel attacks residential areas is because Hezbollah hides its operations in those areas to keep Israel from attacking them. That doesn't reflect on the status of the civilians in the area; it puts the blame on the casualties on the correct party -- the ones who base their attacks and hide their command and control positions among civilians.

His point about the complicity of civilians in these attacks should be well taken, although I doubt they will get much support. The better policy would be to focus on which party of the war attempts to minimize civilian casualties, and which sidem deliberately targets them for their own political purposes. The media should report more on which side wears uniforms and acts distinctly from civilian populations, and which side wears mufti and deliberately uses civilian populations as shields against counterattacks. That way when civilian deaths get discussed, we can have some moral clarity on which side gets the blame for it.

Posted by Captain Ed at July 22, 2006 10:04 PM [My ellipses and emphasis]

Political Correctness Run Amok

Sticks and Stones vs. Words

Political correctness has no sense of proportion.

Rock thrown at a small girl gets little response from authorities and elite cultural improvers.

But an accurate sign warning of the danger supposedly hurts feelings of a thirteen year old stone thrower and wanderer with the mind of a three year.

And the hypothetical hurt feelings arouse authorities and elite cultural improvers to express their (politically required) condemnation and to consider what (largely ineffectual, one hopes) actions they might take.

My opinions follow immediately. Link to -- and copy of -- news story is further below.

It was once a commonplace saying, known to all:

"Sticks and stones / May break my bones / But words will never hurt me."

Or as a better authority described an obvious lack of proportion:

Matthew 23:23-28 KJV Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (24) Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. [ ... ] (28) Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

The obvious remedy is also a commonplace saying:

"Good fences make good neighbors."

And the government does bear ultimate responsibility for sons who are truly unmanageable by parents.

Moses gives the principle. (With the material and technical resources of our age we can readily provide more nuanced responses.):

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 KJV (18) If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: (19) Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; (20) And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. (21) And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

From a KSL.com [Utah] article, Family Upset About Sign In Neighbor's Yard (Note: Sizeable video also available at link with easy and quick (with dsl) download):

Family Upset About Sign In Neighbor's Yard [/] July 21st, 2006 @ 10:00pm [/] Sam Penrod reporting

A cardboard sign is hanging in a tree, directed at a boy with developmental disabilities, and the boy's mother isn't happy.

Neighbor: "I'm not taking the sign down, last night was the first night of peace we've got in a long ----- time."

Carrie Heaton, Colton's Mother: "They've put up this sign now, that we feel is very discriminatory against my son."

The cardboard sign is hanging in a tree in the Central Utah town of Nephi.

It is also being denounced tonight by advocates for the disabled.

The boy's family noticed the sign pointed at their home on Wednesday night, and tonight it is still there. That's despite our visit to the neighbors who put it up.

Advocates for the disabled are outraged, calling it insensitive and in the same category as a racial slur.

Carrie Heaton, Nephi Resident: "You are a good guy."

Colton Heaton: "Yes I'm a good guy

Carrie Heaton, Nephi Resident: "Yes you are... Pats"

13-year-old Colton Heaton is developmentally delayed. His mother says he is more like a three year old.

Carrie Heaton, Nephi Resident: "He looks normal but once you start talking to him, you can see he has these problems and he's just a loving little guy, he thinks we're just a great big family."

But now a cardboard sign is hanging in their neighbor's tree -- spray painted with the words: "Caution-- Retards in Area." His mother says it is fortunate Colton can't read the words.

As we were filming the sign, we could see the neighbors who put it up were outside, so we approached them for their side of the story.

Sam Penrod, Eyewitness News: "Why did you put that sign up?

Neighbor: "I've been harassed for six months, my daughter has been assaulted."

Sam Penrod, Eyewitness News "By who?"

Neighbor: "The young boy, we got pictures and everything and they would not press charges because he is handicapped."

The neighbor claims Colton threw a rock at his young daughter. Other neighbors told us they have frequently found Colton wandering onto their property.

Still, the Disability Law Center says using offensive words is the wrong way to handle a difficult situation.

Fraser Nelson, Executive Director, Disability Law Center: "People with disabilities are probably the last group for whom we continue to use language that is hurtful and offensive. Instead of being someone who is mentally retarded, you are a person with a developmental disability and that means really what we are valuing is the person."

Tom Brownlee, Advocate for those with Disabilities: "When I was growing up, people always used that word in front of me and called me retarded."

Someone who knows how hurtful that word can be is Tom Brownlee, who today is an advocate for those with disabilities.

Tom Brownlee, Advocate for those with Disabilities: "I hate that word, it was very offensive and I just want them to see that people with disabilities deserve the respect that they are entitled to."

Both Brownlee and Nelson are hoping the community will stand up against any behavior that lessens the role of people with disabilities in society.

Fraser Nelson, Executive Director, Disability Law Center: "Regardless of cognitive disability I may have, I'm a person and people do not deserve to have signs pointed at them, making fun of them, scaring them, harassing them."

We contacted Nephi Police and they are working with the Juab County Attorney -- who told me tonight -- he finds it distasteful and derogatory and is researching what legal options may be available, since the neighbors still refuse to take the sign down.

The Disability Law Center is planning to meet with local officials to offer sensitivity training there in Nephi. [My ellipses and emphasis]

"Incredibly Rational" Left Still Exists! Incredible!!!

After two centuries of general liberal decline into "romanticism" and "dream[iness]"

Yes, Virginia, there is an actual, non-legendary, incredibly rational element of the left still in existence.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board has interviewed him.

(The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board has a habit of scooping the elite media "reporters", including the Wall Street Journal "reporters".

(The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board was the first publisher of convincing evidence that a president of the United States had an earlier career as a serial rapist.

(That evidence was particularly convincing to experienced vice squad officers.

(And also, probably, swung the vote in the House of Representatives on impeachment. They had this and more evidence available for reading but not copying.

(The Senate, in its wisdom, unanimously ignored this evidence, as they unanimously ignored the implied constitutional right of the House to fully present its case and the implied constitutional right of the public to fully know that case.)

From a WSJ Opinion Journal article, Get Your Priorities Right:

Get Your Priorities Right [/] A rationalist crusader does the math on global warming. [/] BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL [/] Saturday, July 8, 2006 12:01 a.m.

NEW YORK--Bjorn Lomborg is a political scientist by training, but the charismatic, golden-haired Dane is offering me a history lesson. Two hundred years ago, he explains, sitting forward in his chair in this newspaper's Manhattan offices, the left was an "incredibly rational movement." It believed in "encyclopedias," in hard facts, and in the idea that mastery of these basics would help "make a better society." Since then, the world's do-gooders have succumbed to "romanticism; they've become more dreamy." This is a problem in his view, and so this "self-avowed slight lefty" is determined to nudge the whole world back toward "rationalism."

Well, if not the whole world, at least the people who matter. In Mr. Lomborg's universe that means the lawmakers and bureaucrats who are charged with solving the world's most pressing problems--HIV/AIDS, malaria, malnutrition, dirty water, trade barriers. This once-obscure Dane has in recent years risen to the status of international celebrity as the chief advocate of getting leaders to realize the world has limited resources to fix its problems, and that it therefore needs to prioritize.

Prioritization, cost-effectiveness, efficiency--these are the ultimate in rational thinking. (It strikes me they are the ultimate in "free markets," though Mr. Lomborg studiously avoids that term.) They are also nearly unheard-of concepts among the governments, international bodies and aid groups that oversee good works.

Mr. Lomborg's approach has been to organize events around the globe in which leaders are forced to think in new ways. His task is certainly timely, with groups like the U.N. engaged in debate over "reform," and philanthropists such as Warren Buffett throwing billions at charitable foundations. But, I ask, can the world really become more rational? "It's no use just talking about all the great things you'd like to accomplish--we've got to get there," says Mr. Lomborg.

Bjorn Lomborg busted--and that is the only word for it--onto the world scene in 2001 with the publication of his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." A one-time Greenpeace enthusiast, he'd originally planned to disprove those who said the environment was getting better. He failed. And to his credit, his book said so, supplying a damning critique of today's environmental pessimism. Carefully researched, it offered endless statistics--from official sources such as the U.N.--showing that from biodiversity to global warming, there simply were no apocalypses in the offing. "Our history shows that we solve more problems than we create," he tells me. For his efforts, Mr. Lomborg was labeled a heretic by environmental groups--whose fundraising depends on scaring the jeepers out of the public--and became more hated by these alarmists than even (if possible) President Bush.
Yet the experience left Mr. Lomborg with a taste for challenging conventional wisdom. In 2004, he invited eight of the world's top economists--including four Nobel Laureates--to Copenhagen, where they were asked to evaluate the world's problems, think of the costs and efficiencies attached to solving each, and then produce a prioritized list of those most deserving of money. The well-publicized results (and let it be said here that Mr. Lomborg is no slouch when it comes to promoting himself and his work) were stunning. While the economists were from varying political stripes, they largely agreed. The numbers were just so compelling: $1 spent preventing HIV/AIDS would result in about $40 of social benefits, [[N.B. This must be taken cum grano salis. Much would be misspent. HIVis a fabulous monster, actually. The economists are either ignorant of this or collaborators in the greatest all time medical hoax.]] so the economists put it at the top of the list (followed by malnutrition, free trade and malaria). In contrast, $1 spent to abate global warming would result in only about two cents to 25 cents worth of good; so that project dropped to the bottom.

"Most people, average people, when faced with these clear choices, would pick the $40-of-good project over others--that's rational," says Mr. Lomborg. "The problem is that most people are simply presented with a menu of projects, with no prices and no quantities. What the Copenhagen Consensus was trying to do was put the slices and prices on a menu. And then require people to make choices."

Easier said than done. As Mr. Lomborg explains, "It's fine to ask economists to prioritize, but economists don't run the world." (This sounds unfortunate to me, although Mr. Lomborg, the "slight lefty," quickly adds "Thank God.") "We now need to get the policy makers on board, the ones who are dealing with the world's problems." And therein lies the rub. Political figures don't like to make choices; they don't like to reward some groups and not others; they don't like to admit that they can't do it all. They are political. Not rational.

So all the more credit to Mr. Lomborg, who several weeks ago got his first big shot at reprogramming world leaders. His organization, the Copenhagen Consensus Center, held a new version of the exercise in Georgetown. In attendance were eight U.N. ambassadors, including John Bolton. (China and India signed on, though no Europeans.) They were presented with global projects, the merits of each of which were passionately argued by experts in those fields. Then they were asked: If you had an extra $50 billion, how would you prioritize your spending?

Mr. Lomborg grins and says that before the event he briefed the ambassadors: "Several of them looked down the list and said 'Wait, I want to put a No. 1 by each of these projects, they are all so important.' And I had to say, 'Yeah, uh, that's exactly the point of this exercise--to make you not do that.'" So rank they did. And perhaps no surprise, their final list looked very similar to that of the wise economists. At the top were better health care, cleaner water, more schools and improved nutrition. At the bottom was . . . global warming.

Wondering how all this might go over with Al Gore, I ask Mr. Lomborg if he'd seen the former vice president's new film that warns of a climate-change disaster. He's planning to, but notes he wasn't impressed by the trailers: "It appears to be so overblown that it isn't helpful to the discussion." Not that Mr. Lomborg doesn't think global warming is a problem--he does. But he lays out the facts. "The proposed way of fixing this--to drastically reduce carbon emissions now and to solve a 100-year problem in a 10-year time frame, is just a bad idea. You do fairly little good at a fairly high price. It makes more sense to solve the 100-year problem in a 50-year time frame, and solve the 10-year problems, like HIV-AIDS, in a five-year time frame. That makes sense, and is the smart way to spend money."

Slipping into his environmentalist's shoes, he also says people need to get some perspective. "The U.N. tells us global warming will result in a sea-level change of one to two feet. It is not going to be the 30 feet Al Gore is scaring us with. Is this one to two feet going to be a problem? Sure," he says. "But remember that this past century sea levels rose between one-third and a full foot. And if you ask old people today what the most important things were that happened in the 20th century, do you think they are going to say: 'Two world wars, the internal combustion engine, the IT revolution . . . and sea levels rose'? It's not to say it isn't a problem. But we fix these problems."

Perhaps Mr. Lomborg's greatest coup at the recent Copenhagen Consensus event was getting the attention of John Bolton, a foe of U.N. inefficiency and bureaucratic wheel-turning. "I called Bolton's secretary and we finally got them to agree and she said 'Okay, you can have him for one hour.' And I said 'No, we need him for two days.' And she laughed her heart out and said 'That's never going to happen.'" But happen it did, and Mr. Bolton [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] was an enthusiastic supporter, appearing with Mr. Lomborg to announce the results of the exercise and lamenting that too often at the U.N. "everything is a priority." There is already talk of a bigger U.N. event in the fall.

Still, it strikes me that simply getting the top folks to prioritize (which itself would be a minor miracle) is only a start. How does Mr. Lomborg intend to deal with a compartmentalized bureaucracy, where every unit claims it is sacred and each one is petrified of losing funding? Here, Mr. Lomborg himself turns a little less rational and a little more political. It's no accident that the consensus organizers tell its participants to consider what they'd do with an "extra" $50 billion. "Most of these guys, the day-to-day guys at the U.N., went into their business to 'do good.' And we need to appeal to that bigger sense of virtue. The best way to do that is talk about 'extra' money, so that they aren't worried about losing their own job."

Mr. Lomborg hopes that prioritization up top will inspire "competition" down below. "Most people work in their own circles--malaria guys talk to malaria guys, malnutrition guys to malnutrition guys. But if they understand that there are other projects out there, and that they also have price tags, and that the ones with the best performance are the ones that will get the extra money--you start to have an Olympics for best projects. And that means smarter ideas for how to solve problems." In fact, Mr. Lomborg wishes there were more Al Gores. "It's good we have someone educating about global warming. But we need Al Gores for HIV/AIDS, Al Gores for malnutrition, Al Gores for free trade, Al Gores for clean drinking water. We need all these Al Gores passionately roaming the earth with power-point presentations, making the case for their project. Because at that point, the real Al Gore would be slightly sidelined, since he's arguing for the most expensive cure that would do the least good."

Mr. Lomborg is smart enough to realize that what really bothers political leaders with this approach is that "it would be launching a ship and it's unknown where it will land. That makes people uncomfortable." A Copenhagen Consensus exercise for the Inter-American Development Bank in Latin America or for the Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. (both of which Mr. Lomborg is working to organize) could result in findings that suggest the leaders of these organizations have been throwing good money after bad for years.

"Right now, politicians know that in public they have to say they support all things, and suggest there is an infinite amount of money to give to an infinite amount of good causes. Semiprivately, they know that if they have 10 good causes, the easiest thing is to give one-tenth of the funds to each--so there are no complaints. But privately they know there isn't enough money for everything and that they probably should have given most of it to the one or two groups that would do the most good."

At the very least, the Copenhagen Consensus might make it harder for public figures to defend bad decisions. "If you have a rational list that tells you that you do a lot more good preventing HIV/AIDS, then those in favor of such projects have slightly better arguments. Those arguing for climate change have slightly worse arguments." And while this may not change the world, it could be a start. "The Consensus isn't about getting it perfectly right," says Mr. Lomborg. "It's about getting it slightly less wrong." [/] Ms. Strassel is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. [My ellipses and emphasis]

J :) POLL: Will North Korea Wake Up the U.S. Giant?

See article below. Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!! Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 99562!!!. (Choices also given after article below.)

I fear that we have aroused a sleeping giant. - Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, December 8th (in Japan), 1941

From a Reuters via Yahoo! article, N. Korea missile aimed at area off Hawaii - report:

Friday July 7, 8:06 AM [/] N. Korea missile aimed at area off Hawaii - report

TOKYO (Reuters) - A North Korean missile launched on Wednesday [Tuesday, July Fourth, in Hawaii] was aimed at an area of the ocean close to Hawaii, a Japanese newspaper reported on Friday.
Experts estimated the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile to have a range of up to 6,000 km, putting Alaska within its reach. Wednesday's launch apparently failed shortly after take-off and the missile landed in the sea between the Korean peninsula and Japan, a few hundred kilometres from the launch pad.

But data from U.S. and Japanese Aegis radar-equipped destroyers and surveillance aircraft on the missile's angle of take-off and altitude indicated that it was heading for waters near Hawaii, the Sankei Shimbun reported, citing multiple sources in the United States and Japan.

North Korea may have targeted Hawaii to show the United States that it was capable of landing a missile there, or because it is home to the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific fleet, the paper said. [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Poll Question: J :) POLL: Will North Korea Wake Up the U.S. Giant? | Poll choices:

1. Yes. The crazy tantrums will increase until vigorously stopped. / 2. Yes. Even U.S. preachers of diversity have limits, actually. / 3. Yes. If China approves of provocations. / 4. Yes. If China does not frown. / 5. Yes. Unless Japan defends itself pre-emptively. / 6. Yes. Unless Alaskan or Hawaiian patriots defend their states pre-emptively. / 7. Yes. Compassion and fairness has no prejudice. / 8. Yes, American niceness will reign until then. / 9. Yes. / 10. Possibly. Should be investigated by Kofi Annan. / 11. Possibly. But fairness and compassion toward all people more important. / 12. No. If they nuke Japan, who are we to cast stones? / 13. No. / 14. No. Their neighbors will restrain them. / 15. No. Their incompetence will restrain them. / 16. No. Our military will knock down their rockets before they get very far. / 17. No. Our government will pre-emptively destroy the launch facilities first. / 18. No. Bush will do whatever has to be done to ensure domestic tranquility. / 19. No comment. / 20. No opinion. / 21. This poll is worthless. / 22. This poll is of negative value. / 23. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 99562! Vote!! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!!

J :) POLL: Is Patriotism a Disease? The Flag a Symptom?

See article below. Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!! Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 99410!!!. (Choices also given after article below.)

Agence France-Presse (AFP): "Flag Epidemic" Peaks on Forth of July

The Stars and Stripes were displayed openly in only one place in Nazi occupied Europe all through World War II.

It was a symbol of hope.

It was in France. (Over the grave of the Marquis de Lafayette, an honorary American citizen.)

Agence France-Presse (AFP) forgets so soon. (American commander Pershing remembered and paid tribute, in 1917, to the great assistance of France in the founding our Nation, proclaiming "Lafayette, We are here!"

From a AFP via Breitbart.com article, US 'flag epidemic' reaches peak on Fourth of July:

US 'flag epidemic' reaches peak on Fourth of July [/] Jul 05 4:43 AM US/Eastern

It's a true epidemic: the red, white and blue, stars-and-stripes banners are everywhere in the United States - on house facades, front lawns, cars and clothes. [/] Hitting an high point on the July 4 US Independence Day holiday, it is a genuine phenomenon of American national pride that, inevitably, gets a good but also sometimes unwanted boost from commercial exploitation.

"It's a little strange, this obsession of the flag," French author Bernard-Henri Levy wrote after traveling across the country. [/] "Everywhere, in every form, flapping in the wind or on stickers, an epidemic of flags that has spread throughout the city," Levy wrote in "American Vertigo" of the riot of banners he saw.

"Old Glory," as the US flag is affectionately called, can be seen in abundance through the year in the American heartland and the South, and to a lesser extent in cities like New York and Los Angeles. [/]

Patriotic flag-waving strengthened in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and increased even more with the beginning of the war in Iraq as a testament of support for President George W. Bush.

But the phenomenon hits its peak each year around the Fourth of July, when it becomes the focus of intense advertising and commercial promotions.

At shopping malls, big and small national banners show up on jeans, baseball caps, dinner plates and swimsuits. The Stars and Stripes decorate everything -- from tattoos and fingernails to huge cakes.

[…] "Global public opinion surveys regularly put Americans at the top of the patriotism index," [Brookings Institution analyst William] Galston told AFP. "The US flag is the visible symbol of that strong sentiment... Even our national anthem is about the flag." [My ellipses and emphasis]

Other interesting information may be found in the article quoted above.

Poll Question: Is Patriotism a Disease? The Flag a Symptom? | Poll choices:

1. Yes. The U.N.! The Baby Blue and White!! Forever!!! / 2. Yes. Workers of the World! Unite!! / 3. Yes. One World! / 4. Yes. The last refuge of the right wing. / 5. Yes. The last refuge of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. / 6. Yes. The last refuge of the right wing nuts. / 7. Yes. The last refuge of scoundrels. / 8. Yes, Let niceness reign. / 9. Yes. / 10. Possibly. Should be investigated by the Centers for Disease Control. / 11. Possibly. Fairness and compassion toward all people more important. / 12. No. But stop attacking godless liberals as un-patriotic. / 13. No. / 14. No. Support our unity of purpose for godly ends. / 15. No. Keep our commitments (and those of our forefathers) as citizens. / 16. No. Support the world's second best hope. (The best is Jesus.) / 17. No. The biggest kid on the block has big responsibilities. / 18. No. Use the big stick on the world's thugs whenever needed. / 19. No comment. / 20. No opinion. / 21. This poll is worthless. / 22. This poll is of negative value. / 23. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 99410! Vote!! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!!

France? Beating U.S. Internet Access?

Will U.S. cities be beaten by the capital of the much maligned French?

Stay tuned.

From a Reuters article, Paris wants wireless Internet access across city:

Paris wants wireless Internet access across city [/] Tue Jul 4, 2006 3:20 PM ET

PARIS (Reuters) - Paris wants blanket wireless Internet cover by the end of 2007, helping to make it the most connected capital city in the world, Mayor Bertrand Delanoe said on Tuesday.

Under a new plan, the city hopes to set up 400 free WiFi access points next year and allow Internet service providers to install antennae on strategically-located public property.

"We will act fast and firmly... to create the most favorable conditions for Paris," Delanoe told reporters at city hall. "It is a decisive tool for international competition and thus important for the city."

The plan also calls for slashing taxes on companies that lay down fiber optic cables in a drive to have 80 percent of all buildings within the city connected to so-called 'ultra-high speed' fiber optic networks by 2010.

"Sixty percent of Parisian households already have high-speed connections. ... Our goal will be not only to maintain this but also to move a step ahead," Delanoe said.

License fees for fiber optic cables already snaking through the city's sewer system would be cut by 25 percent, and the tax break would go up to 90 percent for the first 400 meters of new cables that branch out to connect buildings currently lacking the high-speed lines.

The free wireless access points -- to be located in parks, squares, libraries, and public areas -- will be set up by private firms that win contracts to be awarded in early 2007.

The project will also experiment with free WiFi access for an entire city quarter by the end of 2007.

Delanoe said he would be submit the plans for city council approval early next week. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Godly and Ungodly Politics -J:)

(A substantial enlargement and improvement of an important post starting a prior thread in some forums.)

Associated Press Stumbles Into the Basic Political Division

Mexico's presidential election was too close to call Sunday, with a leftist offering himself as a savior to the poor and a conservative free-trader both declaring themselves the winner. Officials said they won't know who won for days. [My ellipses and emphasis] - Associated Press article

The basic political divide of our times:

The Tax Collector Saving the Poor

versus -

Government Protecting Freedom of Opportunity

For the love of God, please listen to the true witness:

Government Protecting Freedom of Opportunity

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made [...] For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. - Paul, servant and apostle of Jesus (1 Timothy 2:1-2 KJV)

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. - Paul, servant and apostle of Jesus (Romans 13:1-4 KJV)

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. - A revelation from God about Jesus (Revelation 19:15 KJV )

Saving the Poor

For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. - Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 26:11 KJV)

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. - Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 11:28-30 KJV)

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? […] But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. - Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 6:25-33 KJV)

But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? - John, servant and apostle of Jesus (1 John 3:17 KJV)

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. - James, servant, apostle and brother of Jesus (James 1:27 KJV )

For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. - A revelation from God about Jesus (Revelation 7:17 KJV)

Hollywood Anti-War Stars Get Serious

Stars Align In "Rolling" Hunger Strike

Who says that the Hollywood anti-war star activists are not serious real people?

Who says that the Hollywood anti-war star activists are not (in their own way) true and courageous patriots?

Who says that the Hollywood anti-war star activists are not willing to make sacrifices for their country (and for all the billions of oppressed people, both here and abroad)?

Other supporters, including Penn, Sarandon, novelist Alice Walker and actor Danny Glover will join a 'rolling" fast, a relay in which 2,700 activists pledge to refuse food for at least 24 hours, and then hand over to a comrade.

Both above and following quotes from a AFP via Breitbart.com article, US stars align in anti-Iraq war hunger strike:

US stars align in anti-Iraq war hunger strike [/] Jul 03 6:34 PM US/Eastern

Star Hollywood actor-activists including Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon and anti-war campaigners led by bereaved mother Cindy Sheehan plan to launch a hunger strike, demanding the immediate return of US troops from Iraq.

As Americans get set to fire up barbeques in patriotic celebration of US Independence Day on July 4, anti-war protestors planned to savour a last meal outside the White House, before embarking on a 'Troops Home Fast' at midnight.

"We've marched, held vigils, lobbied Congress, camped out at Bush's ranch, we've even gone to jail, now it's time to do more," said Sheehan, who emerged as an anti-war icon after losing her 24-year-old son Casey in Iraq.

[…] "We have done everything we could think of to end this war, we have protested, held marches, vigils ... lobbied, written letters to Congress," said Dearborn.

"Now it is time to bring the pain and suffering of war home. We are putting our bodies on the line for peace."

It is all -- pretty wonderful.

The hunger strike will see at least four activists, Sheehan, veteran comedian and peace campaigner Dick Gregory, former army colonel Ann Wright and environmental campaigner Diane Wilson launch serious, long-term fasts. [/] "I don't know how long I can fast, but I am making this open-ended," said Wilson.

Other supporters, including Penn, Sarandon, novelist Alice Walker and actor Danny Glover will join a 'rolling" fast, a relay in which 2,700 activists pledge to refuse food for at least 24 hours, and then hand over to a comrade. […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

They used to say in the movies, in the days of yesteryear, "Monkeys are the funniest people."

Now, perhaps, the monkeys are getting serious competition.

Associated Press Stumbles Into the Truth

Mexico's presidential election was too close to call Sunday, with a leftist offering himself as a savior to the poor and a conservative free-trader both declaring themselves the winner. Officials said they won't know who won for days. [My ellipses and emphasis] - Associated Press article

The basic political divide of our times:

Saving the Poor

versus -

Freedom of Opportunity

For the love of God, please listen to the true witness:

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. - Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 11:28-30 KJV)

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. - Paul, servant and apostle of Jesus (Romans 13:1-4 KJV)

No Big-Time Anti-Americans in Africa

Since Libia's Gaddafi changed sides, seeing the handwriting on the wall after our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq showed that we were serious.

So the African Union was forced to go outside the continent to find big-time anti-American talent, and thus show the West that colonial days are over.

From a Reuters article, Africa invites top anti-Americans to summit:

Africa invites top anti-Americans to summit [/] Jul 2, 2:04 PM (ET) [/] By Barry Moody

BANJUL (Reuters) - Two of the world's most anti-American leaders, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, attended this weekend's Africa summit in Gambia to the consternation of Western diplomats.

Both lived up to their billing with Chavez railing against U.S. "hegemony" and Ahmadinejad blaming Western greed for "poverty, backwardness, regional conflicts, corruption, illicit drugs."

The role of West-baiting once fell at AU summits to Libya's colourful leader Muammar Gaddafi but he has now been welcomed into the Western fold and Libya is soon to be taken off the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.

So why were outsiders Chavez and Ahmadinejad invited?

The striking presence of such anti-Western figures, particularly the Iranian leader, raised eyebrows among the large number of foreign envoys observing the summit, diplomats said.

One non-aligned ambassador who asked not to be identified said the invitation to Chavez was more understandable than that to Ahmadinejad since Venezuela has AU observer status.

He said the Ahmadinejad invitation was apparently extended unilaterally by Gambian President Yahya Jammeh, and provoked criticism from some countries in the 53-member AU.

But Western diplomats suggested the two invitations may also have been intended to underline Africa's breakaway from the influence of former colonial powers in Europe.

"At one time the links with Europe were still strong. But in the 21st century Africa wants to show that these links have finally been broken," one European ambassador said.

Professor Shadrack Gutto, director of African Renaissance Studies at the University of South Africa, said the presence of Chavez and Ahmadinejad should not be seen as anti-Western.

"The AU is not suddenly turning against the West. These visits were not ideologically decided and there isn't necessarily an anti-Western aspect to it," he said.

But he added that it was easier for Africa to assert its independence from the West when meeting in the AU than as individual countries, many dependent on Western funding.

"It does indicate that collectively, as the 53 members of the AU, when they come together the West will not choose for them who they invite or who their friends are," he said.

"They are saying Africa can have a position that differs with that of the West."

Gutto suggested that whereas there were strong and logical reasons to invite Venezuela, Ahmadinejad had probably pushed for an invitation to lobby for African support in Tehran's nuclear standoff with the West.

He said African countries were eager to hear about Chavez's policies toward Western oil companies.

"Chavez has taken quite a radical line with regard to claiming national sovereignty over natural resources and that resonates with a lot of African countries emerging as substantial producers," Gutto said.

He said African producers were anxious to ensure they maximised the benefits of their resources and were not being short-changed in contracts with Western oil companies.

In his speech to the summit on Saturday, Chavez urged Africa to seize greater control of its energy resources, describing the low royalties paid by some oil giants as robbery. Chavez has hiked taxes on U.S. oil companies, which he dubbed "Count Dracula." [My ellipses and emphasis]

Limey Makes Fun of Us Colonials

It must be good to have this prayer answered, even in part:

Would that God the gift would gie us,

To see ourselves as others see us.

But it does not always feel good.

From a [London] TimesOnline.co.uk article, The united states of total paranoia:

The Sunday Times July 02, 2006 [/] The united states of total paranoia [/] Jeremy Clarkson

I know Britain is full of incompetent water board officials and stabbed Glaswegians but even so I fell on my knees this morning and kissed the ground, because I’ve just spent three weeks trying to work in America. [/] It’s known as the land of the free and I’m sure it is if you get up in the morning, go to work in a petrol station, eat nothing but double-egg burgers — with cheese — and take your children to little league. But if you step outside the loop, if you try to do something a bit zany, you will find that you’re in a police state.

We begin at Los Angeles airport in front of an immigration official who, like all his colleagues, was selected for having no grace, no manners, no humour, no humanity and the sort of IQ normally found in farmyard animals. He scanned my form and noted there was no street number for the hotel at which I was staying. [/] “I’m going to need a number,” he said. “Ooh, I’m sorry,” I said, “I’m afraid I don’t have one.” [/] This didn’t seem to have any effect. “I’m going to need a number,” he said again, and then again, and then again. Each time I shrugged and stammered, terrified that I might be sent to the back of the queue or worse, into the little room with the men in Marigolds. But I simply didn’t have an answer. [/] “I’m going to need a number,” he said again, giving the distinct impression that he was an autobank, and that this was a conversation he was prepared to endure until one of us died. So with a great deal of bravery I decided to give him one. And the number I chose was 2,649,347. [/] This, it turned out, was fine. He’d been told by his superiors to get a number. I’d given him a number. His job was done and so, just an hour or so later, I was on the streets of Los Angeles doing a piece to camera.

Except, of course, I wasn’t. Technically you need a permit to film on every street in pretty well every corner of the world. But the only countries where this rule is enforced are Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea and the United States of America. [/] So, seconds after breaking out the tripod, a policeman pulled up and demanded that we show him our permit. We had one that covered the city of Los Angeles . . . except the bit where we were. So we were moved on. [/] The next day I was moved on in Las Vegas too because the permit I had didn’t cover the part of the pavement I was standing on. Eight inches away was fine.

You need a permit to do everything in America. You even need a passport to buy a drink. But interestingly you don’t need one if you wish to rent some guns and some bullets. I needed a 50 cal (very big) machinegun. “No problem,” said the man at the shop. “But could you just sign this assuring us that the movie you’re making is not anti-Bush or anti-war.”

Also, you do not need a permit if you want — as I did — to transport a dead cow on the roof of your car through the Florida panhandle. That’s because this is banned by a state law. [/] Think about that. Someone has gone to all the bother and expense of drawing up a law that means that at some point lots of people were moving dead cows about on their cars. It must have been popular. Fashionable even.

Anyway, back to the guns. I needed them because I wished to shoot a car in the Mojave desert. But you can’t do that without the say-so of the local fire chief who turned up, with his haircut, to say that for reasons he couldn’t explain, he had a red flag in his head.

You find this a lot in America. People way down the food chain are given the power to say yes or no to elaborately prepared plans, just so their bosses can’t be sued. One expression that simply doesn’t translate from English in these days of power without responsibility is “Ooh, I’m sure it’ll be fine”.

And, unfortunately, these people at the bottom of the food chain have no intellect at all. Reasoning with them is like reasoning with a tree. I think this is because people in the sticks have stopped marrying their cousins and are now mating with vegetables.
[/] They certainly aren’t eating them. You see them growing in fields, but all you ever find on a menu is cheese, cheese, cheese, or cheese with cheese. Except for a steak and cheese sandwich I bought in Mississippi. This was made, according to the label, from “imitation cheese”. [/] Nope, I don’t know what that is either but I do know that out of the main population centres, the potato people are getting fatter and dimmer by the minute.

Today the average petrol pump attendant is capable, just, of turning on a pump when you prepay. But if you pay for two pumps to be turned on to fill two cars, you can, if you stare carefully, see wisps of smoke coming from her fat, useless, war losing, acne-scarred, gormless turnip face. [/] And the awful thing is that you don’t want the petrol anyway, because it’ll simply get you to somewhere else, which will be worse. A point I shall prove next week when we have a look at what happened in Alabama. And why the poor of New Orleans will sue if the donation you make isn’t as big as they’d hoped for. [My ellipses and emphasis]

New York Times Excuses Bomb At L-Dot

Lucianne.com News Forum posters are not entirely pleased with the explanations of DEAN BAQUET, editor, The Los Angeles Times, and BILL KELLER, executive editor, The New York Times regarding the publication of Terror War secrets stolen by turned-in-place traitors from the people of the United States.

(It is highly improper to publish secrets in any case. Even a child knows that a secret is something that is told to one person at a time.)

Note that new heights of invective are being attained. Particularly by the neologistic phrase, "despicable islamopignazi lover".

An unimpeachable, usually reliable, source whose identity and credentials must remain secret, has disclosed that both the New York Times owner and the executive editor, have been awarded, in secret ceremonies, top medals for valor, loyalty, and contributions to the cause from both the Taliban and Al Queda.

From a Lucianne.com article thread, When Do We Publish a Secret?:

When Do We Publish a Secret? [/] New York Times, by Dean Baquet and Bill Keller

Original Article [/] Posted By:HogPilot, 7/1/2006 7:45:13 AM

SINCE Sept. 11, 2001, newspaper editors have faced excruciating choices in covering the government's efforts to protect the country from terrorist agents. Each of us has, on a number of occasions, withheld information because we were convinced that publishing it could put lives at risk.--snip--Make no mistake, journalists have a large and personal stake in the country's security.

Comments:

When? Whenever they think it will hurt GWB politically of course...

Reply 1 - Posted by: Opsimath, 7/1/2006 7:55:34 AM

Right...the drive by media unloads its IEDs then stands around fascinated, watching how much attention it has generated not concerned about the irreparable damage that results. May the NYTimes and others like them fall into an economic abyss from which they will never recover for the ill they have done to U.S.

Reply 2 - Posted by: lonetown, 7/1/2006 7:58:48 AM

Another steaming, smelly crock!

Reply 3 - Posted by: vrb8m, 7/1/2006 7:58:57 AM

'journalists have a large and personal stake in the country's security'...

And you've made that abundantly clear, you despicable islamopignazi lover.

Reply 4 - Posted by: OMyMy, 7/1/2006 8:00:31 AM

"journalists have a large and personal stake in the country's security."

So natually we print detailed classified national security info whenever we can.
Yeah Keller, thanks for caring.

Reply 5 - Posted by: Halfgenius, 7/1/2006 8:06:36 AM

For NYT's claim of being so right in their decision to publish state secrets they sho' do be a-hummin' a lot of forgive me tunes. Yup, and if I made a decision based on what I thought was just and right I'd certainly not waste a lot of time and ink trying to put polish and lipstick on it. Nope, the boycott goes on and so does the NYT's sojourn to the dead fish dumpster, where the odor from these kind of screeds won't be noticed. The only thing good that the NYT's can print now is the last edition! […] [My ellipses and emphasis]