GINA COBB

Website of the Day: Dr. Sanity

The website of the day is Dr. Sanity.

Two Years Ago Today on GINA COBB: "Evil" Israel "Cannot Continue and One Day Will Vanish" Says Iran's President

Originally published on May 11, 2006: "Evil" Israel "Cannot Continue and One Day Will Vanish" Says Iran's President

Just in case anyone does not yet clearly understand how badly distorted is the lens through which Iran's current leadership views the world, Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has once again spelled it out:  Iran eagerly looks forward to the day when "evil" Israel will vanish from the face of the earth.

JAKARTA, Indonesia - Iran's president on Thursday called Israel's government a "regime based on evil," but also said he was ready to negotiate with the United States and other countries over his country's nuclear program.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously said Israel should be wiped off the map, also told a cheering crowd of students in Indonesia's capital that the Jewish state "cannot continue and one day will vanish."

Funny, but Ahmadinejad can't seem to work up even a fraction as much loathing for the Palestinian terrorists who, as their primary strategy, deliberately plan and carry out mass murder attacks against groups of innocent, noncombatant civilian men, women and children.

So I guess we have to conclude that Ahmadinejad has no problem with the deliberate slaughter of innocent non-combatant civilians -- as long as the victims are Jews.  Of course, Iran also has no problem with threatening "Death to America" -- it's a popular chant in Iran.

Do we all agree that now is the time to require Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment, or are we going to just keep saying "pretty please" to Iran's "no" until Iran's first nuclear detonation occurs, at which point we will shrug our shoulders and hope that Iran's nuclear strikes will not be in our direction?

Try diplomacy first, a few of you say.

Hel-LO!  What do you think the U.N. and the European Union have tried for over three fruitless years (not counting the 18 years when Iran successfully hid its secret nuclear program), while Iran's nuclear program has nonetheless rapidly advanced?  What do you think the U.S. and its State Department have tried all these same fruitless years, while Iran's nuclear program has rapidly advanced?

All the combined diplomatic powers of the United Nations and have produced absolutely zip in terms of stopping Iran's rapidly-advancing nuclear program.

For those of you who still urge that we keep trying diplomacy with Iran, I have a question:

How will you know that diplomacy has failed?

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when nothing any nation on earth has done in an effort to halt Iran's nuclear program for three years has worked? 

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when the nation you're plying your diplomatic skills on is thumbing its nose at the United Nations? 

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when every week there's news of another advance in Iran's nuclear program? 

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when almost every day there's further chatter from Iran's president about the annihilation of Israel, the evils of the United States, or the evils of Western democracy? 

Would any of that be a clue that diplomacy has failed, or does somebody have to hit you over the head with at two-by-four?

I hope the two-by-four isn't necessary, because the next sign you'll get that all the world's diplomacy has failed will be the mushroom cloud.

Oh, but some other American president could handle Iran better, a few will say.

Sadly, you are dreaming.

It's a nice dream, isn't it?  I'm almost reluctant to wake you up.  But I must.

WAKE UP.

Who are the most suave, most diplomatically skilled presidents America has had in recent memory?

Bill Clinton?  The "master persuader"?

Right.  And on his watch, with all the combined diplomatic skills of himself and his administration at work, Iran secretly worked on its nuclear program, and Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists raged and planned and carried out the first World Trade Center bombing, several embassy bombings, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.  Not only that, but they began planning and preparing their master stroke that they hoped would deal a lethal blow to America -- the September 11th attack.

And that was with the great "persauder" in command.

Let's think of other greats in the field of diplomacy.  Ah -- who better than that great man of peace -- and Nobel Peace Prize winner in fact -- Jimmy Carter?

Who stood by helplessly while Iran kidnapped and held Americans hostage for 444 days.

Gee, you'd think he could have accomplished something diplomatically before he was finally voted out of of office by the American people.

Could it be that diplomacy will only take a nation so far in this big, sometimes incredibly cruel, world?

Could it be that any nation, even a good, great decent nation like America, or another good, decent nation like Israel -- can have enemies in this world not because it is evil, but for no real reason at all other than envy?  Or beause it potentially stands in the way of even greater evil that those other nations intend to do?

If you believe that there is such at thing as an unjust war, then you must also believe that nations sometimes unreasonably hate and aggress against other nations. 

And if you believe that, then why is it so difficult to realize that the current leadership in Iran is consumed with irrational hatred, and is rapidly arming itself to bring its hatred to fruition?

Remember, America is not chanting "Death to Iran."  The "death" chants are coming from only one direction.  America is not openly urging the annihilation of any other nation -- but Iran is.

Diplomacy is a nice word, but not a magical one.

You can talk yourself to death.  Literally.

_________________

Update 5/11/06:  The Yahoo! News report linked above has since been changed slightly to quote Iran's president as stating that Israel is "a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

Just in case anyone does not yet clearly understand how badly distorted is the lens through which Iran's current leadership views the world, Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has once again spelled it out:  Iran eagerly looks forward to the day when "evil" Israel will vanish from the face of the earth.

JAKARTA, Indonesia - Iran's president on Thursday called Israel's government a "regime based on evil," but also said he was ready to negotiate with the United States and other countries over his country's nuclear program.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously said Israel should be wiped off the map, also told a cheering crowd of students in Indonesia's capital that the Jewish state "cannot continue and one day will vanish."

Funny, but Ahmadinejad can't seem to work up even a fraction as much loathing for the Palestinian terrorists who, as their primary strategy, deliberately plan and carry out mass murder attacks against groups of innocent, noncombatant civilian men, women and children.

So I guess we have to conclude that Ahmadinejad has no problem with the deliberate slaughter of innocent non-combatant civilians -- as long as the victims are Jews.  Of course, Iran also has no problem with threatening "Death to America" -- it's a popular chant in Iran.

Do we all agree that now is the time to require Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment, or are we going to just keep saying "pretty please" to Iran's "no" until Iran's first nuclear detonation occurs, at which point we will shrug our shoulders and hope that Iran's nuclear strikes will not be in our direction?

Try diplomacy first, a few of you say.

Hel-LO!  What do you think the U.N. and the European Union have tried for over three fruitless years (not counting the 18 years when Iran successfully hid its secret nuclear program), while Iran's nuclear program has nonetheless rapidly advanced?  What do you think the U.S. and its State Department have tried all these same fruitless years, while Iran's nuclear program has rapidly advanced?

All the combined diplomatic powers of the United Nations and have produced absolutely zip in terms of stopping Iran's rapidly-advancing nuclear program.

For those of you who still urge that we keep trying diplomacy with Iran, I have a question:

How will you know that diplomacy has failed?

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when nothing any nation on earth has done in an effort to halt Iran's nuclear program for three years has worked? 

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when the nation you're plying your diplomatic skills on is thumbing its nose at the United Nations? 

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when every week there's news of another advance in Iran's nuclear program? 

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when almost every day there's further chatter from Iran's president about the annihilation of Israel, the evils of the United States, or the evils of Western democracy? 

Would any of that be a clue that diplomacy has failed, or does somebody have to hit you over the head with at two-by-four?

I hope the two-by-four isn't necessary, because the next sign you'll get that all the world's diplomacy has failed will be the mushroom cloud.

Oh, but some other American president could handle Iran better, a few will say.

Sadly, you are dreaming.

It's a nice dream, isn't it?  I'm almost reluctant to wake you up.  But I must.

WAKE UP.

Who are the most suave, most diplomatically skilled presidents America has had in recent memory?

Bill Clinton?  The "master persuader"?

Right.  And on his watch, with all the combined diplomatic skills of himself and his administration at work, Iran secretly worked on its nuclear program, and Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists raged and planned and carried out the first World Trade Center bombing, several embassy bombings, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.  Not only that, but they began planning and preparing their master stroke that they hoped would deal a lethal blow to America -- the September 11th attack.

And that was with the great "persauder" in command.

Let's think of other greats in the field of diplomacy.  Ah -- who better than that great man of peace -- and Nobel Peace Prize winner in fact -- Jimmy Carter?

Who stood by helplessly while Iran kidnapped and held Americans hostage for 444 days.

Gee, you'd think he could have accomplished something diplomatically before he was finally voted out of of office by the American people.

Could it be that diplomacy will only take a nation so far in this big, sometimes incredibly cruel, world?

Could it be that any nation, even a good, great decent nation like America, or another good, decent nation like Israel -- can have enemies in this world not because it is evil, but for no real reason at all other than envy?  Or beause it potentially stands in the way of even greater evil that those other nations intend to do?

If you believe that there is such at thing as an unjust war, then you must also believe that nations sometimes unreasonably hate and aggress against other nations. 

And if you believe that, then why is it so difficult to realize that the current leadership in Iran is consumed with irrational hatred, and is rapidly arming itself to bring its hatred to fruition?

Remember, America is not chanting "Death to Iran."  The "death" chants are coming from only one direction.  America is not openly urging the annihilation of any other nation -- but Iran is.

Diplomacy is a nice word, but not a magical one.

You can talk yourself to death.  Literally.

_________________

Update 5/11/06:  The Yahoo! News report linked above has since been changed slightly to quote Iran's president as stating that Israel is "a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

What Do Women Want?

By DemocracyRules

8 Things She Hates About You

Well, this article is the topic of some recent buzz, with lots of heated words exchanged in comments sections.

The article describes the “silent treatment”, and asks what brings women to such irritation: (1) disorderly house habits, (2) spending conflicts, (3) excessive ‘boy talk’, (4) vagueness about the future of the relationship, (5) taking her for granted, (6) Internet porn, (7) turning down sex, (8) soliciting dates electronically, especially by texting.

Rachel Lucas even includes a re-write of the list with the genders reversed.  More heated debate ensued from that.  Some women bloggers said they’re embarrassed about the pettiness of their own gender.  Nevertheless, we have to acknowledge that these eight things are real.  Many women do find at least some of these things annoying.

What do women want? (Said the cave-man, uttering his first words.) Actually, scientists have studied this quite a bit, so let’s see what they say.  I’ll just deal with the big picture, which is women’s pursuit of the reproduction of their own genes.  It is called  Selfish Gene Theory, or I call it ‘Intelligent Gene Theory (IGT)”, and it proposes that our DNA is designed to make copies of itself.  In mammals it accomplishes this by combining with strands of DNA from another individual of the same species (sexual reproduction).

Please note that the term Selfish Gene Theory or Intelligent Gene Theory does not mean that women are selfish, they obviously are mostly very patient, affectionate and giving.  This theory can also be used to explain men, and I'll write that later.

To do sexual reproduction, the DNA strands have acquired new genes and re-arranged existing ones to create a human body with certain features.   For example the DNA has made complimentary genitals that fit together.

This body is mainly designed to find a mate, and combine genes with that mate.  Then the two individuals cooperate to ensure the survival of their offspring (children), so their newly combined DNA will be perpetuated in new offspring (grandchildren).

So with chicken genes, the DNA has created a chicken as a device to perpetuate chicken DNA.  For example, the chicken DNA blueprint specifies legs, to propel the chicken around so it can eat and find mates.  Snake DNA got rid of the leg blueprint, but had to substitute a blueprint for complex belly-crawling muscles.  It took a while, but DNA has forever.

So, to IGT, women have prominent breasts to nurse young, and men like big breasts because that increases the likelihood his mate can nurse babies successfully.  It’s a sign of good ‘reproductive fitness’.  In fact I have sat in Cafés with male friends and commented about passers-by: “Whoa, look at the reproductive fitness on that one!” Because of these factors, women with nice breasts are more likely to have and raise offspring.  The brain is also designed by DNA.  Love is a mating device invented by DNA.  To produce one new human, one must parent them for at least twelve years, so the couple must remain together at least that long and cooperate in the care for the young. 

I know, it all sounds very cold and mechanistic, but an IG theorist would say that we shun mechanistic interpretations of love because we are genetically programmed to shun mechanistic interpretations of love. Those darn IG theorists are hard to get around.

So to cut to the chase: Women need a high-quality mate, because they can’t reproduce like oysters, spewing out thousands of babies, hoping one will survive.  Each offspring must be high quality, so the mate must also be high quality.  More or less in order of priority, women look for the following. 

(a) Beauty.  Almost all beauty criteria relate to ‘reproductive fitness’, or how well that male can produce successful offspring.  Alcohol definitely helps. Attractive men have higher sperm counts, and have sex more often.  Taller men tend to be more intelligent, have higher incomes, and they have many other features that improve their reproductive fitness. It’s not just the genes, it’s also how well those genes have been expressed in real life.  Men are more attractive if they have symmetric right and left facial features.  Most attractive male movie stars and models have unusually symmetrical faces. DNA almost always has blueprints for fully symmetric body parts, so if a person is not symmetrical, they had health problems growing up.  Men are more attractive if they have long legs, and poor early nutrition shortens leg length.

(b) Income.  Men must provide for the family while the woman is occupied with child-rearing, and money-wise, the more the better (California bumper sticker: “If You’re Rich I’m Single!”)

(c) Fatherly behavior. (AKA, ‘a nice man’)  A nice warm, pleasant patient man who loves children is preferred because he is better equipped to help a woman perpetuate her genes.

(d) Undying love.  This is needed to keep the male around long enough to get the children reared properly.  Most women express this as the need to be loved, or receive love.  Fewer women primarily express the need to give love, or be loving with men.  Of course women can and do love, and give love, and benefit immensely from it, as does their family.  But if the man does not love the woman, there probably won’t be a family from that man.

(e) Intelligence, because this is partly heritable, so it can be passed to offspring, and it also increases income capacity.

(f) Sexuality is important for several reasons.  Women have testosterone, and other systems which create sexual desire.  They actually have more sexual desire than they normally admit.  They don’t want to be slut-labeled.   Lesbians, who worry much less about slut-labeling, are much more openly sexual than heterosexual women.

The man must produce strong and viable sperm, and handsome men have more and better sperm.  If the man meets criteria  (a) to (e), then she will love him more, and she will want to mate with him more often.  The more sexually aroused she gets, and the stronger the orgasms, the better.  High sexual arousal produces lubrication, which extends the time of sexual contact, and reduces vaginal injury.  In sexually aroused women, the vagina enlarges at the back near her cervix.  This facilitates sperm pooling.  During an orgasmic contraction, the cervix is pushed down into the sperm pool, thereby increasing the chances for her to conceive.  So there are strong biological reasons why a woman would want to be loved by her man, and would want to love him, to find him sexy, and want to have sex with him often.

When sex fails, the woman usually cites one or more of items (a) to (e) as the cause of the failure.  In that sense, items (a) through (e) are necessary but not sufficient criteria for successful marital sex.  Even if all five criteria are met, various equipment failures can get in the way.

Pshaw! You may say, this is far too technical and cold, and has nothing to do with my life.  Well, Intelligent Gene Theory is just a theory, and theories almost always have to be changed and improved later.  It could also turn out to be entirely false.

But if we review “8 Things She Hates About You” with IGT, it fits pretty well.
The “silent treatment” is often a test of love, designed to verify that the man is loving and attentive enough to discover the problem and fix it.  Lesbians, both being women, sometimes drive each other nuts with tests of love.  The “silent treatment” often comes from doubts the woman has about her man’s love.  That’s what items (1) to (8) are mainly about, things which cause her to doubt her man’s love. 

(1) Disorderly house habits suggest the man is not dedicated to the family, and is  downloading domestic work to the woman.  In contrast, her primary goal is to have and raise children in a safe secure domestic environment, and mess and dirt degrades that environment.

(2) Spending conflicts are a problem if the woman thinks the man is not dedicating sufficient financial resources to child-rearing.

(3) Excessive ‘boy talk’, shows lack of respect and love of the woman, and she must have the man’s respect and love to raise her children successfully 

(4) Vagueness about the future of the relationship show the man does not love her enough to sustain the relationship long enough for her to raise her children successfully

(5) Taking her for granted is similar to (3) ans (4),

(6) Internet porn, suggests that the man lacks fidelity, and may leave before the child rearing is complete,

(7) Turning down sex is a problem because women are more sexual during ovulation.  Turning them down is refusing them a potential pregnancy,

(8) Soliciting dates electronically, especially by texting, is similar to (3), (4), and (5), because it represents a lack of undying love.

Within  IG theory, tests of love are emphasized on the list of 8 because love is a very unstable variable.  It is much more variable than leg length or sperm count.  Yet marital love is vital for successful child rearing.  Therefore, women devote huge amounts of attention, consideration, and concern to love because it’s important, and they have some chance to control it.  One cannot control leg length or sperm count very much.

So men, in summary, if you want to succeed with women, act like a baby machine.  That’s what she wants you to be. 

Do it or suffer.
______________________________

References:

Brain Sex
The Mating Mind
Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation

Raytheon's New Bunker-Buster

By DemocracyRules

It's much more powerful than existing bunker-buster weapons.  The 1,000 lb demo version of this bomb went through about 19 feet of steel-reinforced concrete.  With Iran's rooster-strutting oligarchy, it may be useful to show them this bomb.  It could help them think again.

I also hope the U.S. tests one of these weapons on the lawn of the Syrian dictator Assad.  Not to, like, HURT HIM or anything, just to get him to think about his future.

Maybe just showing this video would help:

Pro Patria

Hizbullah -- Murder Inc.

By DemocracyRules

h/t Ya Libnan

Well as of Saturday afternoon May 10, Eastern time, the truce is mainly holding in Lebanon.  The worst problem for Lebanon is understanding democracy.  Since 2005 they have had a wobbly democracy, with Hiz constantly trying to demolish it.  Nasrallah, the Hiz leader clearly has no idea what democracy is, but he understands hate, murder, and tyranny really well. Iran and Syria sponsor him.

The pro-Democracy coalition, which now is about 75% of the population, is also quite confused.  They understand free elections, but the rest is a blur.  For them the aim of democratic politics is unremitting disagreement and a refusal to compromise.  Of course in true democracies disagreement is vital, but the ultimate goal is consensus so one can move forward.

This Hiz terrorist is a "dissident", who is part of the "political process".  The other pictures show a Hiz-allied group murder of two people at a pro-democracy funeral.  Click on the pictures for more detail.  Animals.

Soon the murderers who did this will be expected to return to civilian life and will go unpunished.  Lebanon does not extirpate Hiz, this political cancer, these "bandits in the bedroom" because the pro-democracy factions will not unite against a common enemy.

Sadly most Lebanese refuse peace with Israel, and some express hatred for the U.S., but many are now hoping for an American rescue.  Thankfully for now the Lebanese army remains loyal to the government.

Pro Patria

Hizbullah Promises to Leave Beirut

By DemocracyRules

18:01 [Lebanon Time] Hezbollah led-Opposition : "We have decided to end the armed presence and will surrender the capital to the army , but will maintain the civil disobedience ( sit-in ) until we achieve our demands"

They promised this very recently, but it's not clear if they will do it.  The Lebanese army may be leaning too much in favor of Hiz.  We'll see.

Pro Patria

Barack Obama Loves This Great Big Country of Ours

All 57 states.

Links to reaction at Instapundit.

Funniest remark so far:  "Somebody should ask him to name all 114 US Senators."

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Website of the Day: Rachel Lucas

The website of the day is Rachel Lucas.

Crazy Fun For Jewish Iranian Americans

By DemocracyRules

h/t Iranian.com

I KNOW, it's kind of a niche market.  "Instead of regular Hanukkah gifts, we wrap hostages..."

Pro Patria

Moon After Moon

By DemocracyRules

h/t HowItGoesNaked -- Sheema Kalbasi

I need you to say you love me. I want your words to touch me again. Look, who knows maybe I will break into a thousand pieces soon. Perhaps morning tempers and letters burn, but I want my body to learn new words, a fistful of words as sweet and sour candy that happens to be in my mouth; words that stem from the heart and soul, making rich feathery sensation on the back of my neck; words that tantalize like the tip of your tongue finding its path to my lips. These are simple adventures that fill, pant, and pour the depth of my body where I let natural forces find fever at every beat, every beat that is as strong as my desires.... The Rest

Polar Bears Grow Bitter

By DemocracyRules

They dislike all this delighted environmentalist Schadenfreude about their demise.  They take it personally.  In fact, Polar Bear Backlash may be building.  Polar Bear numbers have increased substantially since their extinction was falsely declared imminent.

The male Polar Bears may be compounding the situation.  As their numbers grow, males may have figured out that this also means more female Polar Bears.  The females can help the males reverse this little extinction problem.  The opportunity for revenge has begun to uh, present itself...

Pro Patria

Consensus is Building -- The Wrong Way

By DemocracyRules

Remember 'Baghdad Bob', the mouthpiece for Saddam who constantly proclaimed that Saddam was winning?  He became hilarious when Americans were bombing right behind him while he vowed the Crusader had lost.

The Global Warmers are getting progressively more like Baghdad Bob.  Each day more Global Warming skeptics join the doubters.  "WE HAVE CONSENSUS... THE DEBATE IS OVER", the Global Warmers claim, hoping we will not notice their colleagues rushing for the lifeboats.

"Manhattan Declaration", what's that?   Oh, that recent conference in New York that concluded that "'Global warming' is not a global crisis?" 

"Pshaw, what do they know?  A few [thousand] amateur skeptics and hangers-on who are bitter about funding rejections?  Well yes, hundreds of well-respected climate scientists did attend, and it's true they said they can't find much evidence to support  Anthropogenic Global Warming. 

But some are bald, and others were very foreign-looking.  The women scientists were all frigid stuck-up sluts.

Also there were a lot of JOOOOS there, did you notice the JOOOOS?  You can't trust them you know.

We can't help it if they refuse to believe Al Gore and the UN, what's wrong with them?  I tell you the world is ON FIRE!"

Something to Think About While You Fill Your Gas Tank

Gateway Pundit adds:  This Will Be The #1 Issue in the 2008 Elections-- And, It Goes to Republicans

Over the past 30 years:

Which party blocked the development of new sources of petroleum?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling in ANWR?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the coast of Florida?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the east coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the west coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked building oil refineries?-- Democrat
Which party blocked clean nuclear energy production?-- Democrat
Which party blocked clean coal production?-- Democrat

Signs of Progress in Lebanon

By DemocracyRules

I KNOW IT LOOKS like everyone is killing everyone else, but that’s just silly MSM reportage.  This conflict got started when Hizbullah (Hiz) built their own fiber-optic telephone network, which could transmit signals without being detected by Israel or anyone else.  With this network, they could also attack the Lebanese government.  The Leb Government drew the line when Hiz started hooking the network up to a similar one that Syria has.  They forbade Hiz to do this and insisted that Hiz remove their network.  Hiz was ready for them, and immediately started to incite a civil war.  That’s where we’re at now.  (In-country minute-by-minute updates Here, and Here.)

THERE ARE MANY good sides to this story. This is definitely not a repeat of the Lebanese civil war. The main problem for Lebanon in the civil war was deciding who was the enemy. No one could agree, so people just killed each other. That went nowhere. This time there are really only two sides, and both sides understand who they are fighting. The two sides are forming up well, and Hiz is clearly in the minority.  Hiz is an Islamic fundamentalist, pro-Iran, pro-Syria, Shia terrorists group..  The other side is everyone else, including Sunni Muslims, most Christians, and Druze (a kind of religion of its own).

Until now, Hiz has had some Christian support.  The Christians have been wobbly, trying to play Sunni against Shia, but the Sunni are very pro-peace, stability and democracy.  Thus, the Christians will soon align AGAINST Hiz. The Christians want democracy, and Hiz clearly does not. This will create a united front against Hiz.

I hope Lebanese try to stay home as much as possible.  It’s OK for them to clean their weapons, make sure they work, buy more ammunition, and make sure everyone in the house knows how to shoot the weapons. But they need to be encouraged to use them only to protect their house. They have a right to protect their lives and property.

Some armed anti-Hiz groups are running into the street to confront Hiz.  This is a shame, because Hiz has been planning this for years, and they want to incite a chaotic civil war.   On the streets, people can get killed by the Lebanese army, who are just trying to do their jobs. I hope these hot-heads join the Lebanese army.

I'm a Canadian, and we have been doing peace-keeping since 1954, when it was invented. The best peace-keeping tactic for the Lebanese army is to confront any armed gunmen with overwhelming force. If some Hiz have set up a barricade with five gunmen, show up there with six armored personnel carriers, and at least six 0.50 caliber (1.25 mm) machine guns. Keep the troops inside. Point all the machine guns at the Hiz militia, and firmly but respectfully ask them to put down their weapons and leave.

Confronted with massive firepower, they will leave. Hiz may be crazy, but they're not stupid. A 0.50 caliber  machine gun shoots bullets the size of a small banana. Only a fool would try AK 47's against such massive firepower.

They will drop their weapons and leave. Then the Army removes the barricade. If each confrontation is kept 'asymmetrical' like this, most of Hiz can be disarmed peacefully.

The UNIFIL Troops need to become much more aggressive in the South, by actively disarming Hiz. Again, asymmetrical confrontations work best. This would create two fighting fronts for Hiz, which would weaken them a lot. Once UNIFIL has disarmed the local Hiz, they need to cross the Litani, and start pulling up that telephone network.

Meanwhile, Canada, the U.S., France, the Saudis, and Egypt need to bomb Assad's house. The ‘giraffe’ has got to go, and soon. Another obvious Syrian target is the Syrian Intelligence headquarters. It could be destroyed with just a few GPS bombs. Syria also has a few other nuclear sites which would be good to bomb right now. The world would probably not even notice.

Once Hiz is disarmed, and the Lebanese army and UNIFIL begin close cooperation, and Assad is gone, the conflict will stop. Then the Lebanese government can close the Iranian embassy and evict all Iranian 'diplomats'.

After all that, the two armies can cooperate to disarm Hiz, house-by-house if necessary.

Pro Patria

Website of the Day: Doug Ross @ Journal

The website of the day is Doug Ross @ Journal.

Do You Find the News Depressing?

By DemocracyRules

I know, it happens to me too.  The MSM makes the world seem like a depressing place.

Things sometimes look bad because the MSM is lying, or putting negative spin on positive stories.  They bury the good news, and feature the bad (if it bleeds, it leads).  Recent examples: "U.S. Economy in meltdown", is incorrect.  These recent headlines tell the true story: Economy Improves, Old Media Ignores, Greenspan says worst of credit crisis over, The U.S. economy is structurally strong.

The MSM will predictably lie about certain topics.  On those topics, you can discount the reports 100% or even just reverse the meanings to get the real story.  Here are some key topics:

(1)  Poverty, domestic or foreign.  Any story about the poor getting richer, the average person being better off, or the the size of income disparities getting smaller will be ignored by the MSM.  In Canada recently, the MSM faked some income numbers so they could report a catastrophe.  As Communists, the MSM is absolutely dead-simple incapable of acknowledging that poverty is disappearing, and that capitalism is working.  For every story that cries about poverty, good news is ignored.  Either they are lying or misinterpreting the data, or they are focusing on one negative datum, and ignoring tons of positive data.  Ergo, any poverty reporting can be reversed into : "World Poverty Declining!", "U.S. Most Prosperous Country in History!", "Fewer and Fewer Starving in Africa!".

(2) Paper Recycling. Any story which deals with paper recycling and paper wastage will be misreported.  Why? Because newspapers use up millions of trees per year, and newspapers will never complain that this represents a waste of resources, or causes clear-cutting, or fills up landfills.  So any negative story about paper recycling can usually be reversed into: "NYT and Others in Trouble, Millions of Trees Saved!"

(3) Environmental Catastrophes of any sort are routinely falsified or exaggerated.  E.g., "Massive Volcano Erupts in Chile", really means,  "Chilean Catastrophe Averted, Hundreds of Thousands Safely Evacuated!", or "Ash Fall from Chilean Volcano Produces Massive Increase in Soil Fertility!".

(4) All Global Warming stories are false and can be ignored.

(5) MSM Crybabies. Almost all stories which portray the MSM as victims are false or misleading.  The MSM is unwilling to criticize itself no matter what horrible thing they did.  E.g., "Rotten Reporter Lies to Court, Gets Jail She Deserves!"

(6) Christian Bashing. Almost all MSM stories about Christianity will be biased or falsified.  The good news is that Christians are, by many objective social measures, better people than atheists.  They have lower divorce rates, more marital happiness, better incomes, less depression, and on and on.  These things will not be reported in the MSM because it is controlled by faithless Communist ideologues.  Thus, these stories should read, "Depression, Substance Abuse and Suicide Drops in MSM Who Convert to Christianity!".

(7) Military Bashing. Any story which criticizes the military will be biased or falsified.  For every negative story about the military there are at least a thousand positive stories which go unreported.  Reversal works well for military stories.  So, "Haditha Marines Charged in Barbaric Attack" actually means, "Iraq War the Most Cleanly Fought in History". 

So you see, the News is actually full of positive stories, if you read it or listen to it properly. 

Furthermore, if you get your News from Gina Cobb, you will read about Hedgehog Rescue, funny cartoons and anecdotes, and everyday good things that happen to people.

Pro Patria

P.S. The picture is of Michaëlle Jean, the Governor-General of Canada.  Our head of state is better-looking than your head of state!