Chrysler Bids, Deflating and Insulting

Although the bids for the Chrysler division of DaimlerChrysler may be insultingly low, it is certainly a buyers market in the auto industry-especially when it comes to American auto makers.

At close to a 90% discount, Daimler-Benz is practically giving away Chrysler if it accepts Kirk Kerkorian's $4.5 billion offer. Daimler originally paid $36 billion for Chrysler in 1998.

To put this in terms us average Americans can understand, imagine paying $36,000 for a new Chevy Tahoe in 1998 only to find out that now in 2007 we could have gotten a new Tahoe for $4500? Playing this game with larger numbers, imagine buying a nice house in 1998 for $360,000 and only being able to sell it for $45,000 in 2007. You can see where DaimlerChrysler must be in bad shape.

Meanwhile Toyota is passing GM for tops in the auto industry. The UAW must be proud of its work destroying the US auto industry. Funny thing is look at all the foreign auto makers building cars in the US-at a profit! Go figure-what's the difference? Foreign owned and non-union perhaps, or are their unions just more reasonable to work with?

Trustworthy News Sources

I've been accuse of being a knuckle draggin' lemming of a conservative

Wai, wait, don't tell me. You listen to Rush Limbaugh religiously and watch Fox News and don't read.

If you are interested, in the comments you can see what news sources I do trust. The question now is, what news sources do you trust?





Technorati Tags: News, Media, Press

Giuliani States the Obvious

Democrats Socialist? Oh, no, say it ain't so, Joe.

The next thing Presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani is going to tell us is that everything FDR did was a swipe a capitalism.

The issue that Giuliani took issue with was universal healthcare, or more appropriately labeled, social medicine.

The Republican hopeful said in a visit to Raleigh, N.C., that Democrats who urged "mandatory" universal health care at a debate Thursday night were "moving toward socialized medicine so fast, it'll make your head spin," according to the Associated Press.

Giuliani instead advocated for a private solution. "When we want to cover poor people, as we should, we give them vouchers," he said.

And even vouchers won't be enough. Frivolous lawsuits must be addressed. Health Savings Accounts are a wonderful policy. But Bush did propose some Healthcare policy right, although the Democrats won't allow Bush a single victory at this point no matter how much it makes sense.

Technorati Tags: Healthcare, Socialsm, Democrats, Giuliani

Interior Deparment Proposes New Oil Drilling Locations

Virginia, Gulf of Mexico and Alaska all proposed by the Interior Department for oil and gas drilling.

Unfortunately, it will have come a couple years too late. The return on investment won't show up until 2011, and by that time who knows what the price of gas at the pump will be. In the oddest twist being an insurance policy never used, an alternative fuel source may be prevalent by 2011.

The environmentalists would rather "drill in Detroit," whatever that means, to get more gas mileage out of US auto manufacturers. The problem with that thinking is that with the way the US auto industry is sliding, the US auto industry might have little to say about the overall use of auto gasoline.

Either way, this is typical US politics-don't act until the problem has reached a crisis. It took 9/11 for the US to address terrorism with a concerted effort. With this in mind, Social Security won't be addressed until the year 2040.

And this proposal still has to get through congress, so there is still hope that the US could still be handcuffed by the major oil exporting countries...maybe we haven't reached a true crisis yet.

Technorati Tags: oil, gas, energy, environment, auto industry

Bin Laden and Liberals-Both Want Cheney Dead

Most liberals have loathed Vice President Dick Cheney since 2002 when it became apparent Cheney was the brains behind the Bush presidency and one of the driving forces behind the Iraq War.

In a recent interview aired on Al Jazeera, the Taliban's top military official, Mullah Dadullah revealed that Cheney was the target of an attack personally orchestrated by Osama bin Laden himself.

"You may remember the martyr operation inside the Bagram base, which targeted a senior U.S. official. ... He (bin Laden) planned that operation and guided us through it. The operation was a success."

As they say, "war makes strange bedfellows," but I imagine many liberals who wouldn't have donated money to bin Laden's February attack. On the other hand, conservatives would most likely consider this an endorsement for Cheney.

Technorati Tags: bin Laden, Cheney, Dadullah,

Koch, Democratic Leaders "Embarrassment."

Former Democratic New York Mayor, Ed Koch, blasted the Democratic party leadership for being an "embarrassment" to the Democratic Party.

The leaders of the Democratic Party, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who recently said, "the road to Damascus is a road to peace," and went to Syria against the advice of the State Department, and Majority Leader of the Senate Harry Reid who recently said, "This war is lost," should be an embarrassment to the Democratic Party, and could cause the Democrats to lose next year's election. While I believe the Democrats have the edge in 2008, remember that Republicans thought they were a shoo-in in 1948. Harry Truman surprised them.

This isn't too far off from what former Republican New York Mayor, and presidential hopeful, Rudolph Giuliani said yesterday.

"If one of them gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on the defense," he said. "We've got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We're going to wave the white flag there. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense."

Maybe not all Democrats believe on going on the defensive. Although, in the same article, Koch endorses Clinton as his pick for president.

Technorati Tags: election, Giuliani, Clinton

McCain Announces-Giuliani Accuses

On the day that Senator John McCain announced his presidential bid as a Republican, another Republican candidate, Former New York mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, stole the spotlight.

Giuliani stole Wednesday's headlines by blasting Democrats for wanting to take us back to a pre-9/11 mentality.

"If one of them gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on the defense," he said. "We've got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We're going to wave the white flag there. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense."

Giuliani already has a sizable lead over the GOP favorite John McCain, so it is interesting that Giuliani is already taking on the Democrats instead of McCain. This could also be a ploy to capture the hearts of the right who may have questions about Giuliani's social agenda. It is known that as a Republican, Guiliani is left of center in regards to homosexuality and abortion.

Of course, the Democrats had to weigh in.

Perhaps the sharpest retort came from Karen Finney, spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, who charged Giuliani with negligence while he was mayor of New York. "He actually failed to have an offense or defense that could have helped prepare New York City for the second attack on the World Trade Center," she said.

Good point, but Giuliani addressed this.

But until then, if I have anything to say about it, the lesson I learned coming out of September 11, 2001, is, never, ever again will this country be on defense waiting for them to come to us. The United States of America will be on offense and, make no mistake about it, the Democrats want to put us back on defense.

Obama had to have his say about the matter.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said Giuliani's words had "taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics."

The problem here is that Obama is confusing reality with fear. Obama's lack of understanding of the international milieu is frightful. Even JFK put up a Naval blockade of Cuba. I'm not sure Obama would have gone that far.

Oh, and you know Senator Hillary Clinton had to take a punch at Giuliani.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodman Clinton condemned Giuliani for using the war on terror to divide the country. "There are people right now in the world, not just wishing us harm but actively planning and plotting to cause us harm,"she said in a statement. "If the last six years of the Bush Administration have taught us anything, it's that political rhetoric won't do anything to quell those threats."

But you have to give Hillary credit, at least she acknowledges that there is a threat out there. I'm not sure Obama wants to admit to this. Naively, he thinks that if he can sit down with these folk over a cocktail he can work it all out. He doesn't understand the misgivings the Muslim world has with the US then.

Technorati Tags: election, 2008, president, Giuliani, terrorism

Death of a US Industry-Toyota passes GM

Thinking back 50 years ago to oh, lets say, 1957 and what headline from the past 50 years would have absolutely SHOCKED a 1957 American. Vietnam? Watergate? The end of communism? 9/11?

I contend that it would have to be about a Japanese car manufacturer topping the "Big 3," GM, Ford and Chrysler (and Chrysler isn't even American anymore) as the number one automaker.

Think back to 1957. The "57 Chevy" was THE car. In 1957 Japan had been beaten into submission by the US only 12 years previously.

People say, "well our economy has changed." Yeah, but not necessarily for the better. If you read THE WORLD IS FLAT you'll see how the rest of the world is catching up, and if we don't get our work ethic back somehow, it will pass us.

In my opinion, there is a certain lack of fight in Americans. The competitive edge is gone. The US is more about feeling good about who you are as a person than feeling good about what you've contributed to society.

The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs continues to fall, and the decline of an American corporate icon to a No. 2 position in the world could ignite nationalist sentiment against Toyota.

I'll believe it when I see it. Yeah we waved the flag for a couple days after 9/11, but here we are less than a decade away from this generations Pearl Harbor and we're back to business as usual.

The multiculturalism of the US is no culture. There is no thread that weaves Americans together. You don't have to belong to any religion, there is no required language, there are no customs. there is no culture, but a collection of cultures when mixed don't make anything. You don't have to be a capitalist. You could be an anarchist.

We won't crash as a civilization, but we are spending the world power the WWII generation worked for and we're not building upon it. The rest of the world will catch and surpass us, in quick order (less than 2 decades before China surpasses our GDP).

At that point you won't see a rally of Americans, because as Americans we stand for nothing anymore. We were a hardworking Judeo-Christian society with values, but now we are just a conglomeration of politically correct laws that is doesn't have a moral base. When laws determine what is moral or not, you have no morals only laws.

To the Hillary Clintons of the world, it doesn't take a village, it takes a family. And for some reason the US is becoming more and more anti-family. When children don't identify with the family unit, a self-centered culture is borne. That is what we are left with now after the Baby Boomer generation squandered all the wealth and values they built and sacrificed for.

The passing of the torch to Toyota is more than just an economic story, it is an American tragedy.




Technorati Tags: Social Commentary

McCain to Run for President?

Newsflash: John McCain is expected to announce his candidacy for President on Wednesday! Hope the shock didn't kill you-Oh, you already knew McCain was going to run for president?

I think there is a couple in Siberia that didn't know that McCain was going to run, but this is about as shocking as Hillary Clinton running for president. Remember the "I'm in to win!" proclamation? And did you hear? Hubby is going to be a Roman Ambassador-yes, I'm having fun with the English language.

What would be interesting is to see 'ol Internet inventing-global warming savior Al Gore enter the race on the Democratic side. That would clearly mess things up. It could be a good thing because that may diffuse the field enough to give New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson a wedge to break into the race.

Richardson would capture the moderates and the liberals would be divided between Gore, Obama, and Edwards. If Richardson won the Democratic nomination he'd likely come away with 60% of the popular vote in the general election. But don't expect this kind of rational thinking from the Democratic party.

The GOP on the other hand seems to fixated on the moderates with Giuliani thumping McCain at the moment. Giuliani can thank the present administration and the GOP congress of 2000-2006 for this.

If the conservatives had their act together during those years, someone a little more conservative like Newt Gingrich might be in the running. As it turns out, the country is frustrated with conservatives and especially neocons.

Meahwhile, who knows who will vote for Hillary Clinton. The conservatives hate her almost as much as the ultra liberals. Yes, I said that correctly. For some reason the ultra liberals hate Hillary Clinton (the war is a big part of it).



Technorati Tags: politics, election, vote, candidates

Trade War with China Heats Up

The US has made its third attack against China in the economic Cold War between the US and China that turned Hot earlier this year when tariffs were levied against the Chinese paper industry.

The Bush administration fired another salvo in its campaign against Chinese trade practices yesterday, announcing suits to force Beijing to crack down on rampant counterfeiting and drop restrictions on the distribution of American music, movies and books.

Chinese policy makes it nearly impossible to go after counterfeiters and pirated goods.

This compounds the US trade deficit with China topped a record breaking $232 Billion last year.

[US trade representative Susan] Schwab said the cases "should not be viewed as hostile actions against China," adding that they follow lengthy negotiations and represent "the normal way for mature trading partners" to resolve their differences.

"There is no trade war, per se, between China and the United States," she said.

It may not be a war, but there are some severe battles wages across the financial spectrum.

Earlier this year, China mentioned balancing its investments and the world understood that to mean China was going to dump US holdings. The markets wobbled for a week before getting their legs back.

Unfortunately, China is not in the best position, with globalization, a weakened US market, harms the Chinese economy significantly until China can find a market as hungry as the US for Chinese goods.

This also should point out the futility of planning for a war with China.

China will never attack the US in a way the US could counter. Yes, the US should keep it in mind, but it isn't the forgone conclusion the F-22 supporters wish it was. The battlefield will be in the financial markets, not the airspace over the straits.

Boomers Not as Healthy as Previous Generation-Story Misses Point

For the first time ever, a the life expectancy of an American may decrease.

"It's pretty scary," said John Mirowsky, who conducted the survey. "Until now people have been living longer and living longer without the need for assistance -- they can dress themselves and take care of themselves. But it looks like we may be on the verge of a change where we'll have an increasing proportion of the elderly needing assistance, and possibly a decline in life expectancy."

The reasons are because of diet and because Boomers are more educated on health matters, they may notice more health concerns.

That is the stated reasons. What is missing is all the drugs the Boomers took. Oh, sure alcohol was a drug abused by the previous generation, but there is nothing that compares to the drug culture of the 1960s. And that is the heyday of the Boomer generation.

From Marijuana and LSD in the 1960s to Cocaine in the 1970s and 1980s, the Boomers have always been know for their recreational drug use.

An analysis of US drug use data shows that the Baby Boom generation (born 1946 to 1964) has the highest rate of injection drug use ever. That bubble in injection drug use continues to this day, with the authors of the study noting that "the mean age of injection drug users has increased substantially."

The reasons giving for the poor health of the Boomers doesn't mention this...why? Probably because the study is politically or financially driven.

But not to mention the generation's famous use of drugs makes the study sketch from a Free Thinking American point of view.

They grew up during the rise of the drug culture. There was Acapulco God, LSD and a whole bunch of other drugs that they abused.

It seems like a bunch of them have moved from being young drug abusers to almost senior citizen abusers. They haven't been able to kick the habit.

For more on the evils of the Boomer generation and an unapologetic indictment of them read the Tannishblog's "An Ungraceful Exit."

Technorati Tags: baby boomers, drugs

Perspective

The horror and anguish the Virginia Tech campus has suffered puts a new perspective on life, death and what a emotional scarring event is.

"This has scarred me for life!" But this isn't a Virginia Tech victim, this is a Rutgers women's basketball player.

Free Thinking Americans has questioned previously, Have we gotten too sensitive in America?

Rutgers junior Matee Ajavon looks pathetic compared to the victims of Virginia Tech.

If given the choice between being called a name by someone I don't even respect in the first place or have a crazed gunman go running through my campus, I will provide you a dictionary of insults to levy upon me.

How pitiful have we become that an insult like this can cause emotional damage? It is a disgrace to people in truly unfortunate circumstances (Oh, lets say like Darfur) when name calling becomes scarring.

IN THE village of Arawala, West Darfur, the women were lined up, stripped naked and tied to trees with their legs apart. Throughout the night, the men of the janjaweed, the Sudanese government-backed Arab militia, repeatedly raped them. One woman said she was raped by between ten and 25 men. The soldiers later burnt the village to ash, killing many of its 7,000 inhabitants and forcing the rest to flee.

Darfur, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and Virginia Tech are life scarring events. Being called a name is not.

Next time you think that being called a name is a life scarring event, count your fingers, toes and blessings.


Technorati Tags: Virginia Tech, Rutgers, Darfur

An Ugly Day in America

I don't know what it is about Sports Talk radio, but as of late all it provides is social commentary.

Last week it was all about Don Imus.

This week it is about Virginia Tech and Cho Seung Hui.

While last week was mostly politically correct drivel, this week Colin Cowherd made the most poignant statement yet about Cho.

On the radio this morning, Colin Cowherd of ESPN Radio brought up a great point. Living in a free society means we will have random and horrible acts in rare occasions. “We cannot stop a young man with a broken heart from doing this.” He went on to argue that the Virginia Tech security and administration could not have done any better in protecting these students and faculty members unless we move into a society without guns, bullets, drugs, alcohol, or freedoms.

What Cowherd point out is that there is you can't completely control every nutcase that is out there. And sometimes things go bad.

I think that we've struck a nice balance. It isn't perfect, but it is a balance.

First of all, Cho is a nutjob and needed to be incarcerated-true.

But if you look at the other side, three Duke Lacrosse players were almost tagged with SEXUAL PREDATOR for life. It would have been nice if Cho was incarcerated somewhere along the line, but it would have been a crime to have labeled the Duke Lacrosse players as SEXUAL PREDATORS.

Oh, sure if you take away guns-this would never had happened. Well that is a lie! Cho was out to kill people and if he didn't have a gun he would have gotten his hands on ammonia nitrate or some other IED material.

Bottom line: Cho was going to kill someone with or without a gun. Removing the gun doesn't remove the psychosis.



Technorati Tags: Duke case, Cho, Gun Control, Sports Talk

Is the Right Wing Hatin' Clinton to its Detriment?

Conservatives have HATED Hillary Clinton since she broke into Bush 41's White House under the disguise of Bill Clinton.

As the Clinton's go, Hillary will have the longer, and perhaps greater influential career of the two. She claimed to be the champion of healthcare and then wrote, "It Takes A Village," to place herself well within the socialist party.

She also looked like a dope courtesy of her husband, President Bill Clinton when she vehemently defended his honor only to be played the fool in the national media when her husband's DNA came out on a blue dress of White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Carpet bagger and opportunist were the terms used to describe Hillary Clinton when she ran for New York Senator.

But since securing her seat in the Senate, Hillary has shifted ever so slightly towards the middle (specifically on national defense, abortion among others). The right cried foul, the left felt abandoned and now Hillary has isolated herself on a part of the political spectrum that the Democrats are not endorsing at the moment.

But the question becomes who would a true conservative be better off with as president-Clinton or Obama?

Technorati Tags: Obama, Clinton

Obama Can't Beat Clinton with Moderates

According the the latest Free Thinking Poll: most Free Thinking American readers believe that Barack Obama presents a greater challenge to the Republican party.

As much as everyone loves to hate Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, there is no way Barack Obama will be able to generate enough moderate votes to win a general election. And if the GOP sends out a semi-moderate in Giuliani, the election is as good as done.

Is the Democratic party taking a step too far in backing Barack Obama at this point? Obama has raised more money than Clinton showing that he is more popular...for the moment. But Hillary Clinton has rolled in money from her Senate race that gives here a clear advantage over Obama money wise.

What the Democrats seem to miss though is that when it comes down to issues, Barack Obama is the poster child liberal bordering on socialist. Clinton can also be seen as a semi-socialist with the "it Takes a Village" and her healthcare mentality, but it isn't as far reaching as Barack Obama.

Could Barack Obama fade the way Howard Dean did in 2004? Just before the Iowa caucus, the Democratic party came to its senses and dumped Howard Dean knowing there was no chance he could win a general election with is extreme leftist views. Barack Obama isn't too far from Howard Dean.

Looking at the Iraq war Dean and Obama were both against the war from the beginning. Clinton on the other hand thought along with the majority of American's that taking out a nuclear powered Saddam Hussein (and most people believed he had nukes or some form of WMD) was a good idea. Imagine if Saddam did have nukes. Obama wouldn't even be in the race at this point.

This is the point, the moderate American in 2003 thought that if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons or WMD, he needed to be taken out.

Obama guessed right-and that's all it was-when he went against the war.

I'll tell you who the answer is to the poll and that is Bill Richardson. Bill Richardson commands enough of moderate America to win the general election.

Hillary Clinton-I feel for her. She is just hated because she's the Wicked Witch of East. There are conservatives that would vote for Obama over Clinton just because she's who she is. When she moved her politics to the middle to cover the moderate America ground that would be required to win a general election, the left felt abandoned and the right and moderates didn't trust the metamorphosis.

Vote today on the Free Thinking Poll!

Technorati Tags: Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Democrats

Obama or Clinton, Who can beat the GOP

Most would argue that either Obama or Clinton can beat the GOP, but who has the better chance at beating the GOP?



Illinois Senator and Presidential Barack Obama was a relative unknown on the national scene until 2004. He has in his hip pocket the fact that he guessed right on the war in 2002 (or so it seems for the moment) when he came out against the war. Obama is also a charmer and has the same kind of aura people considered JFK to have.



What the Democrats must consider with Obama is that on the political spectrum he could be too far left to win the general election. The liberals LOVE Obama-the moderates-not so much-imagine Newt Gingrich in the GOP. Yes, conservatives love him, but he could never win a national election.



The world knew New York Senator and former First Lady, Hillary Clinton, was going to be the first woman US president back in 1992 when the "two for one" deal was launched during the Bill Clinton presidential run. The New York Senator run and now the White House run was all planned out decades ago-or at least the average American knew this was the path Ms. Clinton was going to take. OK, maybe not the state of New York, but after the slightest consideration it makes perfect sense.



Hillary has a massive political machine behind her and until 2006 was the obvious democratic candidate. But somewhere along the line the left fell out of love with Hillary. From a previous Free Thinking Americans post comment:

Prichard said...



All these questions have an easy answer-- there won't be a President Hillary Clinton. Even core Democrats are furious at her and she doesn't have anything resembling a strong base.

Wed Jan 24, 03:26:00 AM MST

Hatin' Hillary is fun for the left and the right.



So who does pose a bigger threat to the GOP? Clinton or Obama? Vote on sidebar Free Thinking poll now!









Technorati Tags: Clinton, Obama, election, vote, poll

Wolfowitz Needs Axing

The latest news about firing has buzzed about Don Imus being dropped from MSNBC. And even that wasn't really a firing. That was MSNBC taking care of itself because the sponsors had left the show.



Paul Wolfowitz not only needs to be fired by the World Bank but he also needs to see the inside of a jail cell for sometime.



This rates right up there with the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky mess.



From the Washington Post:

World Bank President Paul D. Wolfowitz personally dictated the termsunder which the bank gave what it called his "domestic partner" substantial pay raises and promotions in exchange for temporarily leaving her job there during his tenure, according to documents released by the bank's executive board yesterday.

From The Economist:

Their report was accompanied by a “document dump” amounting to over 100 pages of memos, notes and correspondence. In the weeds of these documents are some peculiar flowers. The ethics committee refused Mr Wolfowitz’s proposed solution, which was to keep Ms Riza at the bank but recuse himself from decisions about her pay and posting. Instead they advised him to post Mr Riza outside the bank (or beyond his authority, which extends over most of the institution) and invited him to give her a promotion to compensate her for the disruption to her career. The rest, astonishingly, they left up to him. Sadly, that gave the president more discretion than he knew how to use.

Someone explain to me how this is not prostitution. Oh, sure it isn't some cracked crazed tramp under a light post on a corner, but it is sex for money isn't it? Or does it depend on what your definition of 'is' is.



Liberals have hated Wolfowitz for some time now, and conservatives are beginning to loath the neocon as one of the many that hijacked the George W. Bush presidency following 9/11.



Because of this don't look for anyone to defend Mr. Wolfowitz. The media is going to have a feeding frenzy that will make the Don Imus fiasco look like a mole hill. Or at least it should.

“Mr Smith” warned the board of the dangers of a “trial by the media” if they did not take action themselves. That trial is now underway; the verdict from most quarters is in; only the sentence is still uncertain.

Technorati Tags: Wolfowitz, World Bank, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky

Is Country Too Sensitive For Don Imus

Has the politically correct state of the US gone too far?



Michael Richards, Mel Gibson and now Don Imus have all fallen to the politically correct gods of the US media. All have been crucified and deemed unworthy.



What is interesting is all have claimed they weren't racist. Huh?



Where did the rantings come from?



Are these people racist or sick of being confined by political correctness.



The 1960s I think give a glimpse of what we are dealing with. It could be argued that the 60s flower children cracked under the pressure of the Leave It To Beaver 1950s model. Women, African-Americans, and even homosexuals began busting out of the 1950s model with a vengeance.



Will we start to see a rash of these politically incorrect statements in the future? It will be interesting to see if the racist starts to believe he is being persecuted simply because he is a racist. Remember, being a racist (and we all are to some degree) is not a criminal act.



In our permissive society, how permissive do we become? At what point does political correctness become political oppression.



The coming battle is going to be over Islam and American culture. Islam has no room for homosexuality and other parts of American culture, but primarily homosexuality. Where does political correctness draw the line between sensitivity to Muslims and homosexuals?



Imagine this-a flamboyant homosexual is not hired by a devout Muslim? How would that court battle turn out?





Technorati Tags: Don Imus, homosexuality, Islam

Don Imus Dropped

MSNBC Dropped it simulcast of Don Imus today.



I was shocked because I never liked Don Imus and don't mind seeing his departure. But the question becomes, "What about free speech?" And, how blasted sensitive do we have to get in this country.



It turns out Don Imus's speech wasn't free. His free speech was trumped when there was the loss in advertising, MSNBC didn't like that.



The thing that Don Imus's statement points out is that Don Imus was trying to act like a trash talking minority and overstepped his understanding of the situation.



BOTTOM LINE: The statement says more about Don Imus than it does the Rutger's Women's Basketball team.



This has always been my response when someone I have little respect for levies a personal attack. Consider the source.



I was talking with a friend of mine (a minority) and we were discussing what life was like as a minority and he said he felt more comfortable when he saw someone who was outright racists instead of someone who was trying to act not racist. This way he could know where he stood with the individual.



Interesting. It was shortly after this conversation that I read an article in the NYT that covered some study by some guy who said "Tolerance was not enough." This is the crux of the problem in the US.



If you take the statement away from Don Imus, does that make him not a racist? If he just thought this idea, but never verbalized it is he then not a racist?



Although Don Imus may be a racist, he isn't the only one around and white people aren't the only racists either.





Technorati Tags: Don Imus, racism, Rutger's

Afghanistan-Karzai's Pashtun Predicament

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai is a Pashtun (from CIA factbook Afghanistan is-Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%).



The good part to this is that this puts Karzai in the largest ethnic group of the fledgling democracy in Afghanistan. He's definitely electable since he comes from the largest ethnic group.



He wasn't the first choice the US had in mind to rule Afghanistan on 9 September, 2001 if the US cared enough at that time. But on 10 September, 2001 Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud is assassinated by two al Qaeda agents posing as TV journalists.



Massoud might not have been able to get elected since he was part of the Northern Alliance and a Tajik. So the democracy thing was going to be difficult once the US supported the Northern Alliance with or without Massoud.



Karzai on the other hand was a Pashtun, but after the Northern Alliance helps the US overthrow the Taliban, how does the US turn against the Northern Alliance in favor of a Pashtun? To add insult to injury, Karzai was once a Taliban member.



So the US helps the mainly Tajik and Uzbek Northern Alliance to get rid of the Pashtun heavy Taliban in order to put another Pashtun ex-Taliban in charge?



Sounds thin.



That is why the idea of Karzai negotiating with the Taliban is going to make the Northern Alliance somewhat uneasy.

In the past, Karzai has offered, without success, to hold talks with the fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Omar and renegade warlord Gulbudin Hekmatyar. Some officials in his government, including provincial governors, are thought to have held informal talks with militants in the south and east, but with little apparent success to calm the insurgency.

The only thing the Northern Alliance would like Karzai to discuss concerning Mullah Omar is Omar's eulogy.

"Karzai's government has no power and all their policies are designed by America," Mujaheed told The Associated Press by phone from an undisclosed location. "If the U.S. wants to negotiate with the Taliban, they should first leave our country."

Translation-Once we can get the US out of here, we can get on with assassinating Karzai and begin our insurgency in ernest. Until then, we're going to make life miserable for Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf by taking up residence in Pakistan where NATO forces are forbidden to venture.

The Afghan leader often accuses Pakistan of not only providing sanctuary to Taliban, but guiding the rebels in an attempt to wield influence over Afghanistan -- charges denied by President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a key U.S. ally in its war on terrorism.

Oh, and Pakistan is only a key US ally as long as the US pays for it to be an ally.



Technorati Tags: Afghanistan, Karzai, Northern Alliance, Taliban, Pakistan

Progress in Afghanistan is Not Enough

The ran a story on 9 April about the success of US counterinsurgency efforts in Pech Valley, Afghanistan.

The Americans and their Afghan National Army allies live among the people on the valley floor, while the insurgents -- Taliban, al Qaeda and other fighters of various stripes -- are up in the steep, rocky ridges. When the insurgents attack, they fire down on American soldiers and Afghan civilians alike. "The semiotics of it are great," says Lt. Col. Chris Cavoli, commander of 1-32, a unit of the 10th Mountain Division. "You can't buy press like that. The way the fight is constructed is to deliver one message: We're here to protect you, and the bad guys are here to ruin your lives."

The US military uses this tactic that is similar to what the Marines practiced in Vietnam with some success. The Marines embedded themselves in the village and build a relationship with the villagers. In Afghanistan the US forces gain the villagers' trust and begin to get leads on where the insurgents are and eventually drive out the insurgents.

"The basic idea is to kill the enemy to convince the people that you can and will protect them," says the colonel, a compact man with receding hair and an easy grin. "Then in the breathing space created, you've got to do something to connect the people to the government."

The problem is that this needs to happen in every village in Afghanistan. The US doesn't have forces to commit to this size of an operation. So like a finger in water, the impression lasts only as long as the finger is in the water.



The Marines in Vietnam part of the Marine Corps Combined Action Program.



Technorati Tags: Afghanistan, Vietnam War

Dealing with Iran

T/he message Iran is getting from the west is barely coherent.

The indignation of the British government, and its decision to seek support from the United Nations and European Union, incensed the Iranians and emphasised the weakness of Britain and the West.

Imagine if the UN and EU worried that any more provocation would push Iran too close to the brink of war. What if the EU and UN feared Iran's reaction and didn't back up Britain.



While US President George Bush might have done all he could to support one of the US's two allies (the other being Australia) congress and much of the rest of the US population would be hard to convince to support US intervention against Iran. Multilateralism is sometimes not an option. Although US might have wanted to consider a more multilateral approach to Iraq (although with the Oil for Food scandal and the illegal contracts would have prevented a multilateral approach) Britain shouldn't have even considered the UN and EU's position when it came to their captives in Iran.



But this is what brings about mixed signals.

Since the trauma of the American embassy siege of 1979, America has tried to squeeze Iran politically, militarily and economically in the hope that the regime would fall, but in vain. The Europeans have preferred an awkward policy of “engagement” in the hope of encouraging Iran to moderate; for years they tried to support “reformists” against “conservatives”, but this too was a failure.

This lead Iran to speak with two different voices-the moderates and hardliners. Unfortunately both sides are religious fanatics and they both wish to see the end of the evil west, they just see the avenue differently.

Nevertheless, there has been a real change of policy since the days when Mr Bush said Iran was part of the “axis of evil”. His administration has offered to join nuclear talks if Iran suspends uranium enrichment. But the prospect of normalisation with America may cause real ideological upheaval in the regime. If so, talking to the Great Satan may scare the mullahs more than sanctions.

Iran is a religious dictatorship. Rarely is compromise avenue of choice when dealing with religious fanatics. As the west's culture delves more and more into hedonism and moral relativism, Iran and other religious dictatorships will want to 'compromise' with the west less and less. For better or worse that is the nature of a religious dictatorship. Allah/God/Yahweh does not compromise with the devil, he defeats the devil. This is the mindset of a religious based government.



Do not expect Iran to negotiate in good faith with the west, and expect a confused response from the west



Technorati Tags: Iran

Pakistan Falling Into Islamists Hands

Talibanish Islamic fundamentalists are slowly taking over parts of Pakistan. On Friday chief cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz called hundreds, if not thousands of followers to become suicide bombers, the "walking dead" as the ones crossing into Afghanistan like to be called, if their quest for militant Islamic fundamentalism isn't adopted in Pakistan. This was all done at rally that featured a American CD and DVD bonfire of the west's evil influence including FREE WILLY and HOME ALONE 4. Aziz would like to set up an Islamic court in addition to shutting down video and music stores. Some followers have already shut down stores in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad.



Pakistani President Musharraf is a moderate that the US can work with to some degree, and he is attempting to solidify Pakistan as a moderate state through legislation, but between assassination attempts and the guarantee of more Islamic militant demonstrations, it is hard to predict how much longer Musharraf will be in power.



The Taliban have moved into the norhtwest parts of Pakistan and established themselves there. If they join forces with the likes of Aziz could they overtake Pakistan. The Pakistani madrassases are pumping out suicide bombersfor Afghanistan like they're McDonald's Happy Meals. How long until one of them walks up to Musharraf to say "hello."



Add to this the recent US Vice President Dick Cheney visit to motivate Musharraf to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban seeking refuge in Pakistan, and you see that Musharraf is getting it from all sides. How many lives does this cat have to mortgage?



The obvious question is, who is next in line after Musharraf to lead Pakistan?



That all depends on how the country goes. From the looks of things, it could be a puppet government with Aziz controlling from his Islamic court much like the Iranian Council of Experts and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.



The beauty to this is that Pakistan already is a nuclear state unlike Iran.



There is still hope though for rational heads to prevail. Musharraf is reported to have called for talks with the Islamists, but whether the Islamists will bring Koran's or bomb or both is unknown.

Musharraf said the administration of Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa wanted to impose their own brand of Islam in the country, and the government could take action against them at any time, but wanted to resolve the issue amicably.



"They are illiterate people. They always talk about killing and taking lives. This is not Islam. Let's sit and talk. The government could take action against the mosque and madrassa at any time, but it wants to resolve the issue amicably," ...He said his government had brought true democracy in the country and would not let fundamentalists dictate terms.

Musharraf reiterated he was not trained to be scared, he was trained to fight.



Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa are the madrassas that Aziz and his brother Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi run. Jaima Hfsa for boys, enrollment 2500, and Lal Masjid for girls enrollment 7500. That is a lot of walking dead.



Something that the world should note.

Jamia Hafsa was begun with government funding and continued to receive substantial government funding for many years. Whether it still does is not known.

There are theories about why Pakistan is in this tenuous state. The US believes Pakistan doesn't have the resources to control the entire country, but some believe the Pakistani intelligence service keeps money coming to Pakistan by allowing this state of upheaval. If the problem is solved the money goes away. The other theory is that Pakistan has a strong Islamic fundamentalist base that will take time and money to weed out.

Mogadishu, Somalia 1993 a Preview to Baghdad, Iraq

The US cut and ran from Somalia shortly after 18 US servicemen died in Mogadishu.

Since then Somalia has suffered over a decade of war, chaos and a dysfunctional government. Killings and clan warfare is the norm. The population is tired of war and longs for peace even if it comes at the cost of a Taliban like Islamic dictatorship under the Islamic Courts Council (ICC).

The ICC began to establish order under its rigid Islamic rule but also made threats to neighboring Ethiopia.

Feeling threatened, and encouraged by the US most likely, Ethiopia invaded Somalia to oust the ICC and established a peace over Mogadishu for perhaps three months before the return of clan warfare and continued fighting and chaos in Mogadishu. Ethiopia has been trying to leave, but only 1200 peacekeeping troops (provided by Uganda) of the desired 8000 African Union troops materialized and they are only securing portions of the city including the airport.

Mogadishu has returned to chaos and Somalia is collapsing. How will Baghdad be different?

When the US cuts and runs from Iraq the Shiites will enjoy a nearly 3 to 1 advantage over the Sunnis in population. The Sunnis have al Qaeda on their side, but the Shiites have Iran and Syria at their back and for the time being it doesn't look like Sunni nations are signing up to defend the Sunnis in Iraq.

This is perhaps why some of the more moderate Sunnis in western Iraq have turned against al Qaeda realizing that if the US leaves, they have no future in Iraq.

The future of Baghdad and Iraq won't suffer the chaos of Somalia, but it will suffer the ethnic cleansing of Rwanda. So to compare Mogadishu and Baghdad is not a fair comparison, because the Sunnis don't have a fighting chance against the Shiites. The best course of action for any Sunni in Iraq at this point is to flee the country.

The Kurds have well established themselves in the north and have a well organized government and militia. The Shiites are not foolish enough to trespass towards the north, and more importantly, there is no revenge to be sought against the Kurds. While the Kurds may not be akin to the Shiites, they at least didn't oppress the Shiites under Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.

The Genocide will not be immediately after the US surrenders and evacuates. The Shiite leadership will have internal debates (influence by Iran) and there may be a time of attempted cooperation, but hate is a strong emotion. It can boil for decades or centuries as have been the case with all genocides. Eventually, the Sadr-like, who personally suffered at the hand of the Sunni rule under Saddam Hussein will overpower any moderates and take control of the militias and government. He already controls a sizable portion of the US backed Iraqi government.

At this point will the world react like it did in Rwanda and Darfur and stand idly by as the slaughtering proceeds? The US will have been long gone from Iraq and the US population won't invest anything else in the stabilization of Iraq, so it will be up to the UN to bring order to Iraq, and the UN will cower away in fear too while Sunnis are gunned down helplessly in their homes.

One benefit for the US is that al Qaeda may try to come to the rescue of the Sunnis and become completely engulfed in Iraq. It is interesting to note that it is al Qaeda that is conducting the insurgency attacks in Iraq to drive the infidels (US) out of the country that will leave the Sunnis vulnerable to Shiite persecution.

As unintended consequences go, this would be a boon for the US.


Technorati Tags: Somalia, Iraq War

Iran Dealt the Brit Sailors, But Nukes are Non-Negotiable.

The question being raised now that the British Sailors are back in Britain, is what effect does this have on the Iranian nuclear program.



Although the this is no time for the Iranian to give up the progress they've made on building a nuclear weapons program.

Given the disputes it has with the US and other nations over the crucial issue of its nuclear program, Iran probably did not want the prisoner situation to escalate too much, say some US-based experts.

I would say the Iranians let the prisoner situation escalate just as much as they wanted it. They could have kept the prisoners for 13 days (which happens to be the same amount of time the North Koreans held a in 1994) or for 444 days as they did the US hostages from 1979 to 1981.



As it turns out, Germany hopes "Iran uses this opportunity to find solutions to other issues in cooperation with the international community and the European Union."



In reality, the Iranians will use this as a public opinion weapon to strike against the west. "See we can be reasonable," is the lesson the west is to learn from this episode.



Sure the most of the free world was against Iran in the hostage crisis, but Iran can use this episode as a barometer of the world's reaction. The world is not so united against the Iranian nuclear program, especially Russia and China.

With the prisoners' release, "we saw another indication that this is not a reckless and irrational government," says Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Here is a major problem with Iran. When they take hostages and mention wiping Israel off the face of the earth and deny that the holocaust existed, how can anyone look at Iran as rational? Yet, returning 15 hostages all of a sudden makes them rational? Now that's irrational. Iran is neither rational or irrational, it is calculated, the west's reaction to Iran is based on conflicting views and opinions making it irrational sometimes.

Hard-liners in Iran pushed for a show trial of their prisoners. But more moderate leaders - or, at least, less extreme ones - appear to have prevailed.

Imagine if the hard-liners won. What could the west hold over them? Freeze more assets? More diplomatic isolation? The horrible truth is the west is just as dependent on Iranian oil as Iran