First, after Bush finished his speech during the Republican Convention... Bill Clinton had a heart problem. AND NOW.... Iraq had a successful elections, Knowingly, this will help Bush with his ratings... then suddenly Hllary Clinton passed out ..

Now this is beginning to be fishy. What i think is, these Clintons' problems are all staged to take away the medias attention from Bush. Her collapse was definately faked.

By now everyone should have heard about That'so Raven and her scary belief systems. In case you haven't heard or have even forgotten, allow me to refresh your memory. The first thing I want to bring up is that you may be wondering why contumelious ingrates latch onto Raven's notions. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, Raven's tracts are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us as soon as our backs are turned. This is kind of a touchy subject to some people. That said, let me continue.

I might add: If you can make any sense out Raven's grotty, unprincipled scribblings, then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. Woe to the hate-filled fomenters of revolution who usher in the beginning of an antisocial new era of exclusionism! Raven believes that demagogism brings one closer to nirvana. That's just wrong. She further believes that you and I are inferior to depraved exhibitionists. Wrong again!

As I gaze into my crystal ball, I see that her stooges will destroy our moral fiber faster than you can say "characteristicalness". Truth be told, her lies come in many forms. Some of her lies are in the form of witticisms. Others are in the form of protests. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. I would never take a job working for Raven. Given her fork-tongued sentiments, who would want to? Compared to these sniffish turncoats, every pimp is a man of honor. (Actually, you should never allow a day to go by in which you do not bring this fundamental truth to at least one new person, but that's not important now.) We must reinforce notions of positive self esteem. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own randy, snooty anecdotes. Let us now compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to rage, rage against the dying of the light, because in that is our only hope for the future.

I take courage to  fly combat missions over Iraq no doubt.  But in my mind I would say that flying unarmed combat aircraft over Iran is even more so.  If downed and captured, you could be rubber hosed or worse for years, until the war is over.  Only for you the war has to start before it can be over.  No people need freedom more than the citizens of the third axis of evil.  No people want it more fervently either.  By in large our service men and women believe that their prime directive is to help the weak and helpless defend themselves from the predetory despots of the world.  Granted a lot of them are turd world countries full of dopes would sell their freedoms for a bottle of clean water, but they are victims non the less.  And you would never find a panty wearing Frenchman doing a job that takes this much balls.

The U.S. Air Force is playing a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Iran's ayatollahs, flying American combat aircraft into Iranian airspace in an attempt to lure Tehran into turning on air defense radars, thus allowing U.S. pilots to grid the system for use in future targeting data, administration officials said.

"We have to know which targets to attack and how to attack them," said one, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The flights, which have been going on for weeks, are being launched from sites in Afghanistan and Iraq and are part of Bush administration attempts collect badly needed intelligence on Iran's possible nuclear weapons development sites, these sources said, speaking on condition of strict anonymity.

"These Iranian air defense positions are not just being observed, they're being 'templated,'" an administration official said, explaining that the flights are part of a U.S. effort to develop "an electronic order of battle for Iran" in case of actual conflict.

However, a Pentagon spokesman told UPI he was unaware of any such actions.

"We are not aware of any incursions into Iranian air space," said Cdr. Nick Balice, chief of media at the U.S. Central Command.

In the event of an actual clash, Iran's air defense radars would be targeted for destruction by air-fired U.S. anti-radiation or ARM missiles, he said.

A serving U.S. intelligence official added: "You need to know what proportion of your initial air strikes are going to have to be devoted to air defense suppression."

A CentCom official told United Press International that in the event of a real military strikes, U.S. military forces would be using jamming, deception, and physical attack of Iran's sensors and its Command, Control and Intelligence (C3 systems).

He also made clear that that this entails "advance, detailed knowledge of the enemy's electronic order of battle and careful preplanning."

Ellen Laipson, president and CEO of the Henry L. Stimson Center and former CIA Middle East expert, said of the flights, "They are not necessarily an act of war in themselves, unless they are perceived as being so by the country that is being overflown."

Laipson explained: "It's not unusual for countries to test each other's air defenses from time to time, to do a little probing -- but it can be dangerous if the target country believes that such flights could mean an imminent attack."

She said her concern was that Iran "will not only turn on its air defense radars but use them to fire missiles at U.S. aircraft," an act which would "greatly increase tensions" between the two countries.

The air reconnaissance is taking place in conjunction with other intelligence collection efforts, U.S. government officials said.

To collect badly needed intelligence on the ground about Iran's alleged nuclear program, the United States is depending heavily on Israeli-trained teams of Kurds in northern Iraq and on U.S.-trained teams of former Iranian exiles in the south to gather the intelligence needed for possible strikes against Iran's 13 or more suspected nuclear sites, according to serving and retired U.S. intelligence officials.

Both groups are doing cross border incursions into Iran, some in conjunction with U.S. Special Forces, these sources said.

They claimed the Kurds operating from Kurdistan, in areas they control. The second group, working from the south, is the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, listed by the State Department as a terrorist group, operating from southern Iraq, these sources said.

The use of the MEK for U.S.-intelligence-gathering missions strikes some former U.S. intelligence officials as bizarre. The State Department's annual publication, "Patterns of Global Terrorism," lists them as a terrorist organization.

According to the State Department report, the MEK were allies with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in fighting Iran and, in addition, "assisted Saddam in "suppressing opposition within Iraq, and performed internal security for the Iraqi regime."

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, U.S. forces seized and destroyed MEK munitions and weapons, and about 4,000 MEK operatives were "consolidated, detained, disarmed, and screened for any past terrorist acts, the report said.

Shortly afterwards, the Bush administration began to use them in its covert operations against Iran, former senior U.S. intelligence officials said.

"They've been active in the south for some time," said former CIA counterterrorism chief, Vince Cannistraro.

The MEK are said to be currently launching raids from Camp Habib in Basra, but recently Pakistan President Pervez Musharaff granted permission for the MEK to operate from Pakistan's Baluchi area, U.S. officials said.

Asked about the Musharaff decision, Laipson said: "Not a smart move. The last thing he (Musharaff) needs is another batch of hotheads on Pakistani soil."

A former senior Iranian diplomat told United Press International that the Kurds in the Baluchi areas of Pakistan can operate in freedom because the Baluchis "have no love for the mullahs of Iran."

In fact, in the early 1980s, there were massacres of Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the area by Baluchi militants who wish to be independent, he said.

Both covert groups are tasked by the Bush administration with planting sensors or "sniffers" close to suspected Iran nuclear weapons development sites that will enable the Bush administration to monitor the progress on the program and develop targeting data, these sources said.

"There is an urgent need to obtain this information, at least in the minds of administration hawks," an administration official said.

"This looks to be turning into a pretty large-scale covert operation," a former long-time CIA operator in the region told UPI. In addition to the air strikes on allegedly Iranian nuclear weapons sites, the second aim of the operation is to secure the support in Iran of those "who view U.S. policy of hostility towards Iran's clerics with favor," he said.

The United States is also attempting to erect a covert infrastructure in Iran able to support U.S. efforts, this source said. It consists of Israelis and other U.S. assets, using third country passports, who have created a network of front companies that they own and staff. "It's a covert infrastructure for material support," a U.S. administration official said.

The network would be able to move money, weapons and personnel around inside Iran, he said. The covert infrastructure could also provide safe houses and the like, he said.

Cannistraro, who knew of the program, said: "I doubt the quality of these kinds or programs," explaining the United States had set up a similar network just before the hostage-rescue attempt in 1980. "People forget that the Iranians quickly rolled up that entire network after the rescue attempt failed," Cannistraro said.

The administration's fear is that by possessing a nuclear weapon, Iran will gain a new stature and status in the region strengthening its determination to remove the U.S presence from the region and making its hostility seem more credible, U.S. officials said.

There is also the administration's fear that Iran, with Syria's help, will accelerate Palestinian terrorism as Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip, these sources said.

So the United States, backed by Israel, is deadly earnest about neutralizing Iran's nuclear weapons site. "The administration has determined that there is no diplomatic solution," said John Pike, president of the online think-tank globalsecurity.org.

"Like the Israelis, the Bush administration has decided that forces of sweetness and light won't be running Iran any time soon, and that having atomic ayatollahs is simply not acceptable."

Said Cannistraro of the administration's policy: "Its very, very, very dangerous."

Howard rabbit and porks of Tory-Islamic values Michael 'oward spoke of shared Conservative and Islamic values as 'e launched 'is knees-up's Muslim Forum.

The new body will "allow the knees-up ter learn from the chuffin' Muslim community and will also 'elp Muslim Britons play their full part in the Conservative Knees-up - at the highest level", right, he said. His speech came after energy minister Mike O'Brien sparked a row by claimin' the bloody Tory leader would do nuffink for Muslims.

Mr 'oward, the bloomin' son of Jewish immigrants, accused Mr O'Brien of a "low personal attack". The Tory leader praised the "immense" contribution Muslims made ter national life. "British Muslims form an economically vibrant, culturally creative, socially orare community wich enriches modern Britain," 'e said. "There are many natural ties, of muckership, right, common out'ave a look and shared values that unite the bloomin' Muslim community and the bloomin' Conservative Knees-up. "I believe we share a commitment ter the integrity of the family, right, a respect for the chuffin' wisdom of tradition, an opposition ter the chuffin' drugs culture, social breakdahn and crime, a belief in the bloomin' importance of compassion and the need ter help the bloody vulnerable, a commitment ter enterprise, right, hard work and individual ambition. "And a desire for peace across the globe.

 "I'm delighted that the chuffin' Conservative Muslim Forum now exists ter give a formal institutional expression ter our ties of chinaship and shared values."

Terrorist groups will continue to use conventional weapons and explosives in future attacks -- adding new creative destructive twists while adapting constantly to elude counterterrorist efforts, according to a newly released intelligence forecast.

"Terrorists probably will be most original not in the technologies or weapons they use, but rather in their operational concepts -- i.e., the scope, design, or support arrangements for attacks," the forecast, issued January 13 by the National Intelligence Council, says.

Strong interest in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons increases the risk of a major terrorist attack involving these kinds of weapons, the council's report says.

"Our greatest concern is that terrorists might acquire biological agents or, less likely, a nuclear device, either of which could cause mass casualties.  Bioterrorism appears particularly suited to the smaller, better-informed groups," the report says.

Terrorists can be expected to continue to conduct cyber attacks designed to disrupt critical information networks like computer systems and communications systems, and -- even more likely -- cause physical damage to information systems, it says.

The report -- "Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council's 2020 Project" -- is the third unclassified report prepared by the National Intelligence Council, which is the think tank of the U.S. Intelligence Community.  The report takes a 15-year look into the future, identifying fresh global trends that might develop to influence world events.

The key elements that have spawned international terrorism today show no signs of abating over the next 15 years, it says, and it is likely that terrorists will enlist the benefits of globalization to further those objectives.

"Facilitated by global communications, the revival of Muslim identity will create a framework for the spread of radical Islamic ideology inside and outside the Middle East, including Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Western Europe, where religious identity has traditionally been strong," the report says.

The council found that this revival has been accompanied by a deepening solidarity among Muslims who have been caught up in national or regional separatist struggles, such as in Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand.

"Informal networks of charitable foundations, madrassas [religious schools], hawalas [informal banking systems], and other mechanisms will continue to proliferate and be exploited by radical elements," the report says.  And alienation among unemployed youths will swell the ranks of those vulnerable to terrorist recruitment.

Gradually, the council expects, the international terrorist group al-Qaida will be replaced by similarly inspired Islamic extremist groups.  And it is likely that these groups will merge with local separatist movements.

"Information technology, allowing for instant connectivity, communication, and learning, will enable the terrorist threat to become increasingly decentralized, evolving into an eclectic array of groups, cells, and individuals that do not need a stationary headquarters to plan and carry out operations," the report says.

The global Internet will provide a ready resource for training materials, targeting guidance, weapons know-how and fund raising for terrorists and their loosely knit structures, it says.

Other major points in the 2020 Project forecast:

-- The United States will retain enormous advantages, playing a pivotal role across the broad range of issues -- economic, technological, political and military -- that no other state will match by 2020.

-- The possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons by other nations increases the potential costs of any future military action by the United States.

-- A counterterrorism strategy that approaches the problem on multiple fronts offers the greatest chance of containing and ultimately reducing the terrorist threat.

-- The likely emergence of China and India, as well as others, as major global players will transform the geopolitical landscape, with impacts potentially as dramatic as those in the previous two centuries.

-- The council sees globalization -- which it defines as a growing interconnectedness reflected in the expanded flows of information, technology, capital, goods, services, and people throughout the world -- as an overarching "mega-trend."  It is seen as a force "so ubiquitous that it will substantially shape all the other major trends in the world of 2020."

Terrorist groups will continue to use conventional weapons and explosives in future attacks -- adding new creative destructive twists while adapting constantly to elude counterterrorist efforts, according to a newly released intelligence forecast.

"Terrorists probably will be most original not in the technologies or weapons they use, but rather in their operational concepts -- i.e., the scope, design, or support arrangements for attacks," the forecast, issued January 13 by the National Intelligence Council, says.

Strong interest in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons increases the risk of a major terrorist attack involving these kinds of weapons, the council's report says.

"Our greatest concern is that terrorists might acquire biological agents or, less likely, a nuclear device, either of which could cause mass casualties.  Bioterrorism appears particularly suited to the smaller, better-informed groups," the report says.

Terrorists can be expected to continue to conduct cyber attacks designed to disrupt critical information networks like computer systems and communications systems, and -- even more likely -- cause physical damage to information systems, it says.

The report -- "Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council's 2020 Project" -- is the third unclassified report prepared by the National Intelligence Council, which is the think tank of the U.S. Intelligence Community.  The report takes a 15-year look into the future, identifying fresh global trends that might develop to influence world events.

The key elements that have spawned international terrorism today show no signs of abating over the next 15 years, it says, and it is likely that terrorists will enlist the benefits of globalization to further those objectives.

"Facilitated by global communications, the revival of Muslim identity will create a framework for the spread of radical Islamic ideology inside and outside the Middle East, including Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Western Europe, where religious identity has traditionally been strong," the report says.

The council found that this revival has been accompanied by a deepening solidarity among Muslims who have been caught up in national or regional separatist struggles, such as in Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand.

"Informal networks of charitable foundations, madrassas [religious schools], hawalas [informal banking systems], and other mechanisms will continue to proliferate and be exploited by radical elements," the report says.  And alienation among unemployed youths will swell the ranks of those vulnerable to terrorist recruitment.

Gradually, the council expects, the international terrorist group al-Qaida will be replaced by similarly inspired Islamic extremist groups.  And it is likely that these groups will merge with local separatist movements.

"Information technology, allowing for instant connectivity, communication, and learning, will enable the terrorist threat to become increasingly decentralized, evolving into an eclectic array of groups, cells, and individuals that do not need a stationary headquarters to plan and carry out operations," the report says.

The global Internet will provide a ready resource for training materials, targeting guidance, weapons know-how and fund raising for terrorists and their loosely knit structures, it says.

Other major points in the 2020 Project forecast:

-- The United States will retain enormous advantages, playing a pivotal role across the broad range of issues -- economic, technological, political and military -- that no other state will match by 2020.

-- The possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons by other nations increases the potential costs of any future military action by the United States.

-- A counterterrorism strategy that approaches the problem on multiple fronts offers the greatest chance of containing and ultimately reducing the terrorist threat.

-- The likely emergence of China and India, as well as others, as major global players will transform the geopolitical landscape, with impacts potentially as dramatic as those in the previous two centuries.

-- The council sees globalization -- which it defines as a growing interconnectedness reflected in the expanded flows of information, technology, capital, goods, services, and people throughout the world -- as an overarching "mega-trend."  It is seen as a force "so ubiquitous that it will substantially shape all the other major trends in the world of 2020."

terorrist gorups will conti||e tO us3 conventional weaponz saned 3xpl0sives 1n future attaX0rz -- afding new creat1ve destructive tw1sts wjhikl3 adaping contsaNtyl to elued countarterroe1st effortz, asccortding to a newlY feleased itnelligence Fordcast!!!!!!1~~~~~ TaRRORFISTS PRPBABLY WI;LL EB MOST ROIGINaL N0T IN THE ETCHNOLOGEIS OR WeAPONZ TWEHY USe, BUT RATEHR IN THEIR OPERATIOMAL CONCEPTS -- I, e , the scope, design, ro support arrangement zfrro att4X0r, th3 froecast, 1ssued j4nuuray 13 by the n4tio||al intelligence councdi7, sayz AHX0R YOUUUUUuU~~~ you suiX0r!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 IO will haX0r strong interest in acquiring hemical, biological, radiological and nucleAr weapons icnrewases teh riks of a majro terirrist atta0Xr involvbinf tyehse ikndz of weapons, teh cuoncil's reporT s4yz. 'our fgrateeSt concarn is that ter0rriStz migh adcquire biological agents or, less likely, a nmucl;ear dev1c, iether of whiCh could cuz mass casuAlteis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !~~~~~~ THEIR IS 4 RATIO DONT RIpE ME OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!1~~~~~ OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1~~~~~~~ lololololololololoo!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~~ bioTerorrism App3ars paritcularly suiteed to teh smaller, bettar-ijfromed gorups," te report s4yz// TERRORISTS CAN BE EXPECTED TO c0NtINUE TO COnDUXCT CYBER ATTRAXR0S DESIGNED TO DISRUPOT RCITICAL INFORM4TI0N NETWROKKS L1EK COMPUTER SYSTEMZ AND OCMMUnCIATIOPNS SYSTEMZ, AND -- EVEN MOrE LICKLLY -- CaUsE PHYS4L dAMAGE T0 INFROMSTION ASYSTYEMS, IT SAYS/// OLOLOLOLLOLLOLO tehr eooRt - mappinmg th ggkobbal ufture: report of teh national inte7ligence council'z 02O porject' -- is the thidr unclassifEid report prEprd by teh nationalk inTelliegnce counci7, whiuch is teht hink t4nk 0f teh u!!!!!11 s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11~~~~~ ~~ oololollolololol~~~ intelliigence c0mmunity. the report takd sa 15-year 7ook into teh dfUtuyre, identify1ng fresh globa7 tRenDz That mIght develop to influeNce world evrentz thw key elements that have spwsned internaTinoA7 terroriasm toay show no signz of abating over Th3 net 51 yewars, it sasy, and it is likely that tarorroists will enlist teh benefd1tz of gloBalizatIno to furtehr those obectivez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!1 "facilitateed by global commuNications, th3 revi/a7 of muslijm id3ntitu will rceate a framewrok for ttHe spread of r4dical islsmic Ideology Inside and outside T3h Mided7e east, incLud1jg southeast asoia ,central asioa and western euorpe, where relIgiuouz identity ahst rAditi0nally been strong,,' the repprt s4ys. tej counci; found that this rev1val ahs b3en accompaneid vy a deewp3ning solidarity am0ng muslimz who haev b3en caught up in natIo||Alo r regi0nal separatits sTruggls, such as in palestin3, chechnya,i Raq, kashmir, minDanao in teh hpilkippines, and soutehrn thaliand/ 'informal n3twroks o fcharitabl3 fpoundatiOns, madrassas [relifiouz schools]], ahwalaz [informa7 bnaking ssystems], and other mechanismz woill continu3 to oporloiger8 a||d be Exploited by r4dica7 EleMents," teh reprot sys/// s and aleinat1no a//ong unEmployedu ths will swell teh ranks of those vuklnerabl3 to traorrist recru1tment gradu4lly, the council Exopects, treh intarnational terorr1st gorup a;-q4ida will be r3plac3d b similaRly 1nspired islamic 3xtremoist gorups!!!!!!!!!!!!1~~~~~~ ~ YUO SUCK!!!!!!!!!111 THE1R IS A RATOI DONT RIPE //E OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!11 and it si lik3ly that these groyupz wi7l merge woht 7oczal separaTisrt movemEntss!!!!!!!!!!!!!1~ ~~ iunformatiom technoloyg, all0wing fo rinst4nrt connectivity, comjunuicatioon, 4nd lEArnIng, wwill enablee tyeh terorr1st thtreat tio bEcome increasignky decentraized, wvolving 1nto an eclect1c array of grouPs, Cells, and individua7s that do not need 4 st4tionary jedquarteezr to plan and carr yout operatipns,' teh rrepport sayz!!!!!!!1~~~ ololol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111~ ~~~~ teh global intarnet will porvide a ready resource for traiinng Matertials ,targetingguidance, wepaojs know-jow 4nd fumD raising for tarroristts anD therir loosel kni tstructures, 1t says toher majro poInst in teH 2O20 porJect doreCast: -- t3h united states will retqain enromouoS 4d/antragez, playing a piovtal orle across the borad range of issuez -- erconomic, technpologic4l, political 4nd miliTarY -- that no otehr state will match by 202) -- teh psoseSsion of dchemical, biological a||d nudc7aer weapo||z vy oher nati0ns inxcreas3s teH potential cOsts of any futur military actio|| by the united statez,, -- a counterTerorr1sm trategy th4t app0rachez thje proble// on multiple fortns offers the gr8est chanc3 of containing andu ltimately r3ducing the terrorist threat -- THE LIKELY 3MERGENC3 OF CHINA AND iNDIA, AS WELL AZ OTEHRS, AS MAJRO GLOBL POLAYARS WILL TRANSFORM THE GEPOOL1TIUCAL LANDSCLAE, WOITH IMpACTS POt3NTALLY SA DRAMATIC AS HOSE IMN THe PREVI0US TWO CENTURUIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!11~~~~ olloolololol~~~ -- teh counciL sees Lobalization -- which iot defines as a goerwing intercOnnectedd||ses reflected in th3 exp4nded f70ws 0f infrom4toiN, techjoloGy, capitla, goods, sErvices, and doodz thorugHout the world -- as an ovararch1ng "mega--trend!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!11 1T S ISEEN AS A FROCE "S OUB1QUITOUS THAT IT WILL SUBSTANTIALLY SJAPE ALL THE OTHER MAJRO TRENDS IN TEHW OIRLD OF2 020 ' terorristg Rops wlil contine to sue conventioanl weapomd and Explosives in future attaX0rs -- adding n3w creativ3 desTructiv3 tiwsts while ad4ptimg constantly to elude cooutnartartorfist effrots, accord1ng to a ||ewly rele4sed intel7ige||cew forecast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!11~~~~~ 'TERR0RISTS PRBOABLY W1LKL BE MOST ROIGINAL NOT INT EH TEcHNOLOG3IS RO WEAPONS THEY USE, BUT rAT3Hr IN THEIR OPPeR4TIONAL; C0NCETPS --- 1!!!!!!!11 E , teeH sCope, d3sign, ors upport arrangEments fdor att4X0rs,,' the froecaSt, issu3D january 13 by teh nation4l inttelilgenjce counci,l says OLOOLOLOLOLLOLOLO.... strong inetrest in 4cquyiRng hcemical, biological, rad1ologiac; andd nucelar weapOns inrcaeseZ rte hrisk of a majro terrofIst atTaX0t involving th3se kinds of w3apons, the councilas repr0t says HACK THE PLANNTE OUR GRATEEST CONCERN SI THART ARRORIDTS MIGHt 4CQUIRE BiOL0G1CAL GAENTZ OR, LSES LIKELY, A NUCLEAREDE/ICE, I3tHER F //H1CH COULD CAUSE MASS CAASUALTEIS biotertrorism appears parfTicular7y suited to thje smaler, better-iNformeds gorups, tthe repotr says... OLOL TERORRISTS CAN BE EXPECTED TO CPNTINUE TO CONDUCT CYBEr ATTX0RZ DESIGnED TO DSIRUPT CRITIcZAL NIFRMATION NETWROKS LIEKJ COMPUTAR SYSTEMS AND CO//MUNiCATOINS SYSETMS, AND --- EVEN MROE LUICKLY -- CUZ PHYSICAL DAm4GE TO IFNROMATIONM YSSTEMS, IT SAYS.. teh reprot -- 'mapping thje gllobal utrue: reprort of the national intellugence councils 2O@0 project -- si treh thirdf ucnlassifeid reprot prepared by teh natoinal intelligEmce coumncil, which Is teh tink tank of rthe u!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11~~~ s.. iontelligence communiutyt Th3 repOrt Tak3s a 15-year look int0 teh future, idetnifyiung fresh globa7 trends that might deevelop To ifnklue||ce owrlD 3ventas!!!!!!!!!!!1~~ lololol teh key eLements that h4v3 spawned itnarnsariona7 t4rortism tosay show no sign of abati||g ovar the n3xt 15 years, it says, and 1t is likely that terroritss w1ll en7ist twh benefits of gl0baliz4tiont o furthEr those objectives~~ 'facilitastde by glpb4l c0mmunicaztiojns, the revival of mmos7im identity will cre8 a framework frO the spread of rAdcial is7amic idoel0gy inside and 0utisdet hE midfdle east, incLuding sotuheast asia, central asa and westarn eur0pe, where religious identity ahs tr4diti0nally been storng, the Report saays,, the cpuncil found tha tthis rev1va lAhzbeen accopmaneid by a deep3nnig solidarity among musl1mz Who h4ve been caught up in nationa7 ro r3gional separat1st sttruggles, such as 1n paelstine, cheChnyaa, iraq, kashmir, mindanao in th3 philipp1nes, and soutehrn tahiland!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ~~~~~~ come2 my ftp~~~ 4HX0RT YOUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !11 "i nformal jet//rokz of charitable founndfations, madrassas [religious schools], ahwaLaz [informal banking syStems], 4nd otehr mrechanismza wil continye to polriferate amD be expLooited by rAdical elements,' teh report says!!!!!!!!!!!!!11~~~~ you usck becuz u r lame!!!!!!!!!1 and aleinatoion amoNg unmeployed ypouth zwiLl swell ther ankjZ of th0e vul||erable to tErroroist recru1tment~~~~ C0ME 2 MY FTP BEC4UsE U R 7AmE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!1~ GRADULALY, THE OCUNCL EXPWECTZ, TEHIONtARMNAT1ONAL TARRORIST GROU PAL-QA1DA WU7L BE REPLACED BY SImIALRLY INSPIRED ILSAMIC EXTREMIST GR0UPZ and it is liekly that th3sr g0rups w1l;l mrge with l0cal seapratist movementz.. i||from4ion technology, allowing for i||st4nt connect1vity, communication, and l3arning, \\////\\////il7 enable th3 tErforist threat to beocme increaaingly decentral1zed, evoVing into sn eClecti carrra yof gr0upS, cells, anD iNdividuals that do not nede a statIo||aRy h3adquartarz to plan a||d carry our oparAt1Onz,' the reprot sayz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!1~~~~~~ lololololoololololo the global interney will providE a rady resource for training materials, tragetiNg gUidance, \\////\\////epons nkow--ho\\////\\//// anD fund rais1ng r0 terroristz and tehir looSely kntstrutcuer,s it s4sy otehr maojr piontz in the 2020 project fro3xast: -- teh unitef states will retain enormous advanmtages, pLay1ng a pivotal rolE 4cross The borad rangew of 1sseus -- economuic, techn0loGical, poliitcal and mi71tary -- that || ootehr state w1ll match by 2020!!!!!!!!!!!1~~~~~~~ -- TH3 POSSESSION OF ChEMCIAL, bI0L0GICAL ANDNUCL3AR WEAOPNS BY OTHER NATIONS 1NRCEASEWS THE POTENTIAL COsTS OF AnY FUTURE MNLIITARY ACTION BY THE UNITED STATES oyu suck!!!!! -- a coUntartrerror1Sm strategy that 4pproaches trhe pobrlem on multiple frotns offarz teh grta3est ch4nce of contaiing and ultim8ly reducing teh trerorist threa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- eh k1ek7y emergence ofchina a||d india, as 3ll as otehrs,, as amjro globaL playerz will transfroM the geopOlitical lanDsCape,,with impacts potentiallyy as dram4Tic az Those ni tEh prev1ouz two centureis.. HAX0R YOUUUIUUUU ucz u suX0r -- teh council s3es gloBaliuzation -- which it defInds as a gorw1ng intarconncetednesS rfelected in thew expanded flows of infrOmation, technolOgy, capitasl, goodz, s4rvices, 4nd lamezr thorugohut teh werold -- as an ovararch1||g "mega-treNd.. LOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!111~~ olololollolololol.. ' it si seren as A Force "so uibiquuitous th4t 1t will sobstsntialllY shape all the otehr majro trendz in teh wOrld of 202O!!!!!~~~~~~ '

A panoramic view of the present-day world displays the simultaneous existence of boff opportunities for and challenges ter peace and development, and of positive and negative factors bearin' on security and stability. The op portunities cannot be shared and the challenges cannot be overcome unless diverse civilizations, social systems and development models live togeffer 'armoniously, trust each uvver and engage in cooperation, init?So, the bloomin' purwhistle and flute of peace, development and cooperation 'as become an irresistible trend of 'istory. The development goal for China ter strive for in the bloody first two decades of this century is ter build a moderately prosperous society in an all-round way. As a large developin' country, Chinan 'as before it an arduous task for modernization, right, wich calls for prolonged and persistent 'ard work. China will mainly rely on its own strengff for development, right, and therefore poses no obstacle or freat ter any one. China needs a peaceful international environment for its own development, wich in turn will enhance peace and development in the world. Holdin' 'igh the banner of peace, development and cooperation, China adheres ter an independent foreign policy of peace and a national defense policy of the defensive nature. China will never go for expansion, right, nor will it ever seek 'egemony. A major strategic task of the Communist Knees-up of China (CPC) in exercisin' state power is ter secure a coordinated development of national defense and the bloody economy, and ter build modernized, regularized and revolutionary armed forces ter keep the country safe. The chuffin' Fourff Plenary Session of the 16ff CPC Central Committee and the chuffin' Enlarged CPC Conference of the Central Military Commission(CMC), held successively in September 2004, paid an 'igh tribute ter Jiang Zemin for 'is outstandin' contributions ter national defense and military modernization, and appointed 'u Jintao Chairman of the CPC Central Military Commission. Meanwile, right, the CMC composition were also readjusted and expanded, and the developmental direction for national defense and military modernization clearly defined. In the chuffin' new stage of the chuffin' 21st century, right, China's national defense and army buildin' shall be guided by Deng Xiaopin' Theory and the important fought of the "Free Represents," in an all-round way implement Jiang Zemin's fought on national defense and army buildin', maintain the fundamental principle and system of absolute Knees-up leadership over the bloomin' armed forces, and take the military strategy of the new era as an overarchin' guideline ter actively push for the bloody national defense and military modernization. This Wite Paper, China's National Defense in 2004, is published ter illustrate China's national defense policies and the progress made in the chuffin' past two years in its defense and army buildin'.

There 'as been no abatement of Iraqi Defense Minister 'azim al-Sha'lan's accusations of Iranian and Syrian interference in Iraqi affairs. Yer can't 'ave a knees-up wivout a joanna. The bleedin' minister's allegations surfaced several monffs ago, but 'is rhetoric 'as increased in recent days, right, elicitin' a sharp response from Iranian officials. Syrian and Iraqi officials 'ave also expressed concern over al-Sha'lan's remarks. The minister's latest accusation came in a 17 January interview wiv Al-Arabiyah television in wich 'e said 'e 'as evidence that Iran is providin' financial support ter some electoral blocs competin' in the bleedin' 30 January elections. He showed the bloody news channel a notebook that 'e said contained the names and wages allocated ter some Islamic militias that receive support from outside Iraq, specifically from Iran. The notebook appeared empty of any writin'. His contention, moreover, is confusin' in that it is unclear wot 'e means by "militias." The Independent Election Commission 'as banned any armed groups from participatin' in the bleedin' elections, right, and al-Sha'lan did not specifically identify any of the bloody "militias" against wich 'e claimed ter have evidence. In a same-day report, elaph.com quoted the minister accusin' Iran of 'avin' spent $1 billion on activities that aim ter interfere in Iraq's internal affairs. On 8 January, right, al-Sha'lan gave reporters in Baghdad access ter a videotaped interrogation wiv the chuffin' leader of the chuffin' militant group Jaysh Muhammad (Muhammad's Army) in wich the bleedin' leader detailed 'is group's relations wiv the bloody Hussein regime, right, and its financial backin' from leaders in boff Iran and Syria (see "RFE/RL Newsline," 10 January 2005). Based on this evidence, al-Sha'lan told the media: "We 'ave the means like them that are bein' used against us, init?I mean that we 'ave the means ter move the bloody battle from the bleedin' streets of Baghdad ter them of Tehran and Damascus." The comment prompted counteraccusations from Iran, right, wich claimed it 'ad nicked an Iraqi spy employed by the Defense Ministry 'oo were assigned ter gaffer intelligence about border areas. "Durin' 'is stay in Iran, the spy made extensive efforts ter make up documents complyin' wiv accusations of Iraq's defense minister leveled against Iran," Fars News Agency reported on 8 January, do wot guvnor! An unnamed source told the news agency that the chuffin' Defense Ministry lodged accusations against the bleedin' Iranian government in an effort ter cover up the disclosure of the spy's nick. Syrian officials called the statements "irresponsible, inaccurate, and incredible statements that don't comply wiv the simplest rules of political and diplomatic relations." Iraqi Reaction Al-Sha'lan's statements about Iran and Syrian 'ave elicited varyin' reactions from Iraqi politicians. Plannin' Minister Mahdi al-Hafiz called 'is remarks "quite disturbin'," tellin' Al-Arabiyah television on 8 January that the bloomin' Iraqi prime minister and foreign minister should be responsible for expressin' the official viewpoints of the bleedin' Iraqi government. I'll get out me spoons. Veteran leader Adnan Pachachi told "Al-Riyad" in an interview published on 17 January, "I fink 'e 'as evidence provin' their involvement in supportin' certain quarters in Iraq." In an interview wiv London-based "Al-Sharq al-Awsat" on 18 January, Foreign Minister 'oshyar al-Zebari said in reference ter al-Sha'lan's comments: "We discussed the matter at the recent cabinet meetings and warned that statements about Iraq's relations wiv neighborin' and uvver countries are the chuffin' prerogatives of the Foreign Ministry.... We do not deny that there are interferences by some countries but the way of raisin' and dealin' wiv them should not be frough the media and satellite channels. There are diplomatic, political, and security channels fough wich these issues can be dealt wiv." Meanwile, Iranian media reported last week that al-Sha'lan worked for an Iraqi organization that were involved in spyin' activities and transferrin' arms and ammunition ter Iraq. Later, on 16 January, Iran's Mehr News Agency issued a report claimin' that al-Sha'lan 'ad ties ter the Hussein regime's intelligence service from 1986 until 'e left Iraq in 1990, elaph.com reported on 17 January. Mehr also accused 'im of messing a role in the nick and torture of fousands of opposition members, the chuffin' website added. Elaph.com labeled the bleedin' accusations false, right, sayin' that al-Sha'lan left Iraq in 1976 and from that period worked wiv the Iraqi opposition in London. The report also quoted al-Sha'lan as sayin' that Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi were behind the accusations, right, addin' that Chalabi wanted ter damage 'is reputation ahead of the chuffin' election. Al-Sha'lan is a candidate on the "Iraqis" list 'eaded by interim President Ghazi Ajil al-Yorir. He also accused the Shi'ite list (United Iraqi Alliance) ter wich Chalabi is a member of forgin' documents linkin' al-Sha'lan ter the chuffin' Hussein regime, sayin' that the list "represents the bleedin' ugliest form of sectarianism and embodies [a] violation of lor because it receives support from Iran" includin' financial fundin'. Chalabi denied the defense minister's remarks about 'is list, right, ebaa.net reported on 11 January, right, sayin' 'is remarks intended ter "incite the bleedin' United States against us." Al-Sha'lan again lashed out at Chalabi on 17 January, remindin' Al-Arabiyah viewers of the bloomin' scandal surroundin' Chalabi's ties ter alleged mismanagement of Petra Bank in Jordan and accusin' the politician of "lackin' integrity." Al-Sha'lan also offered London's "Al-Hayat" new details about the tart 'oo purportedly tried ter assassinate 'im in early January (see "RFE/RL Newsline," 10 January 2005), sayin' the cow were one of 50 ruddy ladies 'oo were trained in Syria ter carry out attacks and assassinate government officials, the daily reported on 15 January, init?The chuffin' cows are all related ter men killed or detained by Iraqi and coalition forces, he said. "[They] come from various areas in Iraq and were given orientation courses in Syria under the supervision of Iraqi terrorist elements livin' there. I'll get out me spoons. Iranian clerics were in charge of these courses," 'e contended, init?He expressed optimism that Iraq can make 'eadway wiv Syrian officials on the matter, right, sayin' that the "dialogue wiv Syria is easy and we might reach agreement on many points wiv it. But the chuffin' situation wiv Iran is different."

Dis be my simple attempt at some Web site. I'm 48 years old and da damn olda' I dig, de mo'e ah' find how little ah' have learned. I'm glad t'be olda' but ah' wish de wisa' part came wid it, aldough it be comin'. And why do we always gots'ta learn everydin' de hard way? Just humans, ah' guess. Mah' passions include golf, all kinds uh beat, eyeballin' nuthin ah' can dig some hold of, learnin' new doodads, rapin' wid sucka's, sharin' e-mails and jokes wid homeys, watchin' movies, walkin', playin' wid dogs, travelin', mah' children, mah' homeys and deir families, massages, kissin' (not plum any sucka dough), hand-holdin', connectin' wid sucka's fo' whom ah' care, and plum livin'. Dree years ago, ah' had t'say baaaadbye t'my old Whoopi and Boogdogs. It wuz one uh de saddest days uh my life. We walked many country miles togeder. Ah be baaad... Dey wuz so's old and weak dat ah' had t'let dem go. 'S coo', bro. ah' miss dem every day. Slap mah fro! Some uh my happiest memo'ies is of mah' dogs and mah' kids runnin' around da damn farm togeder. Ah be baaad... Mah' children is 26 and 29. Mah' daughta' wuz married dree years but decided t'move on wid ha' life as some sin'le sucka'. She's hangin' well and gots found some great companion and livin' in Denver. Ah be baaad... ah' had some great time spendin' some week visitin' dem in June. I'll go back in September. Ah be baaad... Mah' son wuz married in Novemba' 2001. We wuz fo'tunate t'be in Geo'gia wid him and his new bride. He recently completed his Captain's course at Ft. Man! Bennin', GA and gots'ta finish his Special Fo'ces trainin' dis fall at Ft. Man! Bragg, NC. ah' am happy dat mah' children is very much deir own sucka's and dey is not afraid t'make decisions. Despite mah' erro's, dey grew t'be responsible and motivated sucka's uh whom I'm most proud. Mah' daughta' is some talented graphic art designer. Ah be baaad... Mah' son be an Army Captain who wuz in Iraq wid de 101st Airbo'ne Division (Air Assault),a West Point graduate and some Bronze Star recipient. Man! Dankfully, he safely returned back t'his dear mama in time fo' de holidays last year. Ah be baaad... Bein' some mom be de best and wo'st job in de wo'ld. It wuz tryin' t'have some child in some war situashun and mah' heart goes out t'de families who still gots loved ones in harm's way. Slap mah fro! Last mond, (8/21), our kids and deir partners paid us some surprise visit fum Colo'ado and Geo'gia. WORD! We gots crib fum de golf tourdojiggernt and dey all showed down sho'tly after. Ah be baaad... It wuz de most wonderful time wid dem here. It wuz hard t'have dem all leave, again. 'S coo', bro. I's gots'ta be real involved wid mah' voluntea' job as super-dude uh de bo'd uh directo's at mah' golf course. I'm in mah' fifd (and last, woo hoo! Right on!) year. Ah be baaad... We gots accomplished many baaaad doodads fo' our business. ah' am proud uh whut we gots done. We gots made our business mo'e efficient and balanced. Our golf course be betta' in every way dan it's eva' been. 'S coo', bro. It's been some challenge and an educashun tryin' t'meet da damn needs uh de business while maintainin' some fairly tight budget and dealin' wid so's many varied opinions. Even dough it gots consumed much uh my time, ah' enjoy de associashun ah' have wid mah' oda' six bo'd members and da damn 325 plus stockholders. De fust couple uh years on de Bo'd wuz tough in many ways and it even messed down mah' golf game; ya' know dat mental part be a big facto'. Even dough de politics is a mental drain, it's rewardin' t'see necessary changes made and t'do whut ah' recon' in. 'S coo', bro. ah' have grown in many ways drough bein' de super-dude. Aldough it's been baaaad, it's time fo' me t'do oda' din's. Mah' golf game be back, aldough it duzn't mean quite as much t'me now as it once dun did. ah' still likes some homeyly competishun dough. Lop some boogie. Two years ago, ah' bought some Taylo' Made rollr and some set uh Wilson Fat Shaft irons dat ah' love. I'll stick wid mah' old reliable putter. Ah be baaad... It's in de grip, ya' know, so cut me some slack, Jack. I help rate golf courses fo' de Idaho Golf Associashun. It's been some great 'espuh'ience t'travel around t'different courses and dig it how and why courses is rated. I spent much uh de summa' of 2001 in Big Sky, MT and Buckwheatson Hole, WY where mah' husband wuz wo'kin'. Usin' mah' laptop clunker, ah' helped him out wid de scribblin'keepin' on his jobs. Whut fine country Montana is! Right on! De wildflowers and wild strawberries is so fine all upside de mountains. We saw moose, dea' and even brother bears. ah' would likes t'live in Montana someday. Slap mah fro! Buckwheatson be too touristy fo' me. I've spent mo'e time at crib dis year. Ah be baaad... ah' spend much time crib alone and ah' love it. Man! ah' likes mah' own company. Slap mah fro! I love mah' crib, mah' yard (especially since we gots an automatic sprinkla' system), and mostly mah' hot tub each night. Man! ah' enjoy watchin' mah' flowers grow in mah' patio pots and flowa' beds. It's lookin' fine now, so cut me some slack, Jack. ah' enjoy mah' mo'nin' coffee, newssheet, crosswo'd puzzles and beat out dere. I gots done lots uh travelin' in de last few years and it gots been most enrichin'. ah' look fo'ward t'mo'e travel and adventure. I recently finished mah' college honky code in business. Continuin' mah' educashun wuz sump'n ah' wants'ed t'do fo' many years. It wuz mah' main goal afta' my children wuz raised. ah' enjoyed each day uh farm and da damn interacshun wid mah' dude students and head homeboys who wuz mostly much yunga' dan I, but ah' gots some kick out uh dem. WORD! ah' finished wid some 3.89 GPA. Since ah' finished farm in May, ah' have been on de road some lot visitin' homeys and family and playin' lots uh golf. ah' recently returned fum some week in Boise wid mah' dear homeys and deir kids and grandkids. It wuz fun. 'S coo', bro. Droughout mah' life, ah' have been fo'tunate t'have been touched by many sucka's. ah' have such great homeys and dey truly bless mah' life. ah' duzn't know where I'd be widout dem. WORD! Mah' best homey be one wid whom I've been homeys fum bird. I'm even dojiggerd afta' ha' moder. Ah be baaad... She gots been mah' lifeline many times. She props me down and brin's me t'my senses when de need arises, which be much too often. 'S coo', bro. I gots also been fo'tunate t'know how it feels t'be truly "in love" wid some man. 'S coo', bro. Dere be such some din' as some soul mate in dis wo'ld. It gots been some big part uh my life and it always gots'ta be. ah' know how it feels t'be totally connected t'a sucka'. Howeva' baaaadly it ended and da damn hurt it caused me, ah' wouldn't trade it. Man! It's furda' proof dat we duzn't consciously decide fo' whom we fall. It happens. "Whut's too painful t'remember; we simply choose t'fo'get. Man!" Oh Mah'... I respect da damn right uh all sucka's t'be whut dey wanna be and t'live howeva' dey choose. ah' duzn't recon' dat guv'ment gots de right t'decide whut some honky chick duz wid ha' body, whom sucka's marry no' should dey control our lives in needless ways. De most downsettin' doodad t'me be social intolerance. It be such some destructive weapon among human bein's. "Why kin't we plum ALL dig along?" Danksgivin' be my favo'ite holiday. Slap mah fro! We gots much t'be dankful fo' and ah' am truly grateful fo' all de baaaad in mah' life along wid some few regrets. In 2002, we had some great holiday season wid our children at crib. It wuz baaaad t'have dem togeda' again. 'S coo', bro. Dey wuz all here again last February. Slap mah fro! It touched mah' heart t'have dem here and t'be able t'show dem mah' love. We traveled fo' some few weeks at Christmas. Crib be not where ah' likes t'be fo' de holidays unless mah' kids is here. Life be a journey and ah' wonda' if I'll eva' get it figured out o' do it right. Man!.. if dere's such some din'. "De sto'y uh a love be not impo'tant. Man!..whut be impo'tant be dat one be capable uh love." Helen Hayes "When somemone shows ya' who dey are, recon' dem. WORD!..de fust time." Maya Angelou

I will not waste my time criticizing or insulting Habiti Juaquine Gomez Landscaping and Hot Mop Roofing of Mexico as 1) it is unlikely to change, and 2) Habiti Juaquine Gomez Landscaping and Hot Mop Roofing of Mexico probably revels in the letters of shock and repulsion that it regularly receives. Instead, I will focus on its saturnine principles, which, after all, are the things that distract people from serious analysis of the situation. I begin with critical semantic clarifications. First, its argument that we ought to worship lazy televangelists as folk heroes is hopelessly flawed and utterly circuitous. I'm sure Habiti Juaquine Gomez Landscaping and Hot Mop Roofing of Mexico wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on its secret meetings. So why does it want to marginalize and eventually even outlaw responsible critics of voluble gasbags? I could give you the answer now, but it would be more productive for me first to inform you that it's easy to tell if it is lying. If its lips are moving, it's lying.

There is something grievously wrong with those eccentric beatniks who undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole. Shame on the lot of them! If we don't remove the Habiti Juaquine Gomez Landscaping and Hot Mop Roofing of Mexico threat now, it will bite us in our backside in a lustrum or two. Although I respect Habiti Juaquine Gomez Landscaping and Hot Mop Roofing of Mexico's right to free speech just as I respect it for distasteful schizophrenics, drossy polemics, and disruptive, fatuitous dopeheads, if it truly wanted to be helpful, Habiti Juaquine Gomez Landscaping and Hot Mop Roofing of Mexico wouldn't cashier anyone who tries to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about aberrant shysters.

Looking at it on the bright side, we are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one person: Habiti Juaquine Gomez Landscaping and Hot Mop Roofing of Mexico. Habiti Juaquine Gomez Landscaping and Hot Mop Roofing of Mexico can write anything it wants about how things would be different were we to give into its demands and let it call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules, but when it says that vengeful, filthy perverts make the best scout leaders and schoolteachers, that's just a load of spucatum tauri. All of this once again proves the old saying that Habiti Juaquine Gomez Landscaping and Hot Mop Roofing of Mexico files one grievance after another.

Even Arch Liberal Leftist Seymor Hersh has it right, Iran is the next target in the Axis of evil, and north Koreans are getting nervous. 

U.S. President George Bush has reiterated that all options are open regarding Iran's suspected nuclear program, but said the U.S. hopes to solve the issue diplomatically. Bush's comments come amid a growing controversy over a "New Yorker" magazine article. Award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh writes that Iran could be the next target in the war on terror and that U.S. Special Forces have been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential targets. The White House has criticized the report as being "riddled with inaccuracies."

Prague, 18 January 2005 (RFE/RL) -- Amid growing speculation about U.S. intentions, President George W. Bush yesterday restated his position on the issue of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.

"I hope we can solve it diplomatically, but I will never take any option off the table," Bush said.

Bush spoke a few hours after Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said no country should dare to attack Iran, given its military strength and the lack of available information about its military capabilities.

Bush has long emphasized diplomacy as the best way to approach suspicions that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Last month, he repeated that position.

"Diplomacy must be the first choice and always the first choice of an administration trying to solve an issue of, in this case, nuclear armament, and we'll continue to press on diplomacy," Bush said.

But the United States' intentions toward Iran are back in the headlines this week following the publication of a "New Yorker" magazine article by the prominent investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

Hersh, who played a key role in breaking the Abu Ghurayb torture story earlier this year, now says the United States is getting ready to attack military sites in Iran.

According to his article, U.S. Special Forces have been conducting covert operations in Iran to identify nuclear, chemical, and missile sites for possible targeting. The operations have been reportedly going on since last summer.

In the article, Hersh quotes unidentified sources, including a former high-level intelligence official and a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon. Hersh says his sources are serious and accurate.

But both the White House and the Pentagon have dismissed Hersh's report as inaccurate.

Lawrence DiRita, a Pentagon spokesman, said Hersh's article is "so riddled with errors of fundamental facts that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed."

A White House spokesman also said the report is "riddled with inaccuracies."

Dan Bartlett, a spokesman for Bush, said Washington will continue to use diplomacy to convince Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons.

Iran's Supreme National Security Council also dismissed "The New Yorker" report.

State radio quoted Ali Aghamohammadi, head of the council's Propaganda Office, as saying it would not be easy to get U.S. forces into Iran and that it would be "naive" to believe Hersh's report.

Shahram Chubin is the director of research at Geneva Center for Security Policy (GCSP). He believes it is possible that U.S. forces have been conducting reconnaissance operations inside Iran but that it is a very high risks strategy.

"The Americans are both located in Iraq and Afghanistan and presumably all the borders cannot be sealed 100 percent, so infiltrating people into Iran isn't going to be difficult. But I would have thought it'd be very high risk to put in any groups of people for any sustained period of time in case they're discovered and the political repercussions will be quite severe," Chubin said.

Chubin says the Bush administration feels an urgency about the Iranian nuclear issue.

"The Iranians have been playing a very skillful diplomatic game in which they do not confront the international community, back off every time there is some revelation about the program as long as the inspections are taking place. The Americans are very concerned that they don't let this thing go on too long, because North Korea in a sense is a reminder to them that it can become too late to deal with the problem once the state has nuclear weapons capability," Chubin said.

Meanwhile, the European Union today also urged a diplomatic approach to Iran. EU powers Britain, Germany, and France have been engaged in talks to persuade Tehran to give up technology that could be used to build nuclear weapons.

But Hersh told the BBC yesterday that hawks in the Pentagon believes that the talks between the EU and Iran will fail. He says the Pentagon is preparing to neutralize suspected sites inside the Islamic Republic.

"The United States has no use at all for the current round of talks that have been going on for more than a year with the EU; we're staying out of it; we don't think it's going to work and when it fails -- I'm talking about the neoconservatives -- we want to be in a position to hit some targets hard," Hersh said.

Last November, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw called it "inconceivable" that the United States would target Iran.

Analyst Chubin says targeting Iran is a bad option.

"It's absolutely a last resort and it has absolutely no guarantee of success; there are too many facilities and there are so many unknowns about the facilities -- how advanced Iran's program is, whether Iran could recover very quickly from attacks on its major sites and whether Iranians have decided to develop nuclear weapons. We know that they certainly want to get close to it; they want the full fuel cycle, which implies an option for weapons program. But we still don't know whether they actually want a weapon or they just want the capability short of a weapon," Chubin said.

According to a "Financial Times" report, support for "regime change" in Iran is growing in the U.S. Senate. The paper wrote today that the proposed Freedom and Support Act calls on the administration to back regime change and promote alliances with opposition groups that renounce terrorism.

Copyright (c) 2004. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. www.rferl.org

I take exception to a few key aspects of Kent's All Night Abortion Clinic, Walla Walla  Washington's inveracities. Although not without overlap and simplification, I plan to identify three primary positions on Kent's All Night Abortion Clinic, Walla Walla Washington's politics. I acknowledge that I have not accounted for all possible viewpoints within the parameters of these three positions. Nevertheless, we can't stop Kent's All Night Abortion Clinic, Walla Walla Washington overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to raise several issues about Kent's All Night Abortion Clinic, Walla Walla Washington's prissy utterances that are frequently missing from the drivel that masquerades for discourse on this topic.

To believe that the federal government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights is to deceive ourselves. It will be objected, to be sure, that Kent's All Night Abortion Clinic, Walla Walla Washington doesn't honestly want to trample over the very freedoms and rights that it claims to support. At first glance, this may seem to be true, but when you think about it further, you'll truly conclude that its methods are much subtler now than ever before. It is more adept at hidden mind control and its techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized.

Kent's All Night Abortion Clinic, Walla Walla Washington is out to focus too much on one side of the equation and not enough on the broader perspective of things. And when we play its game, we become accomplices. I've received a smattering of mail from people who want to know the real story behind Kent's All Night Abortion Clinic, Walla Walla Washington's unsophisticated maneuvers, so here it is: This is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented fact. Our goal must now be to tell you things that Kent's All Night Abortion Clinic, Walla Walla Washington doesn't want you to know. If you believe that that's a worthwhile goal, then I can indeed use your help. Let me hear from you.

These people, Planned Parenthood, are not pro-choice. That's why they object to it. They are pro-abortion.

Nearly three decades after its appearance, Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v. Wade hovers like a toxic cloud over American law and culture. In seeking to liberate women from the tyranny of "unwanted" pregnancies, he refused to address the moral status of the tiny humans whose elimination he ensured.

Blackmun claimed with false humility that the Court should not interfere when theologians, philosophers, and scientists disputed life’s origins. After this ritual bow to relativism, he declared ex cathedra that the palpably present but unborn human subject possessed no rights the law was bound to respect. In fact, the issue before the Court was not when human life begins (indisputably, it begins at conception) but whether to protect it once it has begun.

Blackmun’s sleight-of-hand—pretend ing that the moral question was factual, then feigning dispute about the factual question—continues to influence public policy even when the diverting claims of pregnant women are removed from consideration. Consider, for example, the ongoing debate on human stem-cell research and cloning. In imitation of Blackmun’s studied evasions, research proponents twist themselves into pretzels to avoid addressing the moral worth of the human embryo.

They first say the embryo really isn’t human until implantation in the womb. Since there is no intention to implant, voilà!, the embryo never achieves human status. In respect of cloning, they say a human really isn’t human if he or she is created asexually. When all else fails, they say that, whatever the embryonic "thing" is, experimenting upon it will produce miraculous cures for human defects and disease.

In a culture that has accommodated itself to easy abortion and to other utilitarian justifications across a wide range of moral issues, such arguments acquire a certain public resonance. Like Roe’s rationale, they rely on misstatement of scientific fact to accomplish an extraneous purpose. As anyone who works at an in vitro fertilization (IVF) laboratory will affirm, a distinctive human being comes into existence at fertilization. We know, too, that a cloned human being is genetically identical to one conceived by union of sperm and egg. The whole purpose of such endeavors is precisely to create human beings.

Such efforts may fail owing to ignorance or inadequate technique, but their object is unmistakably clear. What researchers now want is a license to experiment at will on these tiny subjects—and the money to do it with. Toward that end, these subjects are referred to by everything but their proper name—human beings.

That is where Blackmun’s opinion comes in handy. It provides the legal and scientific cover that makes moral indifference socially respectable. Stem-cell and cloning researchers endlessly reiterate Blackmun’s faux relativism about the moral status of human beings at the early stages of their existence. And, like Blackmun, they then declare without argument that the value of early-stage human life is essentially zero.

Blackmun’s opinion begged this question: If the human being before birth is of so little value that it may be killed, why may it not be experimented upon? The question hovers like a brooding omnipresence, and although few researchers dare to address it head-on, they answer it nevertheless—in the booming industry that relies on a constant supply of fetal parts and tissue supplied by abortionists, and in IVF clinics that sprang into existence once Roe was decided. Today, some 100,000 "spare" embryos exist in those clinics (with thousands more added every year), and researchers would love your tax dollars to enhance their research upon them. Restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research have temporarily altered their expectations—hence the demand for more human embryos produced through "therapeutic" cloning.

You and I, it bears repeating, began existence as nothing but embryos. Life is continuous from inception to natural death. Because we are no less human at any stage than we are at every stage, justifications for destroying human life cannot be limited to one phase of our existence. What may be done to an embryo may be done to every one of us. Blackmun was blind to that logic even as he relied upon it. He thereby empowered the biogeneticists and made the rest of us vulnerable to their beneficent ministrations.

Janet Gail was used to looking at mammograms and finding bad news. As a hospital technician in Pennsylvania, that was her job. But she was unprepared for what she found in her own mammogram when she did a routine screening at age 42.

"I immediately recognized a suspicious area on the films," Gail—who asked that her real name not be used because her children don’t know her history—says. "We returned to the X-ray room to take more specialized views, which only confirmed my suspicions. I knew at that moment that my life was forever changed. I knew I was a breast-cancer patient."

Gail was changed. She knew what breast-cancer patients suffer—the cancer can go to your lungs an

d make you suffocate. It can get in your bones and make them so brittle that you can break a hip turning in bed.

Then there’s the debilitating treatments she knew lay ahead, the surgery that, victims say, strikes at their very identity as women. If you survive the disease, you worry constantly about relapse. But often you don’t survive the disease.

Surgeons helped. Gail realized that radical mastectomy was her only choice. "My emotions were raw and tender," she says. "I was so angry! Angry at God, angry at my new body, angry at the world. I sought counseling and tried desperately to understand why God would put me in this situation.

"It was at that time that I plunged head-first into the research, trying to find a cause for my own cancer," she says. She checked off the risk factors that she didn’t have: no family history, no abnormalities with her menstrual cycle, no estrogen treatments. But then she remembered one she’d read about before, one that she was trying hard not to think about.

Gail had an abortion when she was 18.

A Deadly Combination

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, other than skin cancer. It’s the second leading cause of cancer death in women after lung cancer.

And it kills more women in Gail’s age group (40 to 59) than almost anything else.

Meanwhile, abortion has become the most common surgical procedure for young women. National Right to Life estimates that there will be 1.3 million abortions in the United States this year.

According to the American Cancer Society, breast cancer has been detected in women at a dramatically increased rate since 1972. In 1962 there were 63,000 cases; in 1972, 90,000; in 1982, 120,000; and in 1992, 180,000. The year 2002 will see some 203,500 new cases of invasive breast cancer. An estimated 39,600 women will die from it.

True, detection methods have improved dramatically in that time span, and the number of women tested has increased. But so have abortions—and the evidence linking them to breast cancer.

Troubling Discoveries

Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., a New Jersey breast surgeon, came across the abortion/breast-cancer link in much the same way Gail did—only she was the surgeon, not the patient.

In the early 1990s, Lanfranchi began to notice that young women were coming into her office with breast cancer and that they all had a history of abortions, often in their teens.

"I began to change my intake form to ask about births, miscarriages, and abortions," she says. "In the first month, I’d had two women with many abortions."

She had gone through medical school in the 1970s, when there were still relatively few women in the profession. She considers herself a feminist, she says, but quickly adds, "Not a NOW [National Organization for Women] type."

She wasn’t the first to notice a correlation. Studies had found the same thing—findings that somehow had not gotten into the clinicians’ literature.

It made her mad. "I just couldn’t stand seeing those 30-year-olds in the office, with breast cancer, with little toddlers," she says. "These children weren’t going to have their mothers."

In 1996 she read a metanalysis of the relevant studies by Joel Brind, Ph.D., a biology professor at Baruch College in New York, who had put the pieces together. According to his article, the first study that showed a link between breast cancer and abortion had been published when Brind and Lanfranchi were children. It appeared in 1957 in the prominent English-language Japanese Journal of Cancer Research. Japan was one of the few places where abortion was legal in those days (importantly, for abortion/breast-cancer link activists, Denmark was another). The study found that breast-cancer patients were three times more likely to have had abortions than the general population. If abortion was a contributor to breast cancer elsewhere, it went unreported. At that time, though abortion was becoming prevalent in the West, it wasn’t mentioned in polite society or on medical charts.

Everything changed with the sexual revolution.

In the 1970s and 1980s, evidence began to mount that abortion was putting women at risk. Today, there have been 37 studies on the abortion/breast-cancer link. More than 75 percent of them—28—show that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer.

Many of these studies were funded, at least in part, by the National Cancer Institute. At the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute in Seattle, veteran cancer researcher Janet Daling and a team of scholars found that, in her words from this 1994 study, "[a]mong women who had been pregnant at least once, the breast cancer rate in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50 percent higher than among other women. Highest risks were observed when the abortion was done at ages younger than 18 years...or at least 30 years of age or older."

Most troubling of all were the statistics on teens with a family history of breast cancer who had gotten abortions. In the study, this deadly combination (though found in just twelve of the women studied) seemed to guarantee that a woman would get breast cancer.

The Clueless Culture

Lanfranchi and Brind, via the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute in upstate New York, deserve much of the credit for publicizing the link outside the medical world. In a way, they’ve been committed to the cause since childhood. Lanfranchi said she learned to do the right thing from her father, a surgeon who fought back when his Akron, Ohio, hospital was doing illegal abortions. Brind has been a medical crusader since he went to get a haircut as a ten-year-old: "My local barber had run out of Archie comics," he told me. "I read an old well-worn Life magazine instead." The story he read was about biochemistry’s great promise to the world of medicine, suggesting it might someday find the cure to cancer. Brind wrote himself a letter that day, which he discovered years later, that said: "I don’t know how, I don’t know when, but I will become a biochemist." Nineteen years later, he did.

How do they explain the abortion/breast-cancer link? Lanfranchi points to two factors: estrogen—the hormone that grows breast tissue and that increases 2,000 percent in pregnancy—and lobules—the cells in that tissue that grow at puberty, mature in pregnancy, and produce milk after childbirth.

In the natural course of events, estrogen and breast lobules work in tandem—the estrogen grows the lobules, which differentiate and mature into full-fledged cells during the third trimester of pregnancy. But if the lobules’ development is interrupted while estrogen levels are high, then the extra estrogen may cause mutated cells to grow and multiply into a cancerous tumor.

This estrogen flood and breast-cell growth explain many of the recognized risk factors for breast cancer. A girl who gets her first period early or a woman who has a late menopause are at a higher risk for breast cancer because they have more estrogen exposure. Nuns who have no children have a higher risk than women who have many children, because their breast cells never mature into the protective type-four phase. Birth control pills—which work by tricking a woman’s body into thinking it’s pregnant—increase estrogen and, therefore, the risk of breast cancer. (There is one recent study that claims they don’t, but this study also claims that a family history of breast cancer doesn’t increase the risk—a giant red flag.)

Miscarriage doesn’t increase the risk of breast cancer because miscarriage usually happens when estrogen levels are abnormally low.

Tell most people about the abortion/breast-cancer link and they’re incredulous. That’s because modern lifestyles and pop culture have left Americans clueless about breasts. From the move away from nursing in the 1950s and 1960s to the sexual revolution and the contraceptive age, sex has filled the culture, and having one or two children has become the norm for families. In such a culture, the abortion/breast-cancer link sounds preposterous—because the link between the femininity of women and their childbearing capability is all but lost.

Reasonable Doubts

The culture may be clueless about breasts, but clinicians aren’t. So why are so many clinicians skeptical of the abortion/breast-cancer connection?

To begin with, many doubt that the statistical evidence, however strong, justifies the conclusions. "Some of my colleagues call epidemiology a pseudoscience," Brind observes. Lanfranchi explains why: "Epidemiology shows associations. If you did a study on lung cancer, you would find that people with lung cancer have more matches in their pockets than people without. Are there emanations from the matches? Or is it something else? You need to show a biological basis." At any rate, breast surgeons either don’t read the epidemiological journals that show the link, or they take them with a grain of salt when they do.

Others say the research doesn’t adequately allow for "recall bias." This is the argument, made on many a pro-abortion Web site, that studies showing the abortion/breast-cancer link get all their information about a woman’s abortion history from the woman herself. But women often misstate their abortion history, meaning many cancer-free women who have had abortions aren’t counted. Conversely, the women with breast cancer are the most likely to report abortions—they’re eager to find reasons for their cancer. "One of the reasons recall bias may sound persuasive is that it is a reasonable hypothesis," Brind says. But he distinguished between underreporting and bias—the idea that the underreporting is different in the two groups. He told me that "no credible evidence of recall bias in abortion/breast-cancer studies has ever been reported. They’ve looked for it and haven’t found it."

If recall bias were a sufficient argument on its own, says the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer (visit its Web site at www.abortionbreastcancer.com; it also looks at alleged bias in particular studies), then we could disregard a number of health concerns: the link between cervical cancer and the number of sexual partners a woman has had, the link between liver cancer and alcoholism, and the link between AIDS and the number of homosexual partners a man has had.

Rotten in Denmark

Deniers of the abortion/breast-cancer link also fight studies with studies. "Right now we can say that there are 28 of 37 studies," says Karen Malec of the coalition, "but these scientists used the Melbye study and the Sanderson study to deny a link. They’ve used two studies to deny 28."

The Melbye study is the mighty "Danish study" that was published by the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, and it was supposed to put the abortion/breast-cancer link to rest by keeping all recall bias out of the study.

To understand the importance of this study, look at the following quote from the Web site of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League: "Anti-choice forces are impeding medical research and distorting scientific findings to frighten women into believing that abortion causes breast cancer." The emphasis in the next part is from the original: "The largest and most comprehensive investigation of this potential link examined population registry information on abortion and breast cancer for 1.5 million women born in Denmark between 1935 and 1978. This study, recently published in The New England Journal of Medicine, concluded that ‘induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.’"

Sounds conclusive—unless you’re a researcher who has read the study. For one thing, the study did find a link to second-trimester abortions. Brind also points out that the study’s breast-cancer records start in 1968, but its abortion records start in 1973—even though abortion has been legal in Denmark since the 1930s. Women with breast cancer who had their abortions before 1973 weren’t counted as having had abortions. In fact, Brind says, records of abortions exist for 60,000 women who are counted in the study as never having had an abortion—older women who would have been more likely to have developed breast cancer.

Likewise, women having abortions in the final years of the study could have developed breast cancer after the study was over. But those women would have been counted as having had abortions but no breast cancer. A quarter of the women in the Melbye study were still under the age of 25, Brind says, and these women were being compared with middle-aged women.

Sacrificed for Science

How could scientists countenance such a flawed study?

Lanfranchi answers by telling the story of Ignaz Semmelweiss (1818-1865), the Hungarian physician who noticed that laboring mothers in the care of doctors in Vienna hospitals had much higher mortality rates than those in the care of midwives. Those were the days before germ theory, and Semmelweiss formed a hypothesis: The doctors, who went between morgue and maternity ward without washing their hands, were carrying some sort of odor particle that invaded their patients. To test his theory, he asked the doctors to wash their hands. It worked. The mortality rates went down. In response, the doctors drove Semmelweiss out of mainstream medicine—he died in a mental hospital. Lister soon proved he was right.

We already know that modern-day breast-cancer surgeons aren’t immune to the Semmelweiss syndrome, the blind refusal to make a paradigm shift. Many of them chafed at the suggestion that radical mastectomies weren’t always necessary in cases of breast cancer.

Another inexcusable reason for ignorance of the abortion/breast-cancer link is political ideology. While Catholics have faith, hope, and charity, abortion ideologues have "safe, legal, and rare" abortion. The "rare" part was never really true; activists are clinging for dear life to the "legal" part; but at least the "safe" part was supposed to be accurate.

This political ideology has hardened abortion proponents so that they are insensible to evidence for the link. Pro-abortion bias seems to be at play in mainstream cancer awareness Web sites where cagey language hides the abortion/breast-cancer link. Some sites use Clintonisms (using the term "abortion" in its broadest sense to include miscarriages and stillbirths as well). Some cling to aspects of researchers’ studies that the researchers themselves have abandoned. Many harp on recall bias without showing what studies the criticism applies to. All take frequent trips to the eternal well of Melbye.

Another reason many doctors are unaware of the link is the nature of the disease itself, Brind says. "Women don’t come forward complaining about it, because they’re either too sick, too traumatized, or don’t survive long enough." Even if they did, they wouldn’t find doctors receptive to the information. The reason is simple: money. "Do you want to hear from a lawyer about why you haven’t been telling patients about the abortion risk for so long?" Lanfranchi asks.

There have been a number of lawsuits on the abortion/breast-cancer link recently. No plaintiff has prevailed against an abortion business—so far. In a 1999 case, a North Dakota abortion business was sued for false advertising. In 2000, three California women sued Planned Parenthood for calling abortion safe on brochures and its Web site. Those cases are still in appeals.

How can the truth about the abortion/breast-cancer link become better known against such odds?

The Truth Will Win Out

The fact is, the truth is already coming out.

Two recent lawsuits in Australia ended in settlements, which means that while no judge has looked at the matter and decided that the evidence for the link was strong, nervous abortionists are looking at the evidence for the link and starting to pay women who complain that they weren’t informed. Importantly, unlike the U.S. cases, in which activists were the plaintiffs, one of the Australian cases (the other is gag-ordered) involved a woman who had received an abortion herself. (Similar suits are in the works in the United States, Karen Malec says.)

The link is also showing up in popular culture. Brita Stream is a sign of that. An evangelical Christian, Stream was crowned Miss Oregon on July 13 and the abortion/breast- cancer link is her platform.

She’s not your typical beauty queen. The Miss Oregon competition was her first beauty pageant, and she entered it to talk about the abortion/breast-cancer link. Will that hurt her chances at becoming Miss America this September? "I don’t really care," she told me, smiling. "I won because God wanted people to hear about my platform. I had a duty. It was like I was Esther. If I perish, I perish. If people attack me for it, too bad, because this is what God charged me with."

Television audiences are hearing about the link in San Diego, in an ad that shows a volleyball coach talking to her team, while her voiceover describes her abortion and breast-cancer experience. In a soon-to-air Ohio public TV debate, Lanfranchi and Brind debate an abortion activist.

The message is even being heard in Washington. For years, the Web site of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) included a page about abortion and breast cancer denying the connection. A group of U.S. representatives led by Chris Smith (R-N.J.) changed that, National Institutes of Health (NIH) spokesman Michael Miller says. The page was removed on June 19, he says, because the congressmen questioned its accuracy.

What Comes Next

What does the future hold for the discussion about abortion and breast cancer?

Miller told me that the National Cancer Institute is currently funding one study "looking specifically at the association of induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer," and three other NCI-sponsored studies "are examining a variety of possible breast-cancer risk factors, including induced abortion."

That news doesn’t necessarily cheer battle-scarred activists like Malec. "My fear is that these scientists will practice what Dr. Brind has called ‘outcome-based science,’" she says. "My fear is that they’re beating the bushes for studies that will make them look good."

Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life, hopes not. Her reaction to the abortion/breast-cancer connection is appropriate: "This really makes me angry," she says. "I have friends who had abortions at that time when everybody was saying it was just a product of conception, a couple of cells on the tip of a needle. Now they’re asking, what does this mean for them? The NCI and NIH owe them a good answer."

Informing the public about abortion and breast cancer can reduce abortions. As Lanfranchi points out, women who choose abortion are often looking for excuses not to—and parents who choose abortion for their daughters might not if they knew about the dangers.

Gail wishes that she had known before her abortion—and hopes others will find out before it’s too late for them. "Even if the woman won’t spare the life for the sake of the unborn, she may spare the life growing inside her when she considers the consequences of breast surgery years down the road."

At the same time, Foster warns against considering the abortion/breast-cancer link just another arrow in a quiver of pro-life arguments. "This is not a tactic, this is life and death for these women," she says. "Are we not committed to saving these women, or do we only care about the baby?

"Women shouldn’t be put at risk simply because it’s not politically correct to say anything bad about abortion," she adds. "Whether you support abortion or not, you have to take the politics out. Even those women who believe that women should have the right to have an abortion should ’fess up and speak for women."

To his credit, Dr. Stuart Donnan, when he was editor-in-chief of the British Medical Association’s Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, did just that. In a 1996 opinion piece on the evidence linking abortion and breast cancer, he wrote, "[I]t will surely be agreed that open discussion of risks is vital and must include the people—in this case the women—concerned. I believe that if you take a view (as I do), which is often called ‘pro-choice,’ you need at the same time to have a view which might be called ‘pro-information,’ without excessive paternalistic censorship (or interpretation) of the data."

Please forgive me, but I told you so. I predicted long ago that Prince Harry Windsor-Goth would unleash an unparalleled wave of quislingism. Now that he has, I'd like to express my thoughts on the matter. Let me begin by saying that he should be locked up. It's that simple.

Now there will, no doubt, be insipid scoundrels out there who will ask, "So what if his hirelings identify political and religious groups that are his political enemies and re-label them as 'hypersensitive swindlers' in order to justify operations against them? That won't affect me." Such crippled thinking is the best example there is as to why we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which vulgar creeps like Harry are entirely absent. The other road leads into the darkness of gangsterism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that Harry desperately wants to be fashionable. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. We'd all be in grave danger if he continued to engage in his doctrinaire behavior. Every so often, you'll see Harry lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for seeking to invent a new moral system that legitimizes his desire to evade responsibility, and vow never again to be so barbaric. Sadly, he always reverts to his old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that domineering rubes like him often think they have the right to view countries and the people that live in them either as economic targets to be exploited or as military targets to be defeated. As long as I live, I will be shouting this truth from rooftops and doing everything I can to rub his nose in his own hypocrisy. Would we, as thinking people, believe misogynists who tried to tell us we're all illaudable? I say "no."

It may be coincidence that Harry's machinations prevent the real problems from being solved. It may be coincidence that they intensify race hatred. And it may be coincidence that they accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. But that's a lot of coincidence! To close, let me accentuate that if we make a genuine contribution to human society, we shall not only survive Prince Harry Windsor-Goth's attacks; we shall prevail.

Hey Lefty!

As this little blog has gained readership and moved up in the brutal Ecosystem, it have drawn the ire of deranged pimply-faced trolls -- seeking the attention in our comments page that they could never get from their mommies or other women -- and from some rather nasty, ignorant, and poorly written lefty bloggers (Note: I won't link to them; why give them the clicks on their site meters?)

This is good, very good.

This little blog seems, in particular, to have struck a lefty nerve with my series of articles on the UN "response" to the horrendous December 26 Asian quake and tsunami. They accuse me of ignoring what the UN has done for the victims; of trying to smear the UN; of, of . . . well, you get it.

The UN ocrats know that young Aussies and Yanks have shown them up as the fakes the UN ocrats are. That makes them furious; it makes them lash out at us and our friends. They call us names ("stingy"); sniff about our alleged mistakes ("you fed some people twice"); and complain that we won't take their instruction ("you should wear blue vests.") When all else fails, they try to take credit for what Australian and American taxpayers and their military and diplomatic services have done -- yes, indeed, a word of praise for the State Department, which responded superbly.

Some lefties have the nerve to rationalize UN ineptness by stating, "Well, the UN doesn't have aircraft carriers and fleets of helicopters."

Please note: Had the lefties had their way, the USA wouldn't have any either. OK, the UN doesn't have aircraft carriers, but doesn't it have access to international airlines and merchant ships? The Diplomad must assume that all the first class seats were taken by the likes of The Queen of the High Priest Vulture Elite UNICEF Director Carol Bellamy, who flew out for a brief disaster tour and a long press conference. The cargo space probably went to the Land Cruisers and the Mercedes sedans. Hey, priorities are priorities; we'll provide ourselves the luxury cars, the Yanks and the Aussies will provide food to the hungry . . . .

The UN's performance in this disaster has been a disgrace of epic proportions; it's vastly overfunded and overstaffed agencies, allegedly established to deal with precisely this type of event, are MIA. We are now in day 16 (DAY 16!) of the crisis, and the UN is still not ready to act. It is no wonder affected countries want to deal with the US and not the UN. At a minimum, the UN owes the world an apology; the entire upper echelon of the UN and its bloated agencies should resign.

But I am kind and forgiving. I say to our lefty "friends" if you genuinely believe in the UN, now's your chance to put your filthy lucre where your pie hole is. Please respond generously to the UN Sec-Gen's Humanitarian Appeal, known as the "Consolidated Appeals Process," or . Give the UN your money. See where it goes. Where, you ask? Hey, Lefty, don't take my word that it will be wasted, go and see what the UN is asking and for what. Go to the ochaonline.un.org  page and see what the UN lists as its pre-tsunami priorities and then go to the page and see who is the biggest donor by far. Surprise! The number one priority, well ahead of caring for suffering tens-of-millions of Africans is ! Number one overall donor, well ahead of the EU, is the "stingy" USA! And remember, despite attempts in the next chart to minimize the US contribution, the US provision of aircraft carriers, helicopters, C-130s, and troops to peacekeeping and other humanitarian operations is not included in that chart.

Go to the UNRWA financial page. Guess who's the biggest donor to that absurd organization? The USA! We pay over one-third of that exceedingly corrupt and anti-American organization's budget and have since the start (BTW, notice where the Saudis rank.) So lefties you have an opportunity here to support bad US policy and make yourselves feel good. And think how happy you'll make Land Cruiser dealers around the world . . .

On a sunny, crisp, cold, clear winter day like today in the northwestern United States, I like to put a few tools into mu ruck sack, and take my walking stick for a walk in the woods.  Where I live, I can be out in remote wild areas in any of the compass courses in less than 20 minutes.  If there is a light dusting of new snow, so much the better.

I head down the trail, and looks for signs of life, tracks, or loose hair caught on a bush or thorn.  In the winter when the leaves are mostly fallen to the ground, on can spot squirrel nests with ease.  I like to approach from the down wind side, find a good spot to sit, then unpack my kit.  In my kit of tools is one of at least a hundred guns.  I like to use unusual tools for these walkin, shootin and eatin trips.  Today I used my keltech 9mm semi auto.  Now I know that some of youse will think that this tool is not the best for squirrels, but let me tell you that with practice it works just fine.

After waiting a few minutes usually not much more, I am rewarded with 2 or 3 squirrels in the 1 to 3 lbs. size.  Dressed out they make a meal that is very good.

I dust them with flour in a zip lok bag, add them to hot oil in my wood fired skillet, and saute a few onions and diced garlic, don't worry about the amounts of the ingredients, that's not important.  I make a pot of coffee in a pot, hunter's style of course.

After a picnic like that, I usually sit by my fire, and as the stars start to come out, I do alittle astronomical observations, (have you seen the comet in the Pleities?) and then I might call in a cayote or two.

I don't waste the squirrel pelts either, when I get home I will tan them, and save them until I have enough for a bigger project. 20 or 30 little pelts made a nice spread for my camper.

I just wanted to let you all know that just because a gun is on the banned list or looks like an assault weapon, it can still make a fine tool to take with you when you want to take a walk in the woods, and shoot and eat.  Thats pure feedom.

On a sunny, crisp, cold, clear winter day like today in th' no'thwestern United States, ah like t'put a few tools into mu ruck sack, an' take mah walkin' stick fo' a walk in th' woods.

Whar ah live, ah can be out in remote wild areas in enny of th' compass courses in less than 20 minutes. Eff'n thar is a light destin' of noo snow, so much th' better.

ah haid down th' trail, an' looks fo' signs of life, tracks, o' loose hair caught on a bush o' tho'n, as enny fool kin plainly see. In th' winter when th' leaves is mostly fallen t'th' groun', on kin spot possum nests wif ease. ah like t'approach fum th' down wind side, find a fine spot t'sit, then unpack mah kit.

In mah kit of tools is one of at least a hundred guns ah owns. ah like t'use unusual tools fo' these walkin, shootin an' eatin trips. Today ah used mah keltech 9mm semi auty.

Now ah knows thet some of yo'se will reckon thet this hyar tool is not th' bess fo' possums, but let me tell yo' thet wif prackice it wawks jest fine. Af'er waitin' a few minutes usually not much mo'e, ah's rewarded wif 2 o' 3 possums in th' 1 t'3 lbs. size. Dressed out they make a meal thet is mighty fine. ah dest them wif flour in a zip lok bag, add them t'hot oil in mah wood fired skillet, an' saute a few onions an' diced garlic, doesn't wo'ry about th' amounts of th' in'redients, thass not impo'tant. ah make a pot of a six pack in a pot, hunter's style of course. Af'er a picnic like thet, ah usually set by mah fire, an' as th' stars start t'come out, ah do ali'l astronomical observashuns, (have yo' see th' comet in th' Pleities?) an' then ah might call in a cayote o' two. ah doesn't waste th' possum pelts eifer, when ah git home ah will tan them, an' save them until ah have inough fo' a mo' trimenjus projeck. 20 o' 30 li'l pelts made a nice spread fo' mah camper.

ah jest wanted t'let yo' all knows thet jest on account o' a gun is on th' banned list o' looks like an assault weapon, it kin still make a fine tool t'take wif yo' when yer hankerin' t'take a walk in th' woods, an' shoot an' eat. Thets pure feedom, dawgone it.

On a sunny, crisp, cold, clear winter day like today in th' no'thwestern United States, ah like t'put a few tools into mu ruck sack, an' take mah walkin' stick fo' a walk in th' woods.

Whar ah live, ah can be out in remote wild areas in enny of th' compass courses in less than 20 minutes. Eff'n thar is a light destin' of noo snow, so much th' better.

ah haid down th' trail, an' looks fo' signs of life, tracks, o' loose hair caught on a bush o' tho'n, as enny fool kin plainly see. In th' winter when th' leaves is mostly fallen t'th' groun', on kin spot possum nests wif ease. ah like t'approach fum th' down wind side, find a fine spot t'sit, then unpack mah kit.

In mah kit of tools is one of at least a hundred guns ah owns. ah like t'use unusual tools fo' these walkin, shootin an' eatin trips. Today ah used mah keltech 9mm semi auty.

Now ah knows thet some of yo'se will reckon thet this hyar tool is not th' bess fo' possums, but let me tell yo' thet wif prackice it wawks jest fine. Af'er waitin' a few minutes usually not much mo'e, ah's rewarded wif 2 o' 3 possums in th' 1 t'3 lbs. size. Dressed out they make a meal thet is mighty fine. ah dest them wif flour in a zip lok bag, add them t'hot oil in mah wood fired skillet, an' saute a few onions an' diced garlic, doesn't wo'ry about th' amounts of th' in'redients, thass not impo'tant. ah make a pot of a six pack in a pot, hunter's style of course. Af'er a picnic like thet, ah usually set by mah fire, an' as th' stars start t'come out, ah do ali'l astronomical observashuns, (have yo' see th' comet in th' Pleities?) an' then ah might call in a cayote o' two. ah doesn't waste th' possum pelts eifer, when ah git home ah will tan them, an' save them until ah have inough fo' a mo' trimenjus projeck. 20 o' 30 li'l pelts made a nice spread fo' mah camper.

ah jest wanted t'let yo' all knows thet jest on account o' a gun is on th' banned list o' looks like an assault weapon, it kin still make a fine tool t'take wif yo' when yer hankerin' t'take a walk in th' woods, an' shoot an' eat. Thets pure feedom, dawgone it.

NEW YORK A Gallup Poll released this morning reveals that the average American owns 1.7 guns, with the average gun owner possessing 4.4 of them. The press is quick to promote stereotypes of the average gun owner as a white male, most likely Republican, living in a rural area or the South. But how well does reality match the image? The new Gallup Poll shows that the stereotype is not that far off, but with several twists.

For one thing, one out of three American women say they own a gun. That's not much below the overall mark of 40% for all American adults.

As for other elements of the stereotype: More than half (53%) of Republicans own guns, compared with 36% of political independents and 31% of Democrats. Whites are more likely than nonwhites to own (44% and 24%, respectively), according to Gallup.

Residents of the South are significantly more likely than those living in other regions to report owning a gun. More than half of those living in rural areas (56%) own a gun, compared with 40% of suburbanites and 29% of those living in urban areas.

From 1959 through 1993, an average of 47% of Americans reported having a gun in their homes. Since that time, household gun ownership has dropped to an average of 40%.

Gallup also asked those with guns in their households about the total number of guns they have. A majority of gun owners (62%) have more than one gun on their properties, including 29% who say they have five or more guns.

But do guns make you safer? “Americans are divided on the topic,” Gallup reports, with 46% saying that having a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be, and 42% saying guns make households safer.

From a speech by Prime Minister Paul Martin on Sunday

To those countries and their citizens who are so much the subject of our prayers and our concern, we say simply that in Canada, you have the most caring of friends and strongest of allies." This was Prime Minister Paul Martin on Sunday, announcing that his government's contribution to tsunami disaster relief would be hiked to $80-million. He continued: "We will be there to comfort, to assist, to help in any way we can. Not simply for a week or a month or even a year, but for as long as it takes and for as long as you need us, because that is the Canadian way."

"The Canadian way." It almost makes you want to throw up. The Canadian way, indeed. Never miss an opportunity for self-praise. Never pass up a chance to raise our own fragile self-esteem. Never fail to remind the world what wonderful people you are.

Does anybody read this stuff before the PM speaks it? "To those countries and their citizens who are so much the subject of our prayers and our concern, we say simply that in Canada, you have the most caring of friends and strongest of allies." Are they more caring than the Swedes or Italians or Australians or the dozens of other peoples who have dug deep as they have and have actually managed to show up? Are we stronger allies than the Americans, who have 12,500 military personnel in the region, an aircraft carrier, field hospitals and helicopters?

It turns out helicopters -- helicopters that can actually fly -- are useful things in a disaster. Even Bangladesh has sent helicopters and, of all things, two C-130 transports. Military aircraft are a shameful extravagance for such a poor country. But for a country like Canada that aspires to be a player in the world, the soft power of good intentions and eloquent resolutions is not enough. The hard power of helicopters is what people really need.

I wonder if past recipients of their aid would testify they have been there for "as long as it takes." They would be wise not to count on us "simply for a week." It takes them a week to get there.

Is there a more self-conscious country than contemporary Canada? There's nothing they don't do without worrying about what it means for their Canadianness. Do you suppose the Prime Minister of Sweden justified help because "that is the Swedish way"? Does Jacques Chirac have to justify aid on the grounds that it exemplifies "the French way"?

Anne Kingston's Tuesday Post column was headlined "It's Always About Us" -- referring to our disproportionate focus on Western victims of the disaster. Why the obsession with (the always carefully pronounced) Phuket resort? That failure of empathy doesn't really surprise or bother me much. Most of them simply can't identify with impoverished, illiterate Sri Lankan fisherfolk. The tourists provide a psychological point of entry.

What is irksome is the unrelenting self-consciousness of their response. Thus Pierre Pettigrew flies back from Paris to explain why it was OK to stay in Paris. Now, because the government has seemed not to care sufficiently about Canadian victims, no fewer than three Canadian ministers will visit devastated areas. Just what their governments need: more VIP visitors to manage. How much helicopter space will they take up that could be better used for food, water or body bags?

The government reaction I liked best was Quebec's. It has pledged just $100,000 of assistance and is under fire for being stingy. A spokesman, doubtless soon to be replaced, has argued that Quebecers on their own have been very generous and, besides, a good part of Mr. Martin's $80-million comes from Quebec taxpayers. But in this high-stakes caring game, such a small contribution is not politically seemly, so it is bound to be raised. Saving face is easy with other people's money.

Unless governments have assets, such as aircraft carriers and helicopters, which private aid agencies don't, I don't actually see why they need to be involved in relief at all. The usual rationale is the free-rider problem. Help for the victims relieves us all of worry and concern but it's even better for me if you pay for it, so I may simply free-ride and let you do all the giving. Thus, government has to pick up the slack because in fact many of us aren't as caring as we claim.

Mr. Martin's pledge to match whatever Canadians give on their own suggests he believes roughly half of us will act like churls. My own bet is that in one of history's worst disasters most Canadians won't free-ride. Instead of all the slaver about the Canadian way, a better message from Ottawa would be "Give or be ashamed of yourself."

I guess you're nothing in the Blogging World unless and until you get a complaint letter from her.  People who get them, brag to their friends and forward them around like they were Emmys or Nobel Prizes.

Have you ever gotten a letter like this?

If not, just go to the comment box below, and I can arrange for you to get one of your very own.  Be sure you state how you like to be addressed in the comment box, this is sooo important.

<The nature and extent of our current national crisis, as well as its causes and cures, are the subject of intense political struggle. I offer this letter as a contribution to that struggle and debate in hopes of helping to draw an accurate portrait of Lynn Kramer's ideological alignment. To get right down to it, Kramer has been deluding people into believing that the majority of pharisaical trolls are heroes, if not saints. Don't let her delude you, too. If she makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against her positions. Kramer's bootlickers fight more for the negative destruction of opposing ideologies than for the positive promotion of their own. It is also worthy of note that all of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of Kramer's prissy, impertinent cajoleries. They are not a cause; they are an effect.

We'd all be in grave danger if Kramer continued to engage in her invidious, slovenly behavior. How many of her surrogates are content to sit around doing absolutely nothing to contribute to the world around them? I'd hazard to guess that the number is pretty high. It's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of dour tax cheats like her can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them. Sophomoric hedonists generally contend that Kramer has no intention to sensationalize all of the issues, but Kramer's often-quoted scare tactics belie this notion. As will become apparent before the year is over, I recently informed her that her hired goons exploit the masses. Kramer said she'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, if her pleas get any more worthless, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep.

One of the great mysteries of modern life is, Why can't she live among us in peace? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture. I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Kramer and her sycophants, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that all the deals Kramer makes are strictly one-way. Kramer gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. She maintains that either public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't or that all literature which opposes post-structuralism was forged by unbridled devil-worshippers. Kramer denies any other possibility. Although she would like us to believe that her decisions are based on reason, she has given us neither good reason nor credible evidence to believe that. Her strictures, on the other hand, give us good reason to believe that her smear tactics will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that. I'd like to finish with a quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of mine: "Lynn Kramer has been working overtime to force us to do things or take stands against our will".>

We Are the World
By sending help to tsunami victims, America takes advantage of a public diplomacy opportunity.

Colin Powell and Jeb Bush are now on a diplomatic mission to the nations hit by the tsunami. But as residents from Thailand in Southeast Asia to Somalia on the horn of Africa pick through the debris, it will not be lost on them that not only are food, fresh water and other necessities streaming in from the free societies of the world, but also that a large portion of those necessities are arriving on American military transports.

This may seem unremarkable in America. After all, it is the U.S. military that has the "lift" capacity. But this tsunami is putting on display exactly what United Nations and European bureaucrats are loath to admit: that the U.S. and its military are forces for good in the world. From the wealth and freedom that allow Americans to generously give to those in need to the military infrastructure that enables much of that aid to be delivered, this natural disaster is an advertisement for the type of societies that best serve the people of the world.

The Saudi royal family may write a few checks. Even the Iranian mullahs may be cajoled into handing over a few rials. But broad relief requires tapping the creativity, insight and generosity of a wide cross-section of society. And it is only the free societies of the world that have both the wherewithal and the ability to pinpoint and quickly meet emerging needs. That's something that goes a long way in undermining the message al Qaeda leaders have been preaching for a better part of a decade. America isn't seeking world domination. Tsunami help is coming with no strings attached.

This simple fact has to be driving Osama bin Laden bananas. Only a month ago the news surfaced that al Qaeda operatives were training in Malaysia to carry out attacks in Thailand. Bin Laden's minions have also been active in Indonesia--which is both the world's largest Muslim nation and a democracy--and nearly every other country hit by this disaster. Now that Mother Nature has laid waste to the region herself, the terrorists aren't about to turn around and help in the rebuilding. It's clear that the vision al Qaeda has for the region more closely resembles the beachfronts after the deadly waves came crashing ashore than before, when they were still resort communities teeming with fun.

By responding with generosity, it is also clear that the vision Americans share is of all nations prospering. Liberty for all is more than a political ideal; it's also the foundation of President Bush's foreign policy. Admittedly this is partly for the selfish reason that prosperous countries are unlikely to breed terror. Nonetheless, the policy is benefiting Afghans, Iraqis and Muslims around the globe.

Which brings us back to the Euroweenies and U.N. bureaucrats and American politicians who've spent much of the past three years complaining that Mr. Bush's "unilateralist" policies would alienate key allies in the war on terror. The U.S. government has pledged $350 million in disaster relief--a figure that will almost certainly rise in the coming weeks and months--which is being more than matched by private donations from all across America. The U.N. might talk a good game, but when the water came in around them, the people of Southeast Asia didn't hold much of a grudge with Mr. Bush. Indeed, the question quickly became: What is America going to do to help?

The point here isn't to squeeze a political opportunity out of what may be the worst natural disaster in recorded history. Rather it is to recognize that what's at stake in the war on terror is also what was nearly swept away by the sea--civilization itself. It won't be lost on the people of Thailand as they face their own terrorist problem that the same American military that is battling al Qaeda is now helping them battle the brutal natural world as well. The training exercises the U.S. military regularly conducts around the world with other nations' armed forces will now take on an added significance.

There are times in life when we are all called to stand up and chose sides in the great moral struggles of our time. What the people of Southeast Asia are seeing is that in a region al Qaeda has been actively targeting, it is America that is standing up when it counts. It's hard to see how that Bush policy will alienate the very people al Qaeda seeks to dominate. Quite to the contrary, it is the American system--free people governing themselves--that is now standing shoulder to shoulder with those who have lost nearly everything.

Having just been exposed to Princess Racist Potty Mouth Newbie's lackadaisical, humorless values, I ponder how best to express my disgust at Newbie's total lack of sensitivity and reasoning. To begin at the beginning, Newbie claims that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. Even if our society had no social problems at all, we could still say that he is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Newbie is antiheroism. Why? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that barbarism is irrelevant here. But upon further investigation, one will find that if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. He provides none. I believe, way deep down, that we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because if I hear Newbie's devotees say, "Newbie's claims are Right with a capital R" one more time, I'm decidedly going to throw up. If Newbie would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies, it would be much easier for me to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now. Since most people oppose his intolerant philosophies, Newbie has had to steal our birthrights using every repugnant, gutless means imaginable.

By and large, it's easy for us to shake our heads at his foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should build a sane and healthy society free of his destructive influences. It's easy for us to say, "Newbie unfairly lambastes people who are trying to do the best they can in a bad situation." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because we must undoubtedly maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting Newbie. Does that sound extremist? Is it too callow for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life. He offers his assistants a vehicle of sorts for their revenge fantasies. Yet I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people just don't realize that revisionism is correctly defined by its randy style, structure, and methods, not by its stated or apparent ideological premises or goals. So what's the connection between that and his activities? The connection is that only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering. But the first step is to acknowledge that there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until Newbie and his cronies started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that if Newbie wanted to, he could cast the world into nuclear holocaust. He could preach hatred. And he could make corrupt mountebanks out to be something they're not. We must surely not allow Newbie to do any of these.

Do you really want Newbie to encumber the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus bring religion into a totally unnecessary conflict with science? I think not. People who agree with his convictions are either stupid, drunk, on drugs, paid off by Newbie, or are possession-obsessed scatterbrains. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that the purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how cruel and wishy-washy he has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why Newbie is so desperate to grant insipid self-promoters the keys to the kingdom; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Newbie also realized that he says it is within his legal right to create a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than Newbie has for his chums. Whether or not he indeed has such a right, I doubtlessly dislike him. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that Newbie unequivocally believes that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is he living in? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I've answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I'll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I'll just say that when I was a child, my clergyman told me, "Newbie broadens his appeal by seeking influence and adherents in the separatism movement." If you think about it, you'll see his point. Newbie has warned us that faster than you can say "individualistic", narrow-minded dummkopfs will woo over resentful authoritarians by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history. If you think about it, you'll realize that Newbie's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that Newbie's methods are much subtler now than ever before. Newbie is more adept at hidden mind control and his techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized. Here are a few points to ponder:

1. Newbie's goons acquiesce with bovine stolidity when he instructs them to extend his 15 minutes of fame to 15 months.
   
2. Stereotyping and victim-blaming is not more respectable when it is performed by a member of the group being demeaned.
   
3. These issues are actually political issues.

Those points may at first seem unrelated, but when you connect the dots, it becomes clear that griping about Newbie will not make him stop trying to make people suspicious of those who speak the truth. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to deface a social fabric that was already deteriorating.

I can guarantee the readers of this letter that his sexist, diabolic accusations leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children Newbie's enemies? I'll tell you the answer in a moment. But first, let me just say that every time Newbie utters or writes a statement that supports antipluralism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that Newbie is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. I insist we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because his arguments are full of hair-splitting, lawyer-like quibbling, and references to obscure authorities, but primarily because he claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to lead to the destruction of the human race. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Newbie's brethren. The truth is that in Newbie's ploys, clericalism is witting and unremitting, bad-tempered and unambitious. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide escapism. I'll repeat what I've already said: Statements like, "Newbie is a card-carrying member of the Hypocrisy Club" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. He doesn't let a day pass without showing to the world that he is as little fitted to be trusted with liberty as thieves with keys or children with firearms, and that's one reason why I'm writing this letter. Here's the heart of the matter: His audacious diatribes smear people of impeccable character and reputation. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to nourish children with good morals and self-esteem.

Each rung on the ladder of fogyism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Newbie to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms. That is the standard process by which disgraceful, shiftless roustabouts declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with Newbie, and put them in concentration camps. Doesn't he ever get tired of calling everyone "coldhearted sideshow barkers"? I mean, I see how important his dictatorial, sappy campaigns are to his shills and I laugh. I laugh because in a recent essay, he stated that his expostulations epitomize wholesome family entertainment. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but his cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. And that's what writing this sort of letter is all about. It's a way to confront and reject all manifestations of jingoism.

The last two presidential elections have left Democrats indulging in "ritualistic navel-gazing", and other meaningless endeavors. Some said that they planned to leave the country. Others have been diagnosed with Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST), and are undergoing "therapy" sessions.

Losing elections is nothing new. In every election, there is a winner and a loser. Expecting to win every election is foolhardy. But, the last two presidential elections have left the Democrats in a quandary. In February, Democrat party insiders will host a meeting to decide which direction the party should take. Should the Democrats moderate their positions, or continue navel gazing?

This isn't the first time the Democrat Party has battled over the direction the party should take.

On January 4, 1947, Democrats gathered to save American Liberalism. Many Democrats were opposed to the cozy relationship other Democrats had with the Communist Party. Only the Union for Democratic Action (UDA) denounced the Communists, and banned them from their organization. The UDA was later renamed the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA).

The New Leader divided American Liberals into hard and soft Liberals. The ADA believed that anti-Communist was a fundamental litmus test, and just being non-Communist was not enough. As a result, they were labeled "hard." The "soft" by contrast, were Communist appeasers, and could be characterized as the "fellow travelers."

Control of the party has been a continuing battle for Democrats. Throughout the 60s and 70s, prominent Democrats like John Kennedy, "Scoop" Jackson, and Sam Nunn battled the extreme Left. But, the forces on the Left were relentless, and kept moving the Democrats further and further left. Life-long Democrat Senator Zell Miller wrote about this ideological battle in his current book, A National Party No More.

Since the Lyndon Johnson election victory forty years ago, the Democrat Party has struggled with their identity. After that 1964 election, Democrats had 2 to 1 majorities in both houses of Congress, and led in Governors, 33 to 17. Since 1964, the Democrats have only elected two Presidents, and continue to lose ground in Congress. Now, Republicans control both houses of Congress, and a majority of the governorships.

Democrat leaders claim that they haven't got their message out. Facts don't support that claim.

A Pew Research Center survey of journalists and media executives revealed that there are five times as many Liberals as Conservatives in their profession. And, in the entertainment and academic professions, the ratio is even higher. So, it is safe to say that Liberals control the media, entertainment, and academic professions.

As a result, Liberals have had the luxury of ignoring Conservative America. On the other hand, Conservatives cannot escape the world view of the Liberals. This has led the Liberals to arrogantly believe that everyone thinks like them. The Liberals delight in labeling the opposition as stupid, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, insensitive redneck hicks.

But the same people the Liberals scorn, see the social and economic problems quite differently, and vote accordingly. This inability to understand Conservative values is a major reason Democrats are finding it difficult to accept defeat.

The Liberal elements of the Democrat Party have marginalized the party with a hodgepodge of extreme positions. These extreme positions don't resonate with the rest of the Democrats, or swing voters. This leads us to the upcoming February meeting of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), where they will meet to choose a new chairman and set a new agenda. Liberals are already arguing that the party needs to move further to the left.

How much influence do Liberals have over the Democrat Party? Liberal politicians in the House of Representatives created the "Progressive Caucus" to achieve control. The Progressive Caucus is the largest Left-leaning caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Progressive Caucus is endorsed by both the Democrat Socialists of America (DSA) and Socialists International.

The DSA is the largest Socialist organization in the United States, and is the principal affiliate of the Socialist International. DSA has not been effective in selling its Socialist platform to the public at large, but it has been very successful in recruiting members of Congress.

The Progressive Caucus has already been successful in having the Progressive Caucus members infiltrate the Democrat hierarchy. Nancy Pelosi was elected as Minority Leader and Dennis Kucinich ran as a Democrat presidential candidate. The Progressives are well on the way to take total control of the party. Since Progressive is a euphemism for Socialism, the Democrat Party is really fighting the same fight it fought in 1947.

I predict that there will be a "Battle Royal" over the leadership of the Democrat Party. The Liberal heavyweight, Move On PAC, threw down the gauntlet through an e-mail to their members. Not only did the e-mail call the current leadership of the Democrat Party "professional election losers" it went on to say, "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back." The final thumb in the eye was, "For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base."

This doesn't sound like a conciliatory opening statement. So, will the moderates in the Democrat Party be able to wrest power from the likes of "Michael Moore" and "Move On", or will they succumb to their leftwing ideology?

I need to tell you a little about how Canadian Society turns its back on our most heartfelt pleas for mercy. And so I shall. Let me begin by saying that silly, sordid blockish-types serve as the priests in Canadian Society's cult of bloodthirsty clericalism. These "priests" spend their days basking in Canadian Society's reflected glory, pausing only when Canadian Society instructs them to sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that all literature which opposes sexism was forged by intrusive desperados. What could be more ribald? The most appealing theory has to do with the way that its exegeses are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? I would venture the answer has something to do with cameralism. To elaborate, it is literally the case that its cop-outs just don't stand up. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that honor means nothing to it. Principles mean nothing to it. All it cares about is how best to put our liberties at risk by a lewd and refractory rush to lay the foundation for some serious mischief. It doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Canadian Society's credos in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must kick butt and take names. Let me move now from the abstract to the concrete. That is, let me give you a (mercifully) few examples of Canadian Society's outrageous ineptitude. For starters, its arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial.

Of course, I'm generalizing a little here. But that's only because Canadian Society is stepping over the line when it attempts to pull the levers of extremism and oil the gears of Maoism -- way over the line. Canadian Society has a taste for interminable controversy over minor questions. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, challenge it to move from its broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. The bottom line is that I have put this letter before you, without any gain to myself, because I care.

One rarely gets a hangover without having drunk too much. World opinion got drunk with the prospect of a Kerry victory, in order to forget the nightmare of an America choosing this time clearly and without ambiguity George W. Bush. Now the world must face up to things. The "Bush moment" cannot be considered as an unfortunate moment to let pass - Bush is not all of America, but he represents the majority of America.

As with all traumas, after phases of shock, denial, and anger comes acceptance. This is particularly true for Europe, for the five international projects that awaited the reelected president concern us directly. If we want this reenergized Bush administration to take into account our interests in the managing of these issues, we must rapidly inject a serious dose of realism and lucidity into our foreign policies.

The first issue is of course Iraq. The political deadlines are clear: elections in January 2005 and a constitutional statute in December 2005. We have an interest that this process unfolds as favorably as possible, because the scenario of an explosive civil war would implicate Turkey and therefore Europe. Rather than focusing on the unrealistic hypothesis on an American retreat in the short term, we must reflect on the best manner of contributing to this institutional process that will be imperfect and transitory, but will also be a decisive step in the evolution of this country. It is not an American retreat that will permit institutional consolidation, but rather institutional consolidation that will permit an American retreat.

The second issue is Iran. After more than two years of crisis on its nuclear program, the IAEA is preparing to decide whether or not it will submit its dossier on the subject to the U.N. Security Council at the end of November. If we do not want to revisit the misunderstandings of the winter of 2002-03, we must prepare ourselves seriously for the following steps. Are we ready for sanctions against Iran? If yes, of what kind, for what goal, and with what deadlines? Would we accept the legitimacy of the regime of mullahs if it renounced definitively its military nuclear options? Inversely, would we be ready to close our eyes on the maintenance of a know-how in this domain if the regime renounced terrorism and adopted a constructive attitude in the handling of crises in the region? Europeans must ask these questions now, since if we do not we will approach a new transatlantic crisis and only the Iranian regime will profit.

The third issue is the Middle East after Arafat. This must be the occasion of a European reflection on our implication in the handling of the conflict. If we believe that the policy of the Bush administration is unbalanced, Europe must nonetheless face up to reality: its involvement as an arbiter in the conflict is not perceived as legitimate by one of the parties present. America is not exactly impartial, but if we want to play a role other than the banker of an ineffective and often corrupt Palestinian Authority, we must adjust our position. The closing of the Arafat era is a historic occasion for this point of view.

The fourth issue is North Korea. This small faraway country is surrounded by a halo of mystery and only rarely interests the EU. But why shouldn't we feel ourselves concerned by the negotiations that involve six nations and have been unfolding for 18 months? The response is simple: because, as with Iran, this is where the future of nuclear proliferation is happening, and because any increased instability in the region would have massive economic repercussions around the world. We must be prepared to contribute the moment it comes to a global handling of the North Korean question, including financially.

Finally, the "war against terrorism." Here is a real and legitimate divergence between America and the majority of Europeans. The majority of American opinion, and the majority of elites, believes that the threat of terrorism is of a nature that threatens the foundation of Western societies, and that it is necessary not to reduce but to defeat terrorism. We prefer to see it as a nuisance and live with it, against which no victory is possible. This difference could one day be broken (let's hope not) by a major act of terrorism in Europe, Madrid having not been our 9/11. In the absence of such a foundational event, we must set aside this difference of perspective, but also recognize that we face a terrorist problem the magnitude of which surpasses by far what we have experienced in Europe, and which cannot be treated merely as a problem of information and police. This implies doing away with the incantations on the stability of the Middle East that, in addition to being inaudible in Washington, have not proved particularly effective in promoting democratic ideals. On the contrary, they have encouraged the obstruction of Middle Eastern societies and violent disputes.

It is not at all certain that Bush will be magnanimous in victory and present an olive branch to the European countries most opposed to his policy. But it is also quite certain that he is not a priori ideologically opposed to Europe (contrary to certain members of his administration). If we show clearly our will to act together on these five projects in a constructive spirit, while respecting the singular perspective of an America that believes itself "to be at war," we will be heard by the White House, and our own interests will have much more of a chance of being taken into account. Inversely, if we go on talking about "multipolarity" (which is currently illusory), and give the impression of putting into effect all our energies toward the promotion of dubious initiatives (lifting the embargo on the sale of arms to China, for example), we will not advance these interests.

Certain Europeans secretly congratulate themselves on the reelection of Bush in the name of a strategy similar to the revolutionary vote: they hope that Bush's American conservatism will help construct a stronger and more unified Europe. They are going to be tempted to exaggerate transatlantic differences to the benefit of strengthening a European singularity. It is not at all certain that this strategy would be effective. Contrarily, it is quite certain that it will be dangerous: the enemies of liberty and democracy only rarely make a distinction between Americans and Europeans and, above all, when they do so, they know perfectly well how to play on our differences. We can choose to try to construct a European fortress on the field of the ruins of transatlantic relations, but this would be a Faustian bargain. Without the cooperation of the U.S. in the Balkans, the Middle East or in Asia, we would sooner or later pay the price for the instabilities that we would have allowed to develop.

It is not a matter of denying the political and cultural divergences that separate the majority of Americans from the majority of Europeans, but of recognizing that the importance of common challenges and the necessity of managing them together implicate and transcend personal and ideological preferences. Bush's reelection is a sort of test for Europe: does she prefer to get drunk on her differences or confront reality? The "Bush moment" is, for us, a moment of truth.