« 2004 April | Main | 2004 February »

Friday, March 26, 2004

Enslaving the Makers
The leaches, the blank minds, the less capable are at it again. Those who can't build or create something are demanding that they have a right to control it. Kofi Annan, the ignorant African leading the cabal of tyrants, despots, and corrupt states called the United Nations, has announced that the UN will seek to control the Internet .

"U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan set the tone in a speech Thursday, criticizing the current system through which Internet standards are set and domain names are handled, a process currently dominated by the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan. Such structures "must be made accessible and responsive to the needs of all the world's people," Annan said."

Who the hell does he think he is?
Ayn Rand explained this way of thinking: blank minds don't understand what it means to create something and own it. They think that the work of others is something they are entitled to own, destroy, or control.

The United States has created the internet. No other nation in the world did this. Our government and private industry created it, and the beauty of what they created is that it is minimally controlled. It is the freest means of open communication that has ever been created. But that's not good enough for some.

You see, the tyrants of the world fear free and open communication. Just as Portugal in the last century purposefully kept its peasants uneducated for fear that they would be smart enough to revolt, these despots are afraid that if their people learn what is happening in the world, they will be dissatisfied with the plunderers ruling them.

Tyrants don't care if their people are miserable. The standard of living of rulers hasn't changed in a few thousand years. Darius, the king of Persia, lived just as opulently as Saddam Hussein did until a year ago. Freedom makes the people rich, and rulers fear rich citizens.

So their motivation is to continue oppressing their own people, but their means is to plunder. They want to control something which is better than they are. It would be like Vikings being in charge of Cathedrals or Vandals taking charge of the aqueducts. Or infants in charge of a railroad.

These morons have a lot of nerve, and this is only one more example of why we should resume our refusal to pay "dues" to the UN. All we've done is finance more schemes to undermine freedom.

Monday, March 15, 2004

Spain has no Blood
One of my good friends in Spain taught me a saying that they have. I don't speak more than a few phrases of Spanish and I don't pretend to understand their idioms or their culture fully. But this saying is pretty clear. When someone has heart, when they have moral courage, when they have character, a Spaniard will say that they "have blood." What a wonderful phrase! Spaniards have a lot of good sayings like this. Spain is the nation of fighting bulls, their culture is steeped in imagery of life and death struggles, of romantic tilts against windmills, and of religious zeal. And of course they love the tangle of the sexes. In fact, from what I can tell they combine all these into one temperament simultaneously. A bull fight isn't just a feat of daring, it is poetry. It's a dance. It's a sexual metaphor. It's not coincidental that they describe the Sevilliana, one of the more popular traditional dances, as a bull fight, the man is the torreador, the woman dances around him as though she were the bull.

Spain has a vivid culture.
And this is why I can't understand the Spanish reaction to being bombed by Al Qaeda. They have joined us in this war on terrorism with good reason. The Islamic fundamentalist murderers have expressed a desire to return Al Andalus, the Iberian Peninsula, the land of Portugal and Spain to Islamic rule. They controlled it for 700 years and have been gone for 500 years and they think it's high time they returned. Boabdil was defeated, but they wish to restore the Kingdom of Granada, and perhaps even the Caliphate of Cordoba. The Taifas are still Arab provinces in their minds.

So initially Spain's government, understanding the real threat against them, joined us in our war. For this I as an American am eternally grateful. I know that this was unpopular with many of the people, but most seemed to agree with a proactive defense of their nation.

But now it appears that one attack has made them cower. The entire civilized world shares their grief after the recent murderous bombings, but I'm amazed at the response. When Americans were attacked, this time at least, we vowed bloody and terrible revenge with the goal of ending the threat against us. When Spain is attacked their response appears to be to blame their own leaders.

Spain has no blood.

Sunday, March 14, 2004

Who are the Type of People that Try to Rule Us?
My old home in California, was alongside Aliso Creek. And one of the sub-communities there was Aliso Viejo. I used to go running every day along that creek, back then it was full of wild life. Once I had a pack of coyotes run alongside me. That was kind of scary.

But I've learned in the news today that the city fathers of Aliso Viejo were all set to act on a danger to the environment. (I found it thanks to Instapundit.) The vote was to have taken place next week. What's the name of this deadly chemical? Di-hydrogen monoxide.

Politicians are morons. Remember this next time the politicians tell you that DDT is dangerous, or that some other deadly chemical is threatening the entire existence of civilization.
So while there are real threats in Aliso Creek, like the coyote and bobcat populations eating people's pets every night. Or the threat of mountain lions in the nearby hills, these morons are worried about the dangers of water. Yep. They fell for a joke. Di-hydrogen monoxide is H2O, water.

And notice how these idiots blamed their paralegal. Of course none of them should be held responsible for being ignoramuses who don't have command of the most basic chemistry. Nope, all that complicated science stuff is too hard for them and in typical California style it's only that they were concerned about the creek that should matter.

Morons! Morons all. Everyone of the people on that city council should be yanked from office and their right to vote as citizens revoked. There is no excuse for being so stupid, nor should they be forgiven for scheduling a vote without understanding the issue at hand.

How much you want to bet that they get re-elected, just because they cared?

Al Qaeda has Won in Spain
The bombings in Spain last week are a terrible act of assassination by a murderous culture. The goal of the Islamics was to topple the government of Jose Maria Aznar, and the Spaniards have acquiesced by voting out his party. This is a very sad event.

And it is potentially dangerous if Spain abandons its forward looking foreign policy and again embraces the intellectual vacancy of popular European ideology.
I want to thank the Spanish government for standing with us on the war on Islam. The Islamics have vowed to return Spain, or Al Andalus, to Islamic rule. They were last kicked out of there following shortly after the fall of Grenada to the Reyes Catholica, Ferdinand and Isabella in the year 1492. The Muslims ruled there for about 700 years before being ousted and I guess they haven't forgiven the Spaniards yet. In fact, there are families in North Africa that reportedly still keep the keys to their houses from 500 years ago in the hope to some day return there.

But the Spanish people have succumbed to the Islamic terror. In the perpetual Spanish struggle for identity as being European, they have rejected their own safety and sided with the European "intellectuals." These are the same "intellectuals" that brought on the loss of their government and their freedom in the Spanish Civil War.

About 100 years ago, Spain began the transformation from a monarchy to a republic, and rather than use good common sense, the people of Spain rewarded idealists and other practitioners of bad philosophy with the reins of government. These idealists were heavily influenced by French and German socialist thinkers. Their frivolous ideas included little in the way of political practicality and their actions threatened the status quo of established powers. In reaction, a cabal of old monarchists (Carlists), Catholics, Conservatives, and fascists, known as the Nationalists, attacked the government militarily in 1936.

So the Spanish Civil War began. Led by idealists who spurned military power, the Republic was left without an army or arms. Almost the entire military was controlled by the fascist Nationalists. But the Republicans had a moral claim to their government, and their supporters didn't lack for bravery or zeal. What they lacked were arms and a trained army.

And then the European intellectuals and socialists betrayed them. The theory they had, and we've seen it again recently in the Balkans, is that if only no weapons are allowed into a war zone, the war will stop. Just as they denied the Serbians the ability to defend themselves importing arms, the French socialists along with the appeasing British (remember Neville Chamberlain and his party) convinced the world to agree to an arms embargo on Spain. But the problem is that the embargo only worked when it applied to the elected government, not to the rebels. The elected government reaped what it sewed. It advocated pacifism and rejected military power, and learned the hard way that the primary role of government is to wield force. Good government isn't one that rejects the use of force, good government is the one that uses force wisely.

Unable to buy arms, the Spanish government fell in just over a year. The Nationalists, armed by a fascist German government, overwhelmed the Republicans. What is worse, the Republicans allowed themselves to be controlled by the Soviets in order to get some arms smuggled in. Sadly, the Soviets took delivery of all of Spain's gold that it had amassed from its colonial days, to be held "in safe keeping." The theory was that any arms desired would be paid for from the gold. Of course, precious few of the arms paid for were actually delivered, and of those delivered, they were obsolete or malfunctioning. The Soviets, the guardians of pure socialism and leaders of the Communist International, were more interested in prolonging the war and controlling the people than in beating the Nationalists and the German fascists. They betrayed the freedom of the Spaniards while trying to export their Stalinist terror.

Betrayed by France, betrayed by Russia, betrayed by the intellectual vacuum of appeasement, pacifism, and wishful thinking, the Spaniards lived under the fascist thumb of Franco and his Nationalists until 1975.

And now they have turned to the intellectual successors of these appeasers. A murderous culture that wishes to overthrow them first along with the rest of the world has bombed them. At the very first sucker punch, they've whimpered and begged for their lives from murderers.

The problem is that their capitulation won't end the danger they face.

I feel bad for Spain. I have many good friends there and have visited many times. A more wonderful people would be hard to find. But I fear this reaction to the bombing is ill-considered. It came very close to the elections and emotions have prevailed over logic.

Look for Al Qaeda to attack other countries prior to their elections. This is the advantage of tyrants and despots over democracy. The people must be strong and educated in the cold hard facts of life. The people must be relentless in preserving their own freedom. Spain, by succumbing to the terror have encouraged their enemy to attack again.

I'm very sorry for Spain. I'm very sorry for the victims of this series of bombs. I hope that the new rulers in Spain continue to protect their people by remaining with the US in destroying Islamic terrorism. Spain was among the first to defeat Islam, let's hope they join us in forever destroying it.

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

The Passion of the Christ
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I expect I will eventually. Just like everybody else.

I'm amazed that this movie has been controversial, and I'm also amazed that anyone predicted it would be a flop. These prognosticators are just plain stupid. There's no polite way of saying it. Religious films have always done well when they are done in grand style, like The Ten Commandments and a few others. Passion plays have been poplular for millenia, and when Gibson announced that he was going to make a new passion play and make it as realistic as modern technology would allow, it was a no brainer that it would succeed. Anyone who predicted otherwise was a fool.
I read an opinion article by someone I've never heard of but who seems knowlegeable, named Martin Grove. Here's what he had to say:

This was not what anyone anticipated, especially not the distributors who turned Gibson down when he was trying to put a domestic deal together for the film. While no one is saying precisely who those distributors were, they clearly know who they are and they're likely to be kicking themselves for a long time to come. It's hard to fault them, of course, because nothing about this film should have convinced them to do anything but try to distance themselves from the controversy it was generating from the get-go.

It's a pretty basic fact of marketing that controversy adds to awareness. So the building controversy was great for this movie, and despite the idiotic protestations of a few whacked out Jewish political hacks who thought it would cause us all to go out and slaughter Jews in a new American pogrom, everyone should have known that this is a story that is well known, and well loved. And revered. The Bible has been the most read book since the printing press was invented if not earlier, and the New Testament the most read part of the Bible. Of the New Testament, the Gospels are most popular.

So tell me, why did anyone think that anyone would be learning something they didn't already know about the Passion? Sure, the realism of seeing this movie gives a more personal impact, but the details are the same.

Good for Mel Gibson. His marketing of this movie was brilliant, even if it wasn't his intended method. He responded just right to the anti-semitic charges being levied against him and the hype has made him rich.

This is another nail in the coffin of Hollywood. It has been bleeding for about a decade now. Here in Austin, they say that more movies are filmed in Austin now than in Hollywood. I don't know if that's true, but it is true that Canada, Austin, New Zealand and many other places are taking the kooky Californians out of the loop.

And if the kooky Californians don't know that Bible stories are popular, they're going to keep losing out on big money makers like this one. Let's hope these nuts don't get a second chance at it. I'm no fan of the Bible or of Bible stories, but I know enough to know that there is a huge market for them in this country and around the world where there are Christians.

This movie has tapped into a very big part of our culture that consists of people who believe in god, and because of their strong beliefs tend to stay out of movie theaters. Mel Gibson has tapped into a largely unexploited part of the market. Your Aunt Minerva might never have gone to see a movie in the past ten or twenty years, but I'll bet she finds a way to see this one.

Monday, March 08, 2004

The Parrot is Dead
I've always liked Monty Python, but I've never been an expert on it. I'm not one of those guys that can quote every line from The Life of Brian, and in fact I don't even think I've seen that movie yet. But I do like some of their other work and find this troupe to be very funny and remarkably intelligent.

One of my favorite skits is the one about the dead parrot . It's not their funniest, but to me it is the clearest satire of how people can ignore truth by simply refusing to acknowlege it. John Kerry uses this same belligerent method to attack his political opponents.
So the skit about the dead parrot goes something like this. A man comes into a pet shop with a dead parrot sitting at the bottom of a bird cage. He complains that he just bought the bird from the store and it died. He wants his money back.

The pet shop owner denies the bird is dead, it's just sleeping. No matter what evidence is presented, he denies the bird is dead. But it has rigor mortis? No, it is just petrified with fear. The denials get more and more absurd.

This denial of truth is comical on the television, but it is sinister when practiced by politicians. And politicians are doing it more and more lately, with less and less regard for common sense.

John Kerry, for instance, likes to come out of the blue and make attacks on Bush that have no relation to reality. There are a lot of things to attack Bush on, but it is surreal for Kerry to have accused Bush a few weeks ago of waging an attack campaign against him. Bush at that time had done no campaigning and was staying discretely out of the Democratic primary fight. Then Kerry accuses Bush of slandering his Viet Nam record, when no such thing happened. Then at the same time Kerry and company began a completely fabricated, and old, assault on Bush's time in the National Guard.

And then there's the often repeated tale of the plastic turkey. The fact that the turkey was real stops no one in the press from repeating ad nauseum that Bush held up a plastic turkey. Okay, this wasn't Kerry, but it sure stinks of his methods. I'm not even sure why it's wrong to hold up a plastic turkey, even if he had.

In all these cases, there is no basis in reality for the charges made, but that is precisely why they are being made. Kerry is a communist and anti-American and hopes that if he can sling enough mud onto his opponent, no one will notice his own poor hygiene.

I don't know how things have been in the past. History notoriously sanitizes past events. But it seems to me that since the demise of the Cold War that the Democratic party has gotten more and more vicious, and as their plight worsens they have resorted to more and more desperate tactics to retain or regain power.

Americans, the bird is dead, and no denying will re-animate it. The socialist agenda of the Democratic communists is bad and the wrong direction for our country, only slightly worse than the agenda of the Republicans. But the wholesale destruction of reality is worse than any mere domestic or foreign policy direction, it is a danger to our rule of law and our civilization.

Monday, March 01, 2004

What's Your Name?
Changing gears here. I'm not sure I should post this. I just feel like it.
I looked the man in the eye and wasn't sure about him. He had a friendly look, but you couldn't always rely on that.

"What's your name?" he demanded.

I decided to not answer for now, I wanted to examine him a little longer. Besides, his question seemed a bit nosey.

I stood eye to eye with him and waited to see how he would act if I didn't answer.

"Tell him your name, dear." Oh, yes, my mother was next to me. I kept my hand wrapped around her finger, it made her feel better when I did that for some reason. She always wanted to know where I was, especially when we went to town, and so I obliged her because I liked her and wanted her to feel comfortable with me.

But now she was interrupting my analysis of this man's behavior. How could I determine his character if she kept interrupting like that?

"His name is William. Say 'William.'"

I was too inexperienced in the manners and customs of society to understand that he didn't really care what my name was, nor did my mother care if he knew. The point of this ritual was to demonstrate that I could say my name and to exchange pleasantries. I was always slow in these matters of etiquette. Besides, I knew that I could say my name, and my mother knew I could say my name, it wasn't a new thing for me at all. Why should I care if this stranger knew if I could say my name?

"Sometimes he's shy," my mother lied. "Come on William, tell him your name."

I really didn't get the point. She's told him my name three times already, if he hasn't learned it by now, my telling him isn't going to help.

"Say 'William'"

Confused, I turned to my mother and wanted to ask her why she told this man my name when I was the one being asked and I hadn't decided to tell him yet. But the man was there and I didn't want to confront my mother in front of this stranger. And how was I supposed to explain my perplexity at this young age? I must have looked agitated because now my mother stooped down. Now we were all eye level together.

"How old are you?" the man asked me.

A different question, but now I've decided that I don't need to reply because my mother will inform him for me. I waited patiently for her to tell him and eventually she did, and then they started talking about other things.

I suppose my mother was mildly disappointed that I failed this test of social skills, but I didn't know I was being tested or I would have known what to do. It wasn't shyness that caused me to fail. I failed because I was laconic, a subtlety that was lost on them at the time.