The first and only...

One need not argue that the middle east needs some attention, that sadam
hussein could use some supervision, and some might think that is the
first order of business but can anyone say it is the ONLY order of business?

Health care? The economy? The environment?

Primitive man

Primitive man:

Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post notes that the press ignored the
economy, now heading for meltdown, during the midterm elections. While the
war is interesting, that isn't where the people were. Maybe.
But how do you fix and economy? Whew, that's a lot of work and opinion
espeically when you have a president who "thinks" that all you have to do is
give everything to your rich friends is an economic plan... But nothing is
quite so simple and elegant as bombing. If you could bomb the economy,
well, we'd have some interest.

Why christians kill jews

How is it that post game celebrations turn violent? How is it that
brotherly love becomes an exclusive club? How is it that love of Jesus
means kill the infidel? No different, it turns out, from the fatwa, the
death sentence, of the Muslim. Indeed, does that not infect the Israeli? Is
there ANYONE it would not infect?

There is, I feel, a continuum between what would seem to be these most
disparate of emotions. Yet I can feel it, I can feel the growing excitement
of evangelical christians in this country growing in a passion that would
exclude every seen of opposition, every eye at the party that is not
entranced, anyone not thrilled, anyone not taken up with the joyous
experience.

Mankind knows itself so very very little, which allows it to ascribe to
itself the most noble of stances while it kills and maims and destroys in
such numbers that attributed to any other force would be a calamity

LHF

On homeland security, from instanpundit.com

"They won't have time to fight terrorism, because they'll be going after
low-hanging fruit, which is YOU and ME, people."

Low Hanging Fruits

A reasoned reasons for iraq

It may be seen as a good thing to disarm Saddam. It is certainly a good
thing, when undertaking such things, to be forthright and clear.

Disarming a nation is a new thing, and the world should learn how to do it.
Certainly, more nations need to be disarmed, and not only that, once a
nation is seen as having some possible future need to be disarmed, that
would be time to stop sending weapons of any kind into that country.

Disarming a nation means not only the government in power, but the rebels
not in power that shoot and kill and its the general population and suffers
and starves.

Why Saddam? Well, big enough to test us, and small enough to give us some
assurance of success. And that becomes a clear warning to other nations:
you may risk disarmament. Its been done, we know how to to do, we all know
what it looks like. And guess what? We're in your neighborhood.

Nation building? Bush was opposed to it. Well he still is, unless you want
to call colonizing nation building. He wants a clear and safe presence in
the middle east. Israel is the only presence, and she is a target and a red
flag, and is yielding far too little return on investment, considering the
military costs. Thus, after Saddam, there is a Nato/UN presence smack dab
in the middle east, armed to the teeth, and its us.

What then is the problem?

That the plan is totally out of balance, totally. There is NOTHING to
reform energy use, there is nothing to reform international capitalism,
there is nothing to address global warming.

But consider, what would a democratic presence right in the middle of the
middle east do to those totalitarian countries? They might hate us,
desperately, but they dare not attack us. If they attack us in our foreign
colonies, we can strike. If they attack us at home, we can strike from the
colonies.

Israel is not a sufficient force to bring the enlightenment into the middle
east. She may not even be a good example anymore. A presence in the middle
east could be a very positive thing toward world peace.

Under Bush, however, there is a serious cost to the democratic principles at
home and overall health on the planet. Under Bush, he may prove to be so
heavy handed as to encourage attacks of desperation throughout the world.
And what could threaten Pakistan, under any circumstances? Under Bush,
where all is given to oil and money, the basic qualities of life on the
planet can suffer. Like Regan, he will attack and bring down an enemy.
Like Regan, the benefits will be only for those in the inner circle. Who is
in the inner circle? And how many are not, but are really just wannabees?

And yet, there is no endgame. It is not known. One acts and then must be
prepared to act anew and the future moves to the present

Bowling for Columbine

fathersmanifesto.com/healthcare.htm
(how the jews kill christians)

I just saw bowling for columbine... Not interesting, rather empty I find.

Moore does not think we are more violent... He sees we are, compared to the
Canadians and almost everyone else, but he does not pursue the cause, cannot
explain it, so concludes it doesn't exist and criticizes old charleton
heston when heston says we are more violent.

Then he tries to blame it on the media, but fails to pursue that. Then he
blames in on the number of guns, but doesn't do the heavy math and drops
that.

Then he tries to blame it on the work to welfare program, but gets that all
mixed up too.

He does NO gun violence demographics, he does not pull out the suicides, and
he NEVER goes to the gun manufacturer. He finds Lockheed in there a few
times, with pretty much the same logic as the fathersmanifesto.com site:
inuendo.

The scariest thing to me was a theatre full of mindless people cheering
everything that moore said. Just as scarey to me as a jerry falwell
meeting.