Nothing Shocks Like Truth

...At least, that's how I see it.

At a closed meeting held recently in New York, UN ambassadors from Arab and EU countries met and the Arabs made clear that they do not accept the initiative for the UN General Assembly to condemn anti-Semitism.

The blunt language used by the Arabs describing their opposition, and their plans to use diplomatic means to prevent the resolution from reaching a vote, shocked the Europeans, said a UN source....

I honestly believe that the greatest shock to them was that they really weren't that surprised. The trouble with pretending to be completely ignorant of reality is that on some level you will always know exactly what the truth of a situation is.

The source said Kidwe attacked the content of UN Secretary general Koffi Anan's speech to the seminar last month, particularly Annan's pride in the cancelation of the 1975 Zionism equals racism resolution. "The Europeans were depressed when they left the meeting," said the source.

[sarcasm] I really don't see what would possibly be depressing about being confronted by your own beliefs stripped of their double-speak and evasive politeness. [/sarcasm] Let us not forget that "The Europeans" have consistently tried to enact measures that would leave Israel deffensless and at the mercy of her enemies (who surround her). Let us also not forget the rise in anti-semetic incidents in Europe and the lack of action taken to put a stop to it. I'll bet the Europeans are depressed. After all, no one likes to be shown their own demons by those they look down on. (And treating grown ass people like children- which is what liberal policy comes down to for the most part- is looking down on them.)



I was watching Ong Bak last night. In the movie there's a criminal ring stealing and selling buddah heads and buddahs. Well there's a scene when one of the criminals gets crushed by a giant buddah head and it's rather karmic.
So I'm thinking what would be a fitting karmic death for Michael Moore. Perhaps being kidnapped and beheaded by the Islamofacist swine he's so happy to stick up for? I'm open to suggestions and if I could think of a fitting prize, it might actually be a contest. We'll see how things develop. (And if it turns into a contest, I'm going to request that submissions be e-mailed.)

If There Was Ever Any Doubt....

....that Michael *Spit* Moore is a Complete. Fucking. Asshole.

We know this is all based on Moore’s lies and deceptions. But we, I’m afraid, are a minority. Right now, just days away from what should be a proud and happy return from 15 months of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom, your U.S. soldiers are coming back ashamed and hurt because of Moore’s work.

Go over to LGF for the full story. I'm so mad right now I can't even.... ARG!

This Is Several Days Late....

....But I can't not post about it.

In an interview Kirsten Dunst made some rather upsetting and poorly thought remarks regarding where she'd like to see the Spider-man movie set go.

"The next one will be it. I'm only contracted to 3 and don't see myself signing for a 4th or a 5th," says Dunst, emphatically. Asked if she would love to see her Mary Jane character killed off in Spider-Man 3, Dunst laughs. "It would actually be really interesting if SPIDER-MAN died. Why doesn't the superhero ever die? I think if Mary Jane was alone, pregnant and he died, she could give birth to a spider baby and carry on the series with another young boy or something like that. I doubt Tobey Maguire would come back for a 4th or a 5th either."

Long time Spidey fans have not taken it well. There's this bit from Ain't It Cool News.
Penny-Arcade is less than happy. If you combine these two positions, you pretty much have where I stand on the whole thing. Kirsten Dunst is a stupid whore and aside from that she's never been particularly convincing as M.J. and would have been better suited for Gwen. (The added bonus is that Gwen dies and so if the third movie left off in such a manner as to be conducive to a good sequal K.D.'s pull out wouldn't affect anything because her character dies, making way for an appropriate and convincing M.J.)
The one good point K.D. does bring up is that you can only do something so often before it loses its appeal. I don't want to see Spidey go on until Hollywood just can't milk any more money out of it. Spidey is (just as it was in the comics) character driven, and they've chosed to focus most of Peter Parker's character developement around his relationship with M.J. The problem is that you can either resolve that or employ the soap opera tactic. No one wants to see the latter, so once you accomplish the former (given the lazyness of Hollywood writers), Spidey will most likely degernate into another pointless action movie. Spidey will be just another victim of 'Rocky Syndrome'.(The first Rocky was a character film and after that they slowly sapped the character elements out of the Rocky series until the last one, in which they went back to a full character film.) And I don't want to see that happen.
So yes, Kirsten Dunst is a stupid whore who makes a pretty shoddy M.J., but I'm not particularly pressed to see a fourth Spidey movie. I'll wait for the third one to come out and then we can burn that bridge when/if it arises.

The End Is Way Fucking Nigh

First the Japanese want to turn us into batteries.

A device that produces electricity from blood could be used to turn people into "human batteries".

Researchers in Japan are developing a method of drawing power from blood glucose, mimicking the way the body generates energy from food.

Theoretically, it could allow a person to pump out 100 watts - enough to illuminate a light bulb.

Now the Russians want to turn us into food.

Scientists at the Voronezh State Technological Academy have developed a method for processing blood and turning it into food products such as milk, yogurt, chocolate, and coffee, Interfax quotes the academy’s administration as saying.

Does no one pay attention to the important lessons that Sci-Fi tries to teach us?

Do people think it's some sort of funny coincidence that Japan, the nation on the fore front of robot and android technology, is working on ways to turn human beings into batteries? If we don't wake up we're doomed. Today a light bulb, tomorrow 'The Matrix'.

Now Russia, the land that came up with Baba Yaga, is working on a way to turn people into food. Soylint Bolshoi is people!

A Very Good Question Indeed....

Why are we buying Kalashnikov knock-offs to distribute to the Afgan and Iraqi men?

Russian arms officials say that no other nation has a valid license to make the AK-47 and its many derivatives and clones, and that to defeat insurgents and terrorists, Washington has been encouraging violations of intellectual property rights. Russia is suffering losses in income, jobs and damage to the Kalashnikov name, the officials say, and would like the United States to shop for the weapons directly from here.

Aside from intellectual property issues, it's just bad money management.

Congressman have asked why American forces did not save money by reissuing to friendly forces the thousands of Kalashnikov rifles confiscated in both wars.

(Last spring, journalists from The New York Times watched United States marines collect tens of thousands of mint-condition Kalashnikovs in a cache in a hospital in Tikrit. The weapons were still in their original packing crates.)

The Commissar has something to say about this as well.

Random Complaining

Maybe it's the fact that I'm well read and relatively intelligent and maybe it's that my brother is a film major (or maybe it's both), but nine out of ten lesbian films suck. And I mean leaps and bounds beyond any rationality suck. They either lack production quality, writing, cast, or any combination/all of the above.
This surely has to be aided by the fact that the target audience is already a low percentage of the population and the intelligent portion of that small portion must be exceedingly small. (This also happens to be my trouble with dating, but that's something we're not getting into.) Michael Moore makes movies for stupid people and you see what he's managed to do to the documentary genere. Just imagine what could happen when you have additional room for creative license. It's not pretty, I'll tell you that.
You get porn that looks like an art house reject, drama that looks like crap I got E's on in fourth grade, comedy that makes the late night WB look like genius, and action is simply non-existant.
And if the movie selection is terrible then the book selection is worse. Don't get me wrong, there are a few good writers out there, but for the most part I'd rather listen to angry liberal "poetry" than read lesbian fiction. It takes a special derth of talent to fuck up onimonipiea (sp?), yet there are published writers who have done it.
I don't know, I guess I'm just irritated because I can't find anything good to read or watch right now. Bah....
Plus, I'm not looking forward to my marathon biking tomorrow. My car is in the shop and
B-more has the worst mass transit system. Ever.
I'm sure you're tired of my griping, so I'll call it a night and see yall tomorrow. Never fear, tomorrow will be the usual stuff from me.


*Update On Previous Post*

I draw your attention back to this post.

Well, here's further info (scroll down) on it.
LOS ANGELES July 22, 2004 – Undercover federal air marshals on board a June 29 Northwest airlines flight from Detroit to LAX identified themselves after a passenger, “overreacted,” to a group of middle-eastern men on board, federal officials and sources have told KFI NEWS.

The passenger, later identified as Annie Jacobsen, was in danger of panicking other passengers and creating a larger problem on the plane, according to a source close to the secretive federal protective service.

Rachel Lucas thinks this is a shoddy explanation. But The Politburo (who I am ashamed to admit wasn't on the ol' link list until today) thinks otherwise.

Personally, I'm not sure what to think. We (Americans) definitely need to be observant and possibly less inclined to give suspicious persons the benefit of a doubt, but we must remain rational. I guess it comes down to a level headed analysis and evaluation of all things at all times. It takes effort, it means we have to use our brains, but when it comes down to it that's the only thing we really have.
This situation is tricky. On one hand you have the account of a potentially overreacting passenger (who's actions could place the entire flight in danger as well as expose the undercover air marshalls on board). On the other hand you have the statement of a government agency charged with protecting us in the skies (who just might find it easier to discredit the passenger who called attention to a potentially embarrassing situation- 14 Syrians with expired documentation).
Actually, writing it out like that has kind of cleared things up a little. This woman is a writer, and it's been my experience that writers tend to be more high-strung than the rest of us. I guess it's the price of being an artist or some such. Taking everything I know (which admittedly isn't as much as I'd like to, but is probably all that I'm going to) into account, I have to reach the conclusion that it's far more likely that she over-reacted than it is that the air marshalls are launching a (rather pathetic) smear campaign to cover up the fact that (surprise!) there are foreigners with expired documentation in our country and that they sometimes board planes.
I still think that the original idea behind the post I linked to is a good one. We should think about what we would do in a hijack situtation. It never hurts to be prepared (or at least as prepared as possible).

Specially Formulated....

....To take out Iran's nuke capabilities?

A revolution is taking place in the air force: ten years after the IAF was forced to open the doors to its prestigious training course to women, the air force is showing initiative and is showing off a unique combat squadron that composed solely by women.

The psychological warfare value of something like this in the rest of the Middle East has got to be worth something. And apparently I'm not the only one who's thinking this is kinda neat.
(Though their comments do pose some good points.)

Number One Reason...

...For finding alternative fuel sources is that we might finally be able to give this halfwit tribal throwbacks what they continually ask for:

"We ask you to leave Iraq," the message said. "If not, we will turn your homeland into a bloodbath. ... We will shake the ground under your feet as we did in Indonesia, and the car bombs will not stop coming, God willing.

Honestly, sometimes I think we should've just concentrated on finding a workable alternative fuel source and run with it. Then we could destroy every western technology in the swamp of the Middle East (obviously, Israel, being essentially a western nation is excluded from this) and leave them to rot in their own obsoleteness. Ayn Rand made a great point in 'Atlas Shrugged'. Sometimes the best way to defeat your enemy is to give them exactly what they're asking for.

Of course when I get in these moods I generally realize that we'll gain more through the road we're currently taking than we would through the road I would find a vengeful comfort in.

Emperor Misha I has a good fisking for you.



In light of this:

Once the hijackers were in control, they knew that passengers were using cell phones and seat-back phones to call the ground "but did not seem to care," according to the report. Yet clearly what the passengers learned in those phone calls inspired their counterattack on the cockpit....

...."The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them," according to the report, which seems to indicate that the hijackers themselves crashed the plane. "With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes' flying time from Washington, D.C," according to the report.

Instapundit links back to this:

United Flight 93 did not hit a building. It did not kill anyone on the ground. It did not terrorize a city, despite the best drawn plans of the world's most innovative madmen. Why? Because it had informed Americans on board who'd had 109 minutes to come up with a counteraction.

And the next time a hijacker full of hate pulls the same stunt with a single knife, he'll get the same treatment and meet the same result as those on United Flight 93. Dead, yes. Murderous, yes. But successful? No.

So I think the answer I come to is "yes, but at least not for long."

They did whip us. And maybe those of us who've demanded to be let on airplanes at the last minute fed a culture of convenience that made it possible.

But they only had us on the mat for 109 minutes.

Both are well worth the read. Now I'm off to work, and I'll see you tomorrow or possibly later tonight.

Next Time...

...I'm in Boston, I'm grabbing a slice of pizza at this place.


Really freakin sucked.  From 3:00am to approximately 12:05am today. 
Today could be worse, but some really insane shit would have to happen.
Blogging may follow, but if not I'll see you tomorrow.


When The Going Gets Tough...

...The UN gets going *hat tip LGF*.

The United Nations has decided to move 20 people working in UN facilities in Gaza - about a third of its foreign crews - to the UN headquarters in Armon Hanatziv in Jerusalem. The other 40 non-Palestinians working for the UN in Gaza will remain at their jobs.

For now at any rate....

The transfer was ordered by Peter Hansen, UNRWA commissioner general in Gaza, who is also responsible for the security of all the UN organizations operating in the strip. According to a Hansen spokesman, the transfer of the 20 was the result of "the security situation in the area of the Erez Junction and Beit Hanoun, where IDF forces are operating and which endanger the movement of UN people entering and leaving Gaza."

What?  Did you really expect the UN to admit that they're being forced to flee from the barbaric pig-children they continue to insist on coddling?  Not when they can blame it all on "those filthy Joos".  
But it looks like the UN's not really fooling anyone except for the screaming moonbat brigade (and all that really takes a big puppett and a catchy slogan).

But other international groups operating in Gaza said that the real reason for the redeployment of the civilian foreigners is the deteriorating security in recent months, and particularly the events in Gaza last weekend when French aid workers were briefly kidnapped by armed Palestinians.

My, that does seem to be a more likely reason....

Head on over to Haaretz for the full story.


Leave It To Europe....

To start on the right track, but somehow still end up way off target.
According to the Norwegian paper Dagbladet, central figures in Kristiansand Progress party (Frp) wants to ban Islam in Norway.

«We are not the only ones demanding this ban,» said Halvor Hulaas, chairperson in Krstiansand Frp to the paper. «This is an opinion that is well established in Scandinavian countries. We are now importing people with a religion that is practiced in the same way it was practiced when it was established in year 600. The freedom we have in Norway may be taken away from us if we do not start to have some demands to these immigrants.»

Karina Udnæs, deputy leader of the Progress party’s city council group in Kristiansand is pushing it even further.

«It is about high time Norway and Europe make the ideology Islam and the practice of this, illegal and punishable in the same way as Nazism,» Udnæs said. «The prophet Muhammad urged them to kill everyone infidel.»

"Islam hasn't changed since it was established in 600 and we need to do something about the unassimilated imigrants living here."  That's a good start.  "We need to ban Islam."  And it just went horribly off track. 
Sometimes I think that Euro-weenies will never learn that the solution to bad ideas isn't to have fewer ideas.  It's to have more good ideas.

Bill at INDC....

...Says that howling moonbat brigade are absolutist, but I think that he's missing a huge piece of the picture.

You know who else uses rhetoric like "Hitler," "Mengele," and "murderer?" Those moonbats that I take pictures of at anti-war rallies, that's who. To them, everyone who supports a military action, no matter what the reason, what the cause, or what the potential impact, is a "modern day Hitler." Why? Because these people have such an uncompromising personal (and selective) aversion to violence, big business, positions of authority, government, that they have a fundamental inability to objectively measure the costs and benefits of the use of force by a Western government, and cannot fathom how someone else can support such an action.

Continuing the moral calculus metaphor: the US pulled the trigger on a war in Iraq that killed innocents? "Fascist Nazi oppressors!" Even though the action liberated 25 million people and came after a long list of carefully considered relative risks and benefits? Still "fascist Nazi oppressors!" It's like talking to a wall, because they're deaf absolutists. Think about the parallels; those for military action view launching a war as an exercise in self-defense and human liberation. Killed and maimed civilians are unfortunate, but acceptable because of the specifics of the situation. In contrast, that moonbat screaming in Lafayette Park obsesses over an individual family in Baghdad that huddled around their dining room table as a 2000 lb bomb struck close enough to wipe them out. They feel that anyone that could support the actions that are responsible for such a travesty is a monster. A "Nazi." They are absolutists.

Except that the people he's talking about in camp LLL only complain about the United States and Israel using violence. By in large they tend to either be disturbingly quiet (or even more disturblingly, jubilant) when "jihadis" blow themselves up, taking out several innocent people along with them. The only absolutist bone in their reality discordant bodies is their blind and absolute hatred for the United States and Israel.
They're actually relativists. Morals, values, ethics, and facts are shiftable in order to support their feelings and wants (and more often I think, to help them dodge the responsibility of thinking).
Absolutism is the belief that 'A' is 'A', while relativism is the belief (or wishful thought) that 'A' can also not be 'A'. At it's core, the rift between neo-cons and liberals comes down to those basic premises. That Saddam needed to be dealt with during the Clinton era, and that while Saddam and the situation in Iraq didn't change after Clinton left office, Saddam no longer needed to be dealt with = 'A' can also not be 'A'. Saddam needed to be dealt with during the Clinton era, Saddam didn't change when Clinton left office, Saddam still needed to be dealt with = 'A' is 'A'.
This is an important distinction that we can't afford to muddle because "'A' can also not be 'A'" is completely irrational. It's a non-thought.
(His post is about Republican views on abortion, but I'm not going to talk about abortion. I just can't fully respond to his point without mentioning his context.)
Republican pro-lifers believe that a human being is a human being at the moment of conception, so the idea of going to a doctor's office to have that human being killed is very comparable to Dr. Mengele's experiments and SS men throwing babies into fire pits. However no reasonable person can see a how a man that liberated two countries that were under the rule of murderous and oppressive regimes is just like a man who placed damn near all of Europe under his oppressive regime which was responsible for the murder of some 12 million people, which is exactly what what the liberals he's referring to frequently claim.

Helpful hint: Camp LLL does moral "calculus". Seeing, where that's landed them, we'd be well advised to stay good and clear of that kind (and all kinds) of fuzzy logic.


*Update* Apparently he means that they're actually relativists. I just thought he had the two confused. But I'm thinking that if I made that mistake then maybe other people might, so read this post as a supplement.

Oil For Terror?

From the looks of things, that's exactly what it looks like.

Beyond the billions in graft, smuggling, and lavish living for Saddam Hussein that were the hallmarks of the United Nations Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, there is one more penny yet to drop.

It's time to talk about Oil-for-Terror.

Especially with the U.N.'s own investigation into Oil-for-Food now taking shape, and more congressional hearings in the works, it is high time to focus on the likelihood that Saddam may have fiddled Oil-for-Food contracts not only to pad his own pockets, buy pals, and acquire clandestine arms — but also to fund terrorist groups, quite possibly including al Qaeda.

The East River just keeps looking better, but this new discovery regarding the UN's latest fiasco (if you don't count what's going on in the Congo) won't give a moment's pause to the moonbats howling for us (and Israel) to submit to UN "authority".

Curse You XP

The aftermath of my hard drive issues is that I'm now using Windows XP, which means that I now have to contend with all sorts of stupid XP problems. Yesterday I became personally aquainted with the fact that XP will spontainiously change my internet settings to some insane configuration that prohibits access to...well...anything and everything. That's why there was no blogging yesterday. I spent all of my blogging time fighting with the latest bane of my existance.
*Forceful shaking of fist* Curse you XP! Curse you!


I Am So Late....

...But it looks like one of the people you can bless (or curse, but not on her bandwidth dammit) for inspiring me to blog is back in action. Of course I mean the one and only Rachel Lucas.

Just so we're all clear on the situation: Kerry voted for war. He then voted against funding that war. Bush says he thinks that's shitty. Kerry's pig-thugs reply that Bush can keep his opinion to himself because Kerry served in Vietnam 30+ years ago and Bush did not.

As though that has one single goddamn thing to do with it.

And I thought I had left adoration from afar in the dust when I got my diploma.... Sheesh.

The Beginning

This is the first post at THoRA. I'll still post on R.A.H. (which will turn into more of a personal blog) and skullcrusher.tk (a new rant is in the works), but this will be the main focus of my efforts right now. There will be something for all my readers here. Fans of skullcrusher.tk will appreciate the revival of my non-politcal and often humorous side. R.A.H. fans will see more fiskings and a healthy dose of anger and bile.
I'm starting a new site because I think it's appropreate at this juncture. Skullcrusher.tk was my introduction to the public and technically my first shot at blogging. Some of you may remember that the original version of the site actually included a blog, the main purpose of which was to keep my friends posted on my doings and such (in light of my seeming inability to remain in contact with people for prolonged periods of time). Skullcrusher's blog was axed during the first real over-haul of the site and for a while I contented myself to simply rant.
Somtime after Skullcrusher was replaced by R.A.H., I was making a random trip around the internet when I stumpled apon neo-con warblogging. Whis was an eloquent demonstration that blogging wasn't just sad something-teens to (even sadder) forty-somethings writing emo lyrics on myjournal.com; there were actaully intelligent emotionally healthy people discussing intelligent things. Until that point I had made an effort to keep skullcrusher.tk a-politcal, primarily because until that point every politcal discussion I had seen on the internet was just an excersise in retarded irrationality. I didn't want to sound like those morons so I just kept my mouth shut.
Now that I had proof that politics could be discussed on-line in and intelligent and rational manner, politcs started to leak into skullcrusher.tk. I recieved...numerous communications that I return to my comical raving format and R.A.H. the site was born. Skullcrusher.tk went back to cedic anger and R.A.H. became my politcal pulpit of sorts.
R.A.H. was my tool for getting a real feel for blogging, a place for me to develop my style and subject matter. However R.A.H., while predominantly political had no real focus or at least no stated one. Also, for the most part, R.A.H. was a place for me to play around with the styles of other bloggers to see what I like, what I didn't, what could work for me, and what I'd need to change. I think of it as building an assembly kit out of their blogging styles, from which I could complete my own style that would mesh with my writing style (run on sentences) and personality.
I think that I've found my style at this point and so I'm giving that style a fresh slate. Any fine tuningcan be done here, but the actual discovery portion is complete. So what can you expect to find at The House of Righteous Anger? First and foremost this is a place of reason. This will serve as a front line in the war against the irrational and the illogical. That means that this is also a site that glories in humanity and what it meanst to be human. This is a site for optimists who believe that the natural state of man is free and that the system which best secures that so far is the one we have right here in the good ol' USA.
You might be wondering why this is called 'The House of Righteous Anger'. The answer is simple- any rational person can't help but be angered (enraged even) by the pervasive irrationality that surrounds us day in and day out. This anger is righteous because it rail against the very antithesis of what it is to be human. It challenges that which would have us under the whip in some neo-dark age or dead.
So welcome to The House of Righteous Anger, where man is king, reason is the force by which he rules, and comedy is a splendid way to pass the time.

P.S. As I become able to actually fund this thing you'll see some structural changes (hopefully for the better) and some visual flourishes.