Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment

2006/03/28

Beginning of the end

What we are witnessing is the beginning of the end of Euro-American domination of the planet. When the emperors start being idiots, the empire is on the way to the ash heap of history. If you have any grandchildren, you might suggest that they study Chinese.
Charley Reese

Read more!

2006/03/26

We reap what we sow

Long controversial article. Give yourself 2 points if you get through it.
We Reap What We Sow: The Tragic Decline of America and the Western World
We Reap What We Sow: The Tragic Decline of America and the Western World

By Christopher Mark

In this article, although it is certainly not my intention, it is possible some may find my thoughts offensive. Yet, please consider the words of Thomas Paine, who observed “He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” The purpose of my article this week is to present a blunt wake-up call, particularly to America, and to the whole of the Western World. Why is it that we are facing an infinite variety of troubles? What is the root of our endless travails? What, indeed?

Well, if one should study the history of civilizations for the past few thousand years and one believes in a Higher Power (as do I), then perhaps you already know the answer: We asked for it. You may be wondering “...how so?” First of all, there is not a nation upon the planet that currently exists, or that has ever existed, that does not have the exact government that its people deserves. This phrase or a variation thereof has been oft-repeated, many, many times for hundreds of years. “Oh, what a callous thought...” you may say to yourself. I do not believe so. Think of America, back when it was merely a series of English colonies. The people were unwilling to fight for their rights—unwilling to fight for liberty. But, in time, a minority of men convinced the population that revolution was the only solution.

These “radical, right-wing, revolutionaries,” such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Paul Revere, John Jay, and so many others led the majority, who were opposed to any open revolt, that it must be so. The rest is history. The freedoms we have enjoyed, indeed, have toyed with in modern times, were so very dearly paid for, with the blood of countless men and women. Thus, a Republic, based on human liberty and a belief in God was born. Do you doubt this?

Perhaps you recognize these words: “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Surely, you recognize this portion of the Declaration of Independence. But who is this “Creator?”

After the American Revolution, another “radical” man by the name of Patrick Henry said “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations.” Indeed, this author shares the opinion of Patrick Henry. It is God who presides over the destinies of nations; it is God who is our Creator. Many also believe God presides over the destinies of every individual upon the face of the earth. What does that mean? It does not mean that we are without choice in our individual lives. Not at all.

It is our great privilege, and challenge, to choose good or evil. That having been said, God does indeed have a plan for the destiny of all of earth. As individuals who comprise the whole of a nation, at a minimum we have a choice as to how we behave and how we impact the course of history. We have seen time and again what happens to nations who have discarded God, denied God, offended God at length, or otherwise displeased the Creator. We had/have a choice as to our form of government. In 1905, Mark Twain wrote “In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”

Anyone who is not brain-dead knows good and well that the form of government established by our Constitution and Bill of Rights is under full-scale attack. Folks, I have probably watched about six hours of TV in the past year. I simply cannot bear the overwhelming intellectual assault which television broadcasting represents to me. It is an anathema to a sound mind. Furthermore, in my opinion, TV is to a mature, intelligent adult as Gerber baby food is to an infant. Truly there is a war on for your mind, as Alex Jones is fond of noting, and if you are regularly watching TV...guess who is winning?

Famous American newspaperman, Henry Louis (H.L.) Menken (http://www.io.com/~gibbonsb/mencken.html) noted “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence, clamorous to be led to safety—by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Now take a look at a “typical” everyday story in America, courtesy of Fox News at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78978,00.html and draw your own conclusions.

Forget about the so-called War on Terror, for a moment. Unfortunately, it may be true that there are indeed hobgoblins out there. However, many have put forth ample evidence to suggest we, ourselves, have created these “hobgoblins” in the quest for ultimate hegemony and fear-based government. (For more information on this, please see http://www.prisonplanet/911.html and http://www.infowars.com/resources.html.) In reality, is it not all simply “practical politics” and a purposeful distraction from the real war: The War on The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. The War on Your God-Given Rights. The War on Your Liberty!

Therefore, as individuals, we must make a choice to seek the truth. As families, we must make a choice. In sum, individuals and families comprise a nation. Just as is the case with individual lives, even if God knows ahead of time the choices we are to make, the very destiny of our nation may ultimately be based upon the choices we individually make. What kind of choices have we been making in America and the Western World? For example, what do you think of when you hear people say things like “If there were a God, how could He let such terrible things happen, such as 9-11...”

Although I feel nothing but horror for the tragic incidents of that day, I can only sit back in disdain when I hear such comments. Why? Because we have forsaken our Creator. We have told Him to leave! Leave our schools! Leave our courtrooms! Leave our government! Leave! We have made it perfectly legal to murder His unborn children—30 to 40 million in America, alone, and counting. What do we expect? Our Creator is known for His patience. But we have forsaken Him and His patience can only be tried for so long. So said William Penn “Those who will not be governed by God, will be ruled by tyrants.” So, why cry in amazement at the events of our days? It is to be expected, as both here and throughout the Western World, for all practical purposes, we have given God the boot.

This is far worse than rejecting your own parents who have lovingly raised you from the womb to where you are today. For we are nothing more than children of our Creator and He is a father to us all. How do you treat your Father? Do you even talk to Him? Is He even a small part of your life? If you are an American, do you give thanks for the gifts of liberty that you enjoy each day under The Constitution and The Bill of Rights? Do you care that your way of life is under vicious, relentless attack? Or is your only concern that you have a job, a nice car to drive, a place to call home, a grocery store nearby, a TV, and a cold six-pack? If you fall into this last category, please awaken, my fellow American, to the cold, hard reality of the transformation, now considerably progressed, of our entire society into something quite different than what the Founding Fathers envisioned, not only for the sake of America, but for that of the whole Western World and beyond.

But you say “I am tired...I have to work 40 hours a week...I can barely pay my bills...and life is hard.” I know. We have all been there. However, I also learned that with God all things are possible. You can quite rapidly change your life with faith, even if your faith is only as small as a mustard seed. Change your priorities. Consider carefully the choices you make. Consider carefully the people with whom you choose to regularly associate. Make a plan for your life—and things will change and you will no longer have an excuse to sit on the sidelines. Consider the words of Samuel Adams, who said “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” These are strong words, from a highly dignified and intelligent man who fought and believed in liberty.

While God has a plan for the world, do you have a plan for your life? I am continually dumbfounded by the pleasure-oriented nature of the average American who spends more time planning the one or two weeks of vacation time one may have from their job each year, than one devotes to planning an entire life—the Gift of all gifts. Consider this analogy. I want you to picture a big building, say, The Empire State Building. Let me ask you a simple question. What happened before a single piece of dirt was overturned to begin that project? Hmm...that is correct: The plans were ever so carefully prepared. Along the way those plans were altered as needed, if obstacles appeared or unforeseen events occurred. Let me ask you another question. Is not every single human life more valuable than any building out there? Of course! Then let me ask you this: Why do you not have a written plan for your life? Why do you not turn to your Father, our Creator, and ask for regular guidance as you execute daily your personal plan to the best of your ability? I guarantee you this, if you have, you already know the power of the results. If you have not, please carefully consider doing so.

For just as individuals who run their lives as a ship on an ocean with no rudder surely will crash into the rocks of despair, drug usage, divorce, criminal behavior, deviancy and more, so will a nation...so will the collective values of a greater Western World run into the larger rocks of God’s judgment. These are the times we live in my friends. So go to the mirror and look at yourself and ask: Who am I? You truly are a free person, no matter where you live, particularly if you are so fortunate as to be an American—as long as you are willing to endure the struggle to fight for or maintain your liberty, not merely for yourself, but for the sake of your children’s children, and so on. Thomas Paine stated “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”

In closing, please consider words from those who have gone before us, and of those still among us. Plato wrote “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” Sitting member of the House of Representatives, Ron Paul noted back in April 2002, “Let us be convinced that there is not enough hate or anger to silence the cries for liberty or to extinguish the flame of justice and truth. We must have faith that those who now are apathetic, anxious for security at all costs, forgetful of the true spirit of American liberty, and neglectful of the Constitution, will rise to the task and respond accordingly.” General George Patton said “If everyone is thinking alike then somebody isn't thinking.”

Are we thinking now? Do you think you can admit that when we live in an essentially Godless society full of the worst possible behavior; that when this behavior is reinforced daily through TV and video games; that when this behavior is reinforced in our schools; that when this behavior is seen in our pubic leaders and other “role models,”; that, as a whole, when the value of human life is diminished...that there can be any doubt as to why we find ourselves in the state of affairs in which we presently exist? I do not choose to embrace the present Tragic Decline of America and the Western World. Nor should we seek to impose our values on the rest of the world, but only to act honorably, as individuals and as nations, to take action with great vigor towards the preservation of liberty for future generations, and to conduct our affairs with prejudice and malice towards none, save for those who would threaten to undo our way of life.

A final quote from The Holy Bible, Proverbs, Chapter 2, Moral Benefits of Wisdom, Verses 12-15: “Wisdom will save you from the wicked ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse, who leave the straight paths to walk in dark ways, who delight in doing wrong and rejoice in the perverseness of evil, whose paths are crooked and who are devious in their ways.”

I pray we find wisdom, as individuals, as a nation, as a culture, wisdom above all else, to address the root of the vast problems confronting us, each and every day. Otherwise, our decline will only accelerate at a frightening pace. Start by making a difference in your personal life, in your community, and do not be afraid to speak your mind. Just start!



-------------------------------------
You can contact Chris at iamnotanumber@hushmail.com. Visit his website at http://www.americanachievementseminars.com/
-------------------------------------
Permission to reprint this article is granted providing the original author is cited and a link to PRISON PLANET.com is included. The views expressed in this article may not necessarily be those of Alex Jones or Paul Joseph Watson.
-------------------------------------




Read more!

2006/03/24

US spends its way to 28 Eiffel towers, made out of pure gold

US spends its way to 28 Eiffel towers, made out of pure gold
From Tim Reid in Washington, The London Times

IF YOU are worried about how much you owe on your credit cards, this might put things in perspective: America's national debt limit was increased yesterday to $9 trillion. That's $9,000,000,000,000—enough to buy Buckingham Palace 9,000 times.
The increase, passed by Congress, allows the Government to borrow another $781 billion (£447 billion), increasing the national debt limit—the maximum America can borrow—from $8 trillion and $184 billion to $8 trillion and $961 billion.

If the debt ceiling, which is set by Congress, had not been raised by March 24, the Administration would not have been able to borrow more money and the US would have begun to default on its domestic and foreign obligations, an untenable consequence.

The vote to increase the debt limit, requested by the White House, is the fourth since Mr Bush took office. In 2001 the national debt was $5.7 trillion. Today it has ballooned to $8.2 trillion, figures rarely talked about in Washington.

The national debt is the total amount owed by the Government. It is not to be confused with the federal budget deficit, which is the yearly amount by which spending exceeds revenue. When budget deficits are big, the national debt inevitably increases.

When Mr Bush took office he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus. Bill Clinton, his predecessor, had used budget surpluses to pay down some of the national debt in his last two years in office. Mr Bush also inherited some extraordinarily overoptimistic projections.

Experts pronounced that budget surpluses would increase to $5.6 trillion over ten years, and there was even heady talk of paying off the entire national debt with the proceeds.

Since then a combination of factors—the September 11, 2001, attacks, unexpectedly low tax revenues, Mr Bush's tax cuts and runaway government spending—have plunged the yearly budget back into deficit. This year it will reach nearly $400 billion.

What worries many analysts is the amount of US debt financed by foreign governments and banks, particularly in Asia. The national debt is split between publicly held debt—money owed to US and foreign investors—and money owed to branches of the Government. Nearly half the publicly owed debt is held by foreigners. Japan is the biggest creditor, at $668 billion. China, the second-biggest, recently increased its stake by $40 billion to $263 billion.

"We used to have much less held by foreigners," Alice Rivlin, a former budget director for Mr Clinton, said. "It makes you much more vulnerable to people's agendas."

America has had a national debt since 1791, when it was $75 million. Today it rises by that amount every hour.

$9 TRILLION

Is roughly four times Britain's GDP

Equates to $1,500 for every man, woman and child in the world

Would buy all the tea in China. In fact it would buy all the tea in the world for the next 2,000 years.

Is enough to solve the Palestinian crisis by rehousing every Israeli and Palestinian family in a £1.5m detached house in Henley-on-Thames

Would build 28 Eiffel Towers—constructed out of gold.


Read more!

2006/03/20

Why I never wash

A pastor, apparently disgusted with the excuses parishioners offered as to why they didn’t attend worship services, included “Reasons Why I Never Wash” in the Sunday bulletin:

I was forced to as a child.

People who wash are hypocrites - they think they are cleaner than everybody else.

There are so many different kinds of soap; I can’t decide which one is best.

I used to wash, but I got bored and stopped.

I wash only on special occasions, like Christmas and Easter.

None of my friends wash.

I’ll start washing when I get older and dirtier.

I can’t spare the time.

The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.

People who make soap are only after your money.

I don’t like the songs people sing in the bathroom.

I can clean myself perfectly well whenever I pass a sink, so I don’t need a bathtub.

I know how to stay clean without washing.

The last time I washed, someone was rude to me.

What I do doesn’t affect anybody but me.

I know someone who washes every day and still smells bad.

I don’t believe in soap.

I sat beside a whole case of it for an hour once, and nothing happened.

Washing was invented by people who knew nothing about science.

If people saw me without my makeup, they would laugh at me.

I’m so dirty now that if I washed, the drain would clog.

Cats, dogs, and chickens never wash, and they are happy all the time.

Prehistoric humans were happy all the time until the first soap salesman made them feel guilty.

If I start washing again, my friends will think I am trying to conform to middle-class standards.

Washing is for women and children.

Washing is for people much dirtier than I am.

I will wash when I find the bathroom that is exactly right for me.

I only believe in things I can see, and I can’t see bacteria.

Children need to see that it is OK to be different.

Children need to see a few bad examples.

Washing may have been OK in my grandfather’s day, but it’s not practical in today’s world.

I need to look dirty, talk dirty, and fight dirty to survive.

I watch other people washing on TV.

There are lots of clean people who never wash.

We’ve just moved here six years ago and haven’t had a chance.

I bought a bad bar of soap once, so I swore I would never wash again!

I feel as close to washing on the golf course as I do in the bathroom.

I never wash when I have company.

Washday is the only day I have to sleep in.

My wife washes enough for the whole family I know people who wash but don’t act very clean.

Washing is the opiate of the masses.


Read more!

2006/03/13

Quotations with a viewpoint

Interesting collection of quotes.Quotations with a viewpoint
J. William Fulbright, US Senator: "To criticize one's country is to do it a service ... Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism—a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals and national adulation."

Edward Abbey: "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

Dalton Trumbo, Johnny Got His Gun: "You can always hear the people who are willing to sacrifice somebody else's life. They're plenty loud and they talk all the time. You can find them in churches and schools and newspapers and legislatures and congress. That's their business. They sound wonderful. Death before dishonor. This ground sanctified by blood. These men who died so gloriously. They shall not have died in vain. Our noble dead."

Noam Chomsky: "The point of public relations slogans like 'Support our troops' is that they don't mean anything... That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about."

John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: "Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization. I should know; I was an EHM."

The American Heritage Dictionary, 1983: "fascism—A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Huey Long: "If fascism ever came to the United States, it would be wrapped in an American flag."

Star Wars filmmaker George Lucas: "All democracies turn into dictatorships—but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it's Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea... That's the issue that I've been exploring: How did the Republic turn into the Empire ... and how does a democracy become a dictatorship?"

Alex Carey: "The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

William Shirer: "For the last fifty years we've been supporting right-wing governments, and that is a puzzlement to me...I don't understand what there is in the American character... that almost automatically, even when we have a liberal President, we support fascist dictatorships or are tolerant towards them."

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf: "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."

Theodore Dreiser, 1871-1945: "The American press, with a very few exceptions, is a kept press. Kept by the big corporations the way a whore is kept by a rich man."

Mark Crispin Miller: "Media manipulation in the U.S. today is more efficient than it was in Nazi Germany, because here we have the pretense that we are getting all the information we want. That misconception prevents people from even looking for the truth."

Michael Parenti: "The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominate political mythology."

Tom Fenton: "Americans are too broadly underinformed to digest nuggets of information that seem to contradict what they know of the world ... Instead, news channels prefer to feed Americans a constant stream of simplified information, all of which fits what they already know. That way they don't have to devote more air time or newsprint space to explanations or further investigations."

Walter Lippmann: "The news and truth are not the same thing."

Arundhati Roy, Indian author and activist: "In America, the arms industry, the oil industry and the major media networks—indeed, U.S. foreign policy—are all controlled by the same business combines." (shadows of President Eisenhower's warning about the industrial-Congressional- military complex)

Neil Postman: "Television is altering the meaning of "being informed" by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation... Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information—misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information—information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing."

Robert Jensen: "The United States is a society in which people not only can get by without knowing much about the wider world but are systematically encouraged not to think independently or critically and instead to accept the mythology of the United States as a benevolent, misunderstood giant as it lumbers around the world trying to do good."

Arundhati Roy, author and activist: "America continues to remain the enigma it has always been—a curiously insular people administered by a pathologically meddlesome, promiscuous government."

Carl Boggs: "The U.S. record of war crimes has been, from the nineteenth century to the present, a largely invisible one, with no government, no political leaders, no military officials, no lower-level operatives held accountable for criminal actions... Anyone challenging this mythology is quickly marginalized, branded a traitor or Communist or terrorist or simply a lunatic beyond the pale of reasonable discussion."

Mark Hertzgaard: "Americans cannot escape a certain responsibility for what is done in our name around the world. In a democracy, even one as corrupted as ours, ultimate authority rests with the people. We empower the government with our votes, finance it with our taxes, bolster it with our silent acquiescence. If we are passive in the face of America's official actions overseas, we in effect endorse them."

William Blum: "[American leaders] are perhaps not so much immoral as they are amoral. It's not that they take pleasure in causing so much death and suffering. It's that they just don't care ... the same that could be said about a sociopath. As long as the death and suffering advance the agenda of the empire, as long as the right people and the right corporations gain wealth and power and privilege and prestige, as long as the death and suffering aren't happening to them or people close to them ... then they just don't care about it happening to other people, including the American soldiers whom they throw into wars and who come home—the ones who make it back alive—with Agent Orange or Gulf War Syndrome eating away at their bodies. American leaders would not be in the positions they hold if they were bothered by such things."

Hermann Goering: "Why of course the people don't want war... That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

William Blum: "From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair."

Arundhati Roy, author and activist: "The International Coalition Against Terror is largely a cabal of the richest countries in the world. Between them, they manufacture and sell almost all of the world's weapons, and they possess the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction- chemical, biological and nuclear. They have fought the most wars, account for most of the genocide, subjection, ethnic cleansing and human rights violations in modem history, and have sponsored, armed and financed untold numbers of dictators and despots. Between them, they have worshipped, almost deified, the cult of violence and war."

Read more!

2006/03/12

Pioneers of Humour

"I've never been lost, but I was bewildered once for three days."--Daniel Boone

"If you're ridin' ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it's still there."-- Will Rogers

"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."--Will Rogers


Read more!

2006/03/10

It's a dogs life :=))

Meet Rusty, our dog. He was so relaxed I thought I would try to get a shot before he woke up. As you can see I was able to walk right up to him before he noticed.






Read more!

2006/03/09

And the Great Game goes on

As I read these article I laugh & cry and think it incredulous. I thought of trying to keep out of political issues but as George Orwell wrote "In our age, there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia," This next article is one way at looking at certain issues. And the Great Game goes on
By Uri Avnery

"If you want to understand the policy of a country, look at the map!" advised Napoleon. What he meant was: regimes come and go, rulers rise and fall, ideologies flourish and wither, but geography stands forever. It's geography that decides the basic interest of every state.

Vladimir Putin, heir of czars and commissars, looked at the map. Looked and picked up the telephone to invite the Hamas leaders.

A hundred years ago, the whole expanse from India to Turkey was a battlefield between Russia and the main Western power at that time, the British Empire. Adventurers, spies, diplomats and plotters of all stripes roamed the area. This contest was known as "The Great Game".

In time, the actors changed. The Bolsheviks took the place of the czars; the American empire succeeded the British. But the Great Game went on.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, it seemed as if the game had come to an end. Russian influence disappeared from the region. The Soviet empire dissolved, and what remained was too weak, too poor, to take part in the game.

And now, with one stroke, Putin has changed everything. Inviting Hamas to Moscow was a gambit of genius: it didn't cost anything, and it put Russia back on the map of the Middle East. While the whole world was still puzzled and confused by the Hamas victory, Putin used the sharp scalpel of unemotional logic and made the first move of a new game.

This way, the new czar of all the Russians exploited the weakness of his rivals. President Bush has got himself into a dismal position. When all the other pretexts for his bloody Iraqi adventure had evaporated into thin air, he raised a new flag: democracy in the Middle East. He imposed new elections on the Palestinians. In these elections, the most democratic one could imagine, the winner was—alas!—Hamas.

What to do? To declare that democratic elections are good only if they deliver the outcome we desire? To boycott the Palestinian [National] Authority, now the "Second Democracy in the Middle East"? To starve the Palestinians until they elect the "right" leadership?

Bush could, of course, recognize the elected Hamas government. But how could he do that? After all, the United States has put Hamas on its list of terrorist organizations—not only its military wing, but the whole movement, including the kindergartens and mosques. Now they are caught up in the "clash of civilizations, the apocalyptic battle between the West and Islam.

Nothing to be done. America is a chess player caught in a position of stalemate—unable to make any move at all.

Europe is in a similar situation. Like a mental patient in a straitjacket, it cannot move its arms. It put on this jacket itself. Under American and Israeli pressure, it put Hamas on its terror list, and thus condemned itself to total impotence in the new situation.

Putin does not laugh often. But now, perhaps, he may be permitting himself a thin smile.

The Palestinians, too, are quite confused. In these elections they surprised themselves, and, no less, Hamas.

Inside Fatah, there are contradictory views about what to do. The good of the Palestinian people clearly demands a wide coalition, which would include all parties, in order to overcome the crisis and prevent a boycott of the Palestinian [National] Authority by the world. But the narrow party interest of Fatah says otherwise: Let's compel Hamas to govern alone. It will break its head; the world will boycott it. After a year or two, the Palestinian public will return Fatah to power.

That's realpolitik, but dangerous. During the one or two years, the Israeli government will enlarge the settlements, build more and more of the [Apartheid] Wall, fix new borders, annex the Jordan valley—the sky is the limit. The reaction of the Palestinian public may be quite different from what the Fatah people imagine.

Hamas is also baffled. It knows full well that the elections were less an ideological breakthrough than a protest vote—more against Fatah than for Hamas. Now Hamas must gain the heart of the Palestinian people, and the people want an end to the occupation, and peace at last.

Hamas does not want the world to ostracize the Palestinian [National] Authority and starve the population. But it cannot change its skin on the morrow of its victory. What will the Palestinians say if it suddenly declares that it is ready to recognize Israel's right to exist, to disarm and annul its charter? That it has sold its soul to Satan in order to enjoy the comforts of power? That it is as corrupt as Fatah?

If Israel and America wanted to lead Hamas towards a path of peace, they would ease its way towards the desired change. They could find mechanisms for the transfer of the money due to the Palestinians. They could be satisfied with an announcement that the new government is based on the Oslo Agreement (which includes the recognition of Israel) without demanding that Hamas humiliate itself in public. They could agree to a hudna (armistice) for the transition period and put an end to all violent action by both sides. Hamas can be disarmed by including its fighters in the official security forces. And, of course, and most importantly—prisoners could be released.

But the present Israeli government shows no interest in making it easy for Hamas. And if the Israeli government is not interested, what American politician, if not bent on suicide, can say otherwise?

In Israel, the Hamas victory has not given rise to sorrow and lamentations. On the contrary. Israeli leaders could hardly hold back from dancing in the streets.

At long last, it has become perfectly clear that "There is No One to Talk With". If Yasser Arafat was no partner, and if Mahmoud Abbas was no partner, Hamas is the mother of all no-partners. Nobody can rebuke us for going on with "targeted killings", destroying the Palestinian economy, building walls, breaking up the West Bank territory, cutting off the Jordan valley and generally doing whatever we feel like. And if, with God's help, Palestinian terrorism starts again, we can say to everybody: "We told you so!"

But in Israel, too, there is a lot of confusion. Under American pressure, Ehud Olmert was compelled to transfer to the Palestinian at least once the revenues that Israel has collected on their behalf. He was immediately attacked for "surrendering" to Hamas. Even this small act of surrendering stolen money has caused a political storm. The Israeli election, due to take place in 24 days, casts its shadow on everything.

Now comes Putin's daring step. He makes it easier for the Hamas leadership to moderate its stance—if it is ready to join the political game. He also makes it easier for the government of Israel—if the government of Israel wants dialogue and peace. And, above all else, he is announcing that Russia is back in the Great Game.

Read more!

2006/03/08

Biblical Baby Names

Biblical baby names are both popular and historical! Check out why so many parents are turning to the Bible for naming inspiration.
By Danielle Ryan, AmericanBaby.com

Why Are Biblical Names So Popular? What do Robert De Niro, Annette Bening, and U2 singer Bono all have in common? Other than their sizable bank accounts and famous mugs, they also all share the distinction of being celebrity parents who've bestowed Biblical names upon their children (Aaron, Benjamin, and Eve, respectively).For the past few years, biblical baby names have become increasingly popular for the first time in a long while—in fact, the origin of nine out of the top 10 boys' names in 2004 can be easily traced to the Bible. Not a surprising fact, considering all of the controversy in recent years surrounding the publication of The Da Vinci Code, the emergence of intelligent design theory, the ever-shrinking gap between Church and State in the U.S., the "What Would Jesus Drive?" and "Where Would Jesus Shop?" campaigns, and the battle over "holiday" trees…

Trendy versus Traditional Names. The tradition of using biblical names here in the United States can be traced to the Puritans, who eschewed Old English names associated with the Church of England in favor of names chosen directly from the Bible. Although trendy, non-biblical names like Madison and Tyler have been on the top baby names lists for several years now, biblical names never really went out of style. Why? Well, in theory, it makes sense to see people turning to a spiritual resource like the Bible for naming their babies when the world seems to be so topsy-turvy. Giving one's child a traditional, biblical name infused with spiritual significance can be a source of comfort in a crazy world—even for those not inclined to consider themselves to be 'religious' people. Saying or hearing such a name can evoke warm thoughts and security.

After several years' worth of perfectly lovely, albeit trendy, names holding court on the top 10 names list, monikers such as Tyler, Austin, Taylor, and Ashley fell from grace toward the end of the 90s. They were replaced by more traditional names with biblical origins, such as Ethan and Abigail in the year 2001 (and they're still on the top 10 list today.) And biblical baby names appear to be much more popular for boys; only three out of the top 10 baby names for girls in 2004 were Bible-based.

And just like any other trend these days, celebrities are in on this one, too. From Aaron to Zion, celebs have laid their claim to biblical monikers. For example, Larry Mullen Jr. of U2 named his first son Aaron Elvis. Gabriel was a popular choice for Seinfeld star Jason Alexander, Mick Jagger, and Mia Farrow, each of whom has a son with that angelic name. Rockers Billy Joe Armstrong of Green Day fame and Jon Bon Jovi both named a son Jacob. John has also proven to be a biblical name popular with celebs—Bono, Tracey Ullman, Michelle Pfeiffer, Rob Lowe, Jane Seymour, and singer Lauren Hill all have sons by that name. Hill also has a son named Zion David.

Why Choose a Biblical Name? As far as biblical baby names are concerned, though, it seems fair to ask, "What's in a name?" Do parents of modern-day biblically named children choose those monikers for their spiritual significance, the way they roll off the tongue, or the way they sound with dad's last name? Is Abigail currently listed as the sixth most popular girl's name because it's such a pretty name, or because it means "my father's joy"? Or a combination of the two? Of course, everyone has his or her own interpretation of how and why to choose a name.

Determined to find a name for their child that was striking and unusual, yet meaningful, Jake and Mona Levich of Queens, New York, took a page from the Bible and named their son Moses—a recognizable but unique name, to be certain. For the most part, though, parents who choose biblical names for their children use more traditional monikers like Jacob (currently ranked #1 on the boys' list), Hannah (#5 for girls), or Joseph (at boys' #9).

Biblical names are imbued with spiritual significance because they're part of fascinating stories from the Bible that often highlight the best of what man or woman can offer the world. Think of the name Noah (#29 in 2004), for example, and the biblical story associated with Noah and his ark. God considered Noah to be a pure man in a world of sinners. For this reason, he alone was chosen to build the ark that would protect him, his family, and his animals from the deadly floodwaters that God was going to unleash upon the world with 40 days and 40 nights of rain. Appropriately enough, given the background of the name, Noah is said to mean "peace" or "comfort." My husband and I chose the name Noah because we love the sound of it, but we also loved the meaning of the name and the positive spiritual association people have with it. And while the name Moses may not be on the top 10 list anytime soon (it was listed at #512 in 2004, in fact), Moses' role in the Bible is that of a brave revolutionary who led a revolt against an oppressive regime that enslaved his people—which was part of the name's attractiveness to our modern-day Moses' parents.

Care to guess what was the most biblically popular name of all time here in the United States? Mary. The name of Jesus' virgin mother was ranked at number one from 1900 to 1959, at which time it fell to second place and stayed there until 1969 when it slipped to number 15. These days, it's ranked at number 63. This name is strongly associated with femininity, motherhood, and purity; it's also the most recognizable female name from the Bible other than Eve (which is currently ranked at #614).

Hannah, Abigail, and Elizabeth—the three biblically based female names currently inhabiting spots 5, 6, and 10, respectively, on 2004's top 10 list are not necessarily identifiably Biblical even if they are euphonious (pleasant-sounding).

Biblical names have most certainly withstood the test of time. For centuries, parents-to-be have turned to the Bible for divine baby-naming inspiration. Will you?

Read more!

2006/03/06

Heaven is Full of Sinners

I think this clears up one of the main religious issues; What is saintliness or righteousness in God's view?
Heaven is Full of Sinners


--The Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican

Jesus often taught in parables. One of the shortest yet most profound was the parable of the Pharisee and the publican. The Bible tells us that Jesus "spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others" (Luke 18:9).

The Pharisees were the most influential of all the Jewish religious sects of Jesus' day. The word "Pharisee" means "the separated ones," which sums up the basic nature of their beliefs. They were strict legalists who pledged to observe and obey every one of the countless restrictive rules, traditions, and ceremonial laws of Orthodox Judaism. They considered themselves to be the only true followers of God's Law, and therefore felt that they were much better and holier than anyone else. Thus they separated themselves not only from the non-Jews--whom they absolutely despised and considered "dogs"--but even other Jews.

The publicans were tax collectors for the foreign occupier and ruler of Palestine, Imperial Rome. The Romans would instruct the publicans how much to collect from the people, and then the publicans could charge extra for their own income. So publicans were usually extortioners and were therefore considered traitors and absolutely despised by other Jews.

So when Jesus told this parable, comparing a Pharisee and a publican, He had chosen the two most opposite figures in the Jewish community. The one was considered the best, most righteous, most religious, most godly of men, whereas the other was considered the worst scoundrel imaginable.

The Parable:

Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector [publican].

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, "God, I thank You that I am not like other men--extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess."

And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted (Luke 18:10-14).

Which of these two men did Jesus say was justified before God?--The Pharisee who appeared to be so righteous and holy, and who no doubt felt that he was a very righteous and good man?--Or the tax collector, the sinner, who was despised by others and who apparently even despised himself?--The tax collector who knew he had no goodness of his own and needed God's mercy.

So often, God's way of looking at things is very different from ours. He says, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Although that publican's sins were undoubtedly many, because of his honest and humble confession that he was a sinner who needed God's help, Jesus said this publican was the one who left the Temple justified that day.

God's idea of righteousness is not the sinless perfectionist, but the humble sinner who knows he needs God.

In God's sight, self-righteous pride like this Pharisee manifested is the greatest sin of all--that hypocritical holier-than-thou attitude that causes people to look down on others who they think aren't as good as they are. When people get this way, others usually find them to be the hardest people to be around--narrow-minded, intolerant, critical, and judgmental.

The Gospels also tell us that when the Pharisees saw Jesus sitting down and eating with publicans and sinners, they were enraged and accused Jesus to His disciples. When Jesus heard that, He said to the Pharisees, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance" (Matthew 9:10-13). In other words, "I would rather see you have love and mercy, and not just your dutiful keeping of the Law. I'd rather you'd give love to others than to be so self-righteous and condemning!"

None of us have any goodness of our own. Anything good about us is only the Lord, and His goodness. His Word says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Even the apostle Paul said that there was nothing good in himself (Romans 7:18).

Jesus got so infuriated by the hypocritical, self-righteous hypocrisy of the Pharisees that He told them that they were worse than the drunks and prostitutes, publicans and sinners they despised, and that there was more chance for such sinners to make it to Heaven than there was for them (Matthew 21:31). He even told His own disciples, "Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 5:20). And the only way to be better than the Pharisees is to have Jesus' righteousness--salvation, through accepting His pardon for your sins--because the Pharisees were as "good" as anyone could possibly be in the natural.

Jesus so hated the hypocritical pretense of the Pharisees that He denounced them publicly. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness" (Matthew 23:25-28).

The thing that made the Pharisees so self-righteous and hypocritical was their pride. They were too proud to confess that they were sinners like everyone else. In fact, they not only couldn't confess their sins, they couldn't even see their sins. Therefore they became "blind leaders of the blind" (Matthew 15:14).

It's a big relief to honestly admit that we can't be good or righteous in ourselves. After all, God has said in His Word that nobody is good: "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10). "By grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The worst kind of people in the sight of God are those who pretend to be good and look down on everybody else.

The worst kind of people in the sight of God are those who pretend to be good and look down on everybody else. We just need to be honest and confess, "I'm no good. I'm a sinner. Of course I make mistakes! Anything good about me is only Jesus!"

God's idea of righteousness is not the supposedly sinless perfectionist, but the pitiful, hopeless, humble sinner who knows he needs God. Those are the ones He came to save.

God's idea of goodness is godliness--a sinner who knows he needs God and depends on Him for salvation--not the self-made, self-righteous, hypocritical Pharisees who think they can save themselves by their own goodness.

God's idea of saintliness is a sinner saved by grace, a sinner who has no perfection, no righteousness of his own at all, but is totally dependent on the grace and the love and the mercy of God. Believe it or not, that is the only kind of saints there are!

You cannot save yourself by your own works, your own goodness, your own attempts to keep God's laws and to love Him, or even your own endeavors to find and follow His truth. You cannot save yourself no matter how good you try to be. There's nothing you can do to get it except receive it by faith--that's all! You have to humble yourself and acknowledge that you don't deserve it, that you're just a lost sinner, and that there's no way you can be saved except by the grace of God.

The worst sinners in the world can go to Heaven through faith and God's forgiveness, and the seemingly best people can go to Hell because of unbelief and unwillingness to confess their need for God. Heaven is full of sinners, saved by grace through faith.

Read more!

2006/03/03

America's Glorious Empire Of Debt

I'm just amazed at all the articles on this subject. But what I don't find being addressed is; what happens after the crash and who is going to pick up the pieces??
America's Glorious Empire Of Debt
by Bill Bonner, The Daily Reckoning

Let us take a moment to stand back and gaze at America's great Empire of Debt. It is the largest edifice of debt ever put up. It sustains the most magnificent world economy ever assembled. It brings more wealth to more people than any system ever before devised.

Not only is it incomparably effective, it is also immeasurably entertaining. For it has its burnished helmets and flying banners; its intellectuals and its gladiators; its Caesars, Antonys, Neros, and Caligulas. It has its temples, its forum, its Capitol, its senators; its praetorian guards; its via Appia; its proconsuls, centurions, and legions all over the world as well as its bread and its circuses in the homeland and its costly wars in periphery areas.

The Roman Empire rested on a classical model of imperial finance. Beneath a complex and nuanced pyramid of relationships was a foundation of tribute formed with the hard rock of brute force. America's empire of debt, on the other hand, stands not as a solid pyramid of trust, authority, and power relationships but as a rickety slum of delusion, fraud, and misapprehension.

There are whole legions of analysts, economists, and full-time obfuscators whose role is to make us all believe six impossible things before breakfast and a dozen more before dinner. Quack economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics do to numbers what guards at Guantanamo did to prisoners. They rough them up so badly, they are ready to say anything. This abuse of statistics is what allows Americans to deceive themselves about their own economy. It is healthy, they say. It is growing. It is stable. All these so-called facts are little more than elaborate prevarications.

Economists, commentators, and policymakers take up these distortions and add their own twists. It is obvious to anyone who bothers to think about it that an economy that spends more than it earns is in decline. But try to find an economist willing to say so! They've all become like rich notables in the time of Trajan, doing the emperor's work whether they are on his payroll or not. They will tell you the economy is expanding, but it is an expansion similar to what happens when a compulsive eater escapes from a fat farm. The longer he is on the loose, the worse off he becomes.

On the issue of the trade deficit, they will say what the senators and consuls want to hear, as Levey and Brown did in Foreign Affairs magazine:

"The United States' current account deficit and foreign debt are not dire threats to its global position, as would-be Cassandras warn. U.S. power is firmly grounded on economic superiority and financial stability that will not end soon." In fact, the story of international trade, circa 2005, is the most preposterous tale economists have ever heard. One nation buys things that it cannot afford and doesn't need with money it doesn't have. Another sells on credit to people who already cannot pay and builds more factories to increase output.

Every level colludes with every other level to keep the flimflam going. On the banks of the Potomac, people of all classes, rank, and station are pleased to believe that all is well. And there, at the Federal Reserve headquarters, is another caste of loyal liars. Alan Greenspan and his fellow connivers not only urge citizens to mortgage their houses, buy SUVs, and commit other acts of wanton recklessness, they also control the nation's money and make sure that it plays along with the fraud. They do not even have to clip the precious metal out of the imperial coins; there is none in it.

From the center to the furthest garrisons on the periphery, from the lowest rank to the highest—everyone, everywhere willingly, happily, and proudly participates in one of the greatest deceits of all time. At the bottom of the empire are wage slaves squandering borrowed money on imported doodads. The plebes gamble on adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs). The patricians gamble on hedge funds that speculate on huge swaths of mortgage debt. Near the top are Fed economists urging them to do it! And at the very pinnacle is a chief executive, modeled after Augustus, who cut taxes while increasing spending on bread, circuses, and peripheral wars. (It might be added that some of the biggest lies in the history of warfare were told to the American public to stir up support for the war against Iraq, but it hardly seems worth mentioning it.)

The spectacle is breathtaking. And endlessly entertaining. We are humbled by the majesty of it. Everywhere we look, we see an exquisite but precarious balance between things that are equally and oppositely absurd. On the one side of the globe—in the Anglo-Saxon countries in general, but the United States in particular—are the consumers. On the other side—principally in Asia—are the producers. One side makes, the other takes. One saves, the other borrows. One produces, the other consumes. This is not the way it was meant to be. When America first stooped to Empire, she was a rising, robust, energetic, innovative young economy. And for the first six decades of her imperium—roughly from 1913 until 1977—she profited from her competitive position. Every country to which she was able to extend her pax dollarum became a customer. Her businesses made a profit.

But gradually, her commercial advantage faded and her industries aged. The very process of spreading the soft, warmth of her protection over the earth seemed to make it more fertile. Tough, weedy competitors sprouted all over the periphery of the empire—first in Europe, then in Japan, and later, throughout Asia, even areas she had never been able to dominate.

By the early 21st century, the costs of maintaining her role as the world's only superpower, and its only imperial power, had risen in excess of five percent of her GDP, or $558 billion per year. Not only had she never figured out a good way to charge for providing the world with order, now order was working against her. The periphery economies grew faster. They had newer and better industries. They had higher savings levels and much lower labor rates. They had few of the costs of bread or circuses and none of the costs of policing the empire. They were freer, lighter, faster. Every day, the competitors took more of America's business, assets, and money. If the empire were an operating business, accountants would say it was losing money.

For the moment, Americans salute their imperial standards. They gratefully paste the flag to their car windows, their jackets, their hats, their beer mugs, their shirts and even their underwear. Americans are proud of their empire. Without it, they could never have gotten so far in debt. What central banker would fill his vault with Argentine pesos or Zimbabwe dollars? What drug dealer or arms seller would want Polish zlotys in payment? What insurance company would want to buy Bolivian or Kyrgzstan bonds to cover its long-dated liabilities?

The dollar has not been convertible into gold for 34 years. Yet, people still take it as though it were as good as the yellow metal—only better. Ultimately, lending money to a foreign government is a bet that the government will put the squeeze on its own citizens to make sure you get paid. The United States doesn't even have to squeeze. When one foreign loan comes due, other foreigners practically line up to refinance it; it is as if they were bringing pastries to an extremely fat man, just to gawk and wonder when he might explode.

Read more!

2006/03/01

Crime South Of The Rio Bravo

Reflections On The Virtue Of Lawlessness
by Fred Reed
I am sad to report that Mexico is the most criminal of countries. Let me illustrate.

One grave crime here is horse abuse. Often you see a Mexican father clopping through town on an unregistered horse-yes: the horror-with his kid of five seated behind him. A large list of crimes leaps instantly to the North American mind. The kid is not in a governmentally sanctioned horse seat. He is not wearing a helmet. The father is not wearing a helmet. The horse is not wearing a helmet. The horse is not wearing a diaper. The horse does not have a parade permit. The horse doesn't have turn signals. The father does not have a document showing that he went to a governmentally approved school and therefore knows how to operate a horse, which he has been doing since he was six years old.In Mexico, if you want to ride a horse, you get one, or borrow one. If you don't know how to ride it, you have someone to show you. Why any of this might interest the government is unclear to everybody, including the government.

You see. Here is the dark underside of Mexico. People do most things without supervision, as if they were adults.

This curious state of affairs, which might be called "freedom," has strange effects on gringos. Shortly after I moved here, I began to hear little voices. This worried me until I realized that I was next door to a grade school. Daily at noon a swarm of children erupted into the street, the girls chattering and running every which way, the boys shouting and roughhousing and playing what sounded like cowboys and Injuns.

In the United States, half of the boys would be forced to take drugs to make them inert. If they played anything involving guns, they would be suspended and forced to undergo psychiatric counseling, which would in all likelihood leave them in a state of murderous psychopathy. Wrestling would be violence, with the same results.

Here you see the extent to which, narcotically, Mexico lags the great powers. The Soviets drugged inconvenient adults into passivity. America drugs its little boys into passivity. Mexico doesn't drug anyone.

In fiesta season, which just ended, everybody and his grand aunt Chuleta puts up a taco stand or booze stall on the plaza. Yes: In front of God and everybody. These do not have permits. They are just there. If you want a cuba libre, you give the nice lady twenty pesos and she hands it to you.

That's all. There is in this a simplicity that the North American instantly recognizes as dangerous. Where are the controls? Where are the rules? Why isn't somebody watching these people? Heaven knows what might happen. They could be terrorists.

If you chose to wander around the plaza, drink in hand, and listen to the band, no one would care in the least, in part because they would be doing the same thing. If you didn't finish your drink, and walked home with it, no one would pay the least attention.

In America this would be Drinking in Public. It would merit a night in jail followed by three months of compulsory Alcohol School. This would accomplish nothing of worth, but would put money in the pockets of controlling and vaguely hostile therapists, and let unhappy bureaucrats get even with people they suspect of enjoying themselves.

Mexicans seem to regard laws as interesting concepts that might merit thought at some later date. There is much to be said for this. The governmental attitude seems to be that if a thing doesn't need regulating, then don't regulate it. Life is much easier that way.

If a law doesn't make sense in a particular instance, a Mexican will ignore it. Where I live it is common to see a driver go the wrong way on a one-way street to avoid a lengthy circumnavigation. Since speeds are about five miles an hour, it isn't dangerous. The police don't patrol because there isn't enough crime (in my town: the big cities are as bad as ours) to justify it. It works. Everybody is happy, which isn't a crime in Mexico.

Here is an explanation of Mexican criminality. The United States realizes that a citizen must be protected whether he wants to be or not-controlled, regulated, and intimidated in every aspect of everything he does, for his own good. He cannot be trusted to run his life.

Have you ever wondered how much good the endless surveillance, preaching, and rules really do? Or might it be that the rules are just stupid, the product of meddlesome bureaucrats and frightened petty officials with too much time on their hands?

Read more!

It's Usually About Money

By reading this first paragraph you may think you know the conclusion...read it all to see another.


by Charley Reese, King Features Syndicate

Conflicts are often about money. One factor that might account for the Bush administration's hostility toward Iran is Iran's plan to open a bourse—an oil exchange—in March in which Iranian oil will be sold for euros, not dollars.Now, a short, oversimplified history of money is in order. At the end of World War II, the Bretton Woods Agreement stipulated that the U.S. dollar would be redeemable in gold—for foreigners. In other words, any foreign government or business that got antsy about the value of the dollar and held a bunch of them could redeem them for gold at a predetermined rate.

Thanks to the spendthrift ways of our federal government, by the Nixon administration Europeans had such large claims against American gold that President Nixon unilaterally abrogated the agreement. No, he said, you can't redeem your dollars in gold, and the value of the dollar will simply float on the open market.

Shortly thereafter, another agreement was made with the oil-producing countries in the Persian Gulf that in exchange for protection, they would always sell their oil for dollars. Thus was born the petrodollar. This allowed the U.S. to continue its spendthrift ways and, in effect, pass on its inflation to the rest of the world. The dollar was and remains the world's reserve currency.

Now, if the Iranian market in euros is successful, then more and more people might decide that they don't need to hang on to their dollars and might start dumping them for euros or some other currency or commodity. That could, in effect, toss inflation back to the U.S.—and not just creep-along inflation, but sudden and painful inflation.

Unlike foreigners, Americans are captive of legal-tender laws. These laws say you have to accept the Federal Reserve note as payment for all debts and goods and services, no matter how worthless it becomes. Remember, a fiat currency like ours, backed up by nothing, has no inherent value. Its value is determined only by its purchasing power. If the U.S. currency is greatly devalued, Americans might find themselves in the same position as the German people in the old Weimar Republic.

If you get a Social Security check for $400 and all of a sudden it will only buy you $50 worth of goods and services, the U.S. government can say to you, "Tough beans, peasant." Remember, the more devalued a currency becomes, the higher the prices people will demand. The poor Germans in the 1920s got to the point where they needed a wheelbarrow to carry enough inflated currency to the market to buy a loaf of bread.

Now, a respected Arab journalist does not believe that America's hostility to Iran has anything to do with the bourse, scheduled to open in March. Her reason for that statement is that she is sure Bush has no understanding whatsoever of world financial affairs. I tend to agree with her. I think our hostility toward Iran is made in the same place our hostility toward Iraq was made—in Israel.

Nevertheless, we as Americans should be more concerned about the fate of the dollar than the fate of Iran or Israel. The present monetary system, based on a fiat dollar and a privately owned central bank misnamed the Federal Reserve System, is a handy way to rob the American people of the fruit of their labor.

Even creeping inflation that we have suffered since World War II in effect steals money from our paychecks, our pension checks, our savings accounts and our insurance policies. Many years ago, when I bought a $10,000 life-insurance policy, $10,000 was a good sum of money. Today it will buy about $2,000 worth of goods and services.

The federal process of deficit spending and monetizing the debt has stolen the remaining $8,000.

The federal deficit and the huge trade deficits do mean something.

They mean we are heading for big trouble that we won't be able to bomb our way out of.

Read more!

In Japan, Food as the Ultimate Show

In Japan, Food as the Ultimate Show
By Anthony Faiola, Washington Post Foreign Service

TOKYO—On a quest for the "ultimate ingredients," a team of food explorers from a hit television show here scaled mountains seeking the perfect mushroom and braved stormy seas off Alaska to catch extra-plump salmon.On a rival network, celebrities on "Love's Apron" amuse audiences by bungling complicated recipes. In another local smash, the members of a boy band prepare tasty treats for a constellation of guest stars whose ranks include Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

That's just for starters on Japanese TV, where food shows are what's cooking. In the nation that brought the world "Iron Chef," the programs have become the cash cows of prime time.

Food has long been a major staple of Japanese broadcasting. But with most popular cooking and gourmet shows far cheaper to produce than star-powered dramas, TV producers and researchers say food shows now account for an estimated 35 to 40 percent of all domestic programming.

In this island nation famous for healthy and long-lived citizens rather than bulging waistlines, the shows' popularity underscores a less well-known Japanese obsession: eating.

Indeed, there are few societies where food appears more exalted—or expensive. Japan is the home of the $15 apple, the $5 piece of chocolate, beef from Kobe and kaiseki ryori—seasonal delicacies served in numerous small courses and gorgeously presented on decorative bowls and plates. Emphasis is on quality, not quantity, and one pays accordingly. Price tags for such meals can top $400 per person.

Almost every town of any significant size in Japan boasts well-stocked "food souvenir" shops at airports and train stations where visitors snap up regional specialties. Thousands of food pilgrims regularly flock to the countryside in search of seasonal dishes. Japanese travel agencies call food one of the main engines of international travel. Kinki Nippon Tourist, a leading travel agency, peddles scores of popular food-themed escapes, including sweets tours of Taiwan and afternoon-tea trips to Hong Kong.

Chefs, particularly those with their own TV shows, enjoy cult status. At Tokyo's uber-popular La Bettola da Ochiai restaurant, owned by celebrity chef Tsutomu Ochiai, demand for dinner reservations is so high that requests must be made months in advance—and even then only on the third Sunday of odd-numbered months. Lunch hopefuls form lines hours before opening time.

"The Japanese tend not to mind lining up and waiting if it means you are getting good food," said Kumi Hino, a stylish 43-year-old housewife who arrived at 9:30 a.m. on a recent day to wait in La Bettola's lunch line. For cooking at home, Hino said she buys meat, fish and vegetables at separate outlets, often searching for top-grade ingredients in the vast food basements of Tokyo's grand department stores. "We are highly obsessed about food, we are curious about it, and we are patient," she said.

Japanese also like to look at it. Particularly in vogue are shows featuring celebrity "food tasters" who travel to towns across the country to sample local delicacies. In what has become a defining moment of domestic TV culture, the camera moves in for a close-up of a glistening mouthful of food dangling scrumptiously off a pair of chopsticks. The morsel then slips into the mouth of a taster, whose eyes go wide before the inevitable exclamation, " Oishii !"—the Japanese word for delicious.

Presentation and visual appeal are as important as taste. For that reason, food shows must often shoot many takes to capture a morsel's full appeal.

"If the steam isn't blowing off the food in just the right way, people will not be as fascinated and will not see the food as delicious," said Motonobu Nakamura, the director of the "ultimate ingredients" show, "Which Dish?" "The idea is to make the viewer feel that they are actually eating the food themselves, making it so they can almost taste it," he said.

Yet some Japanese wonder whether the daily cornucopia being served up on TV may

be one reason for the gradually rising national obesity rate revealed in recent studies.

A proliferation of Western-style fast food and popular instant noodle dishes have received much of the blame. But are all those delicious TV spreads whetting the national appetite a bit too much?

Read more!