Saturday, July 23, 2005

Shaved Pussy

I have three cats. They’ve been shedding like mad. It’s very hot in my flat. I figure if I’m hot sitting here in nothing but shorts, surely the cats must be suffering, covered in thick fur as they are.

Hmmm …

Then I noticed that my neighbor had shaved his standard poodle. I asked if I could borrow his animal fur clippers. Next, I talked my brother/roommate into assisting me with my cockamamie cat clipping scheme.

The first customer, Henry, was his ‘ol pliant self when I gently picked him up and walked him to the center of the living room. Once the clippers revved up, however, he started flipping out—twisting, thrashing and slashing. Ouch! I wouldn’t give up, though, and as I tried to hold him steady, I cajoled my brother to begin the haircut. As the clippers came closer, Henry let out the most unhappy, wailing, alien-like cry I’ve ever heard. Cats can make the most horrendous sounds, let me tell ya. I decided I couldn’t go through with it. I released him and he scampered off to hide in the closet.

Next customer! Yes, Tiger—how do you do this hot and humid evening? “Meow.” Great. Let us begin.

Tiger didn’t struggle as much, and she didn’t make the same horrible, blood-curdling cry that Henry made. We managed to clip the hair on her back, sides, and tail. She looks ridiculous.

Then it was off to find skittish Zena. She knew something was up. She twisted and struggled so hard that I realized I needed protection, lest I get more scratched up than I was already. I put on an old leather jacket and some winter gloves and then grabbed her. The plan worked and we were able to give Zena more or less the same stylish haircut as Tiger.

The haircuts were a partial success. I’ve noticed less cat hair on the floors, and when I pet Tiger and Zena, cat hair does not stick to my fingers. Although they look ridiculous, they feel like smooth, warm velvet.

A Drive to Israel, Part II

I finished Ali Salem’s A Drive to Israel a little over a week ago. Once I picked it up I couldn’t put it down, so I ended up reading it and Christopher Moore’s Fluke at the same time, alternating between the two.

Salem is an amazing human being. I loved every word of this book, every page. My only regret was that the book wasn’t longer!

I will quote selected parts:

Authorities on both sides of the borders never made an issue of Salem’s Egyptian license plates, nor did the significance of driving around Israel with Egyptian plates occur to Salem, who wrote:

I set out on the road to Tel Aviv, in my car with its Cairo license plates bearing white Egyptian numerals on a black background.

Later Victor Nachmias, a Jew of Egyptian origin, told me: “Look, you neglected to mention you're wandering around here in a car with Egyptian plates. I don’t know whether you are aware of it or if it’s residing in your subconscious. You are roaming the streets of Israel raising the Egyptian flag.”

I wasn’t thinking of this, but I admit it: when they left me the Egyptian plates, I felt happy. And I began to exploit the opportunities to announce my nationality, particularly in Israeli Arab villages … With Egyptian plates and a high-pitched jeep engine I was shouting, without opening my mouth: Hey, folks! … Egypt is your neighbor … I am an Egyptian coming forth from Egypt.

Another part of the book highlights an argument I’ve tried to make—in vain—to Arab or Muslim interlocutors time and again: not all Israelis are diehard Zionists. Now, I think Zionism is a great ideology, overall. A Zionist is one who supports the existence of a homeland for the Jewish people. There are many different types and flavors of Zionism, but the overall ideology is hardly the twisted, evil Jewish-conspiracy-to-rule-the-world plot that so much of the Arab press makes it out to be. That being the unfortunate case, that Zionism gets such a bad rap, it is understandable why so many Arabs and Muslims view Zionism as being the worst sort of evil on the planet; they are brainwashed to believe it.

So, when debating with Arabs/Muslims, I try to appeal to their humanity and sense of fairness. “Let’s assume your idea of Zionism is correct,” I say. “There are still hundreds of thousands of Israelis who live in Israel not because of Zionist ideology, but because of historic circumstance for which they had no control. How can you ‘push into the sea’ the old Holocaust survivor (and his progeny) who had no where else in the world to go, who came to Israel not out of conviction, but because he needed a refuge? Such people are ‘evil Zionists' that deserve to get blown up?

Here, Salem meets with an Israeli Jew of Iraqi origin—Abdallah—a life-long strike organizer. The encounter illustrates my point:

Prior to military rule in Iraq, the stupid despotic governments there allowed people not only to strike and demonstrate, but also to shout opposition slogans. Abdallah didn’t mention the name of the political faction to which he had belonged, it wasn’t important and I didn’t ask him. What was important was that it allowed him to pursue his art as a strike leader.

“A leader of the cell in the party in Iraq summoned me and said, ‘Abdallah, you are responsible for the wounded and injured in tomorrow’s demonstration. We will clash with the police and provoke them to hurt us. Some will be injured of course. Prepare the necessary provisions.’”

I wonder what were the chants that Abdallah was leading? What were the slogans that he stayed up all night writing on cloth banners? “Palestine is Arab … Down with Zionism?”

On that day, or to be more precise, during that demonstration, he cleared his throat in preparation for the famous chant, “Down with Zionism,” when he was stunned by another chant, which started behind him, as if it were the shout of fate: “Death to the Jews.”

That cry in Baghdad was not in jest, it was meant literally.

At that moment of gestalt, Abdallah discovered that Abdallah Rabi’a the Iraqi Arab from Baghdad and Abdallah Rabi’a the Jew were one and the same. Whereas death was not demanded for Abdallah the Arab it was demanded for Abdallah the Jew. So he moved to Israel.

“It is known that you are against Zionism.”
“I was against it … Now I am here.”
“I came fearing for my life.”
“Your name is Abdallah … Isn’t it?”
“Okay … Now your name is Ovadiah.”
“Why? My name is Abdallah.”
“Abdallah is the same as Ovadiah … and Rabi’a is Rabi … Your name now is Ovadiah Rabi.”

Today he is Ovadiah Rabi, though he was able to keep his old first name, at least among his friends, and became known as Abdallah Ovadiah. He had been one servant of God but became two in two different languages [Abdallah/Ovadiah means slave/servant of God –semite1973]. They deprived him of the name he was raised on but, praise God, they permitted him to pursue his fine art, strikes and demonstrations. Who would permit him this anywhere else in the Middle East?

It was apparent that Salem was deeply affected by his encounters with Sephardim.

Religion is a basic element of identity but not one’s entire identity. We all belong to this place, and we keep deep inside us the voices of this part of the earth. As for me, I don’t need to search in the dictionary for the meaning of the word ‘Sephardim’ to know that it includes Jewish Arabs, as well as Jewish Iranians and Bukharans. My references stand before me, vibrant with life. My references are people as I see them.

I began to notice this from the moment in the cafeteria when the Iraqi woman greeted me with such joy, then the Moroccan Jewish youth in the hotel restaurant who treated me in that affectionate way, then all the Jewish Arabs whom I met. Do you remember the story of the story of the old-fashioned Upper Egyptian who was ready to lay down his life for a person connected to his home town? I am their home town.

I remembered back to my semester-long stay in Israel during my senior year in high school. Part of the program included home-stays with Israeli families. I intentionally requested to live with a Sephardic family; being Ashkenazi I’m quite familiar with ‘us,’ thank you (and Ashkenazi food sucks). My host family, the Nissims, were of Iraqi origin. With the exception of the oldest son, Eli, the entire family told me they voted for various right-wing parties. The parents—both born in Iraq and fluent in Arabic—were the most right-wing. Indeed, historically the backbone of the Likud Party in Israel are the Sephardim.

Salem had an interesting take on this phenomenon:

“But the Oriental Jews whom you call Arabs, they treated our POW’s the most cruelly at the front. And they usually vote for religious extremists parties, despite the fact that they are ‘Arabs’ as you call them.”

Yes, but you are making a simple mistake. Don’t say “in spite of the fact they are Arabs” but rather “because they are Arabs.” Indeed the best evidence that they are Arabs in their bones is exactly what you mentioned. Is there anyone more cruel to an Arab than another Arab? There is no need to be ashamed of this fact. What do you think of the way the Iraqi Arabs treated the Kuwaiti Arabs?

“War is war, war turns people into monsters.”

I might agree with you, but what do you think of the way the other Arabs treat Egyptian workers in the Gulf, while as you know we are at peace with everyone?

“If the Oriental Jews are Arabs as you claim, then why do they vote for religious parties that are hostile to Arabs?”

For a simple, clear reason: they want to cause trouble for and fight against the Arab governments, which they hate just as we Arabs living in the Arab region do. In this matter they don’t differ from you or me. Answer me honesty, assume an opportunity presented itself to cause trouble for the Arab governments publicly, wouldn’t you take advantage of it?

I think it would make an interesting sociological study to examine the ethnic identities of Sephardic Jews in Israel, especially among those born in Israel.


I guess I had too much beer last night. I'm going back to sleep. I'll be fine later.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Thoughts On Faith--Or Lack Thereof

I am not a religious person. But there have been times in my life when I wanted to be religious. It’s never worked out, though.

The first time I tried to be religious was shortly after reading Exodus by Leon Uris at the age of 15. Exodus started my lifelong fascination with Israel. I soon began to overcome my infantile rejection of being Jewish, which had previously manifested itself in tantrums of whining to my parents about, “Why do I have to go to Hebrew school? I don’t want a bar-mitzvah. I don’t want to go to Sunday school. I hate it! Wahhh!”

Nevertheless, as I became more and more fascinated by Israel, as my newfound pride in being Jewish grew, I decided that the next logical step was to become more observant. The only problem with that, however, was that I lacked the necessary spark of faith required to be a religious person.

Why did I lack faith? I owe that to my atheist father. He always challenged me about anything I learned in Sunday school. His persuasive and logical arguments prevented me from swallowing the Biblical accounts of miracles that we were taught. The Rabbi, bless his soul (I don’t believe in souls, so I guess it’s just a figure of speech), always patiently answered my incessant questions, but his answers did not satisfy me. My father’s logic, reason, and scientific-based arguments beat out the kind Rabbi’s faith and belief.

You may be wondering why my atheist father insisted on sending my brother and I to Hebrew and Sunday school. That’s a good question. I think this anecdote explains it: I remember my dad dropping us off at Sunday school and saying “Say ‘Hi’ to God for me!” as he sped off to go bowling in his B’nai Brith Jewish bowling league. I think that sort of sums it up. In my family, being Jewish has more to do with culture, habit and tradition—as well as a chip-on-the-shoulder because of anti-Semitism—rather than religious faith.


So, here I was becoming interested in my heritage and trying to figure out where I fit in. I was proud to be Jewish, so proud that I wanted to be religious, but try as I might, I knew deep-down that I still didn’t believe in miracles or the monotheistic idea of God. I didn’t know what an agnostic was back then, but in retrospect that’s what I was (and still am).

I Remember around that time ordering a pizza with a friend—a non-Jew, like most of my friends—and requesting no pepperoni. He couldn’t understand why all of a sudden I didn’t want pepperoni, and gave me an incredulous look that made me feel silly for trying to eschew pork (mmm, bacon, argharghar), which I had always eaten. The whole no-pork-thing didn’t last very long, and of course giving up shrimp and cheeseburgers was never a consideration anyway. Alright, so being religious wasn’t for me, I told myself.


Some years ago I suffered a broken-heart, I was confused about my future, and, well, I was basically depressed. I felt empty. In my pain and desperation I thought that maybe religion could fill the void. I decided that I’d become a more devout Jew. I woke up one day and thought, “Well, religious Jews start the day praying with tefillin.” So I went into my closet and dug out my tellifin, which had been given to me by my Rabbi when I was a bar-mitvah. At the time I was living at my parents’ home, and so I discreetly crept into the empty living room, faced east towards Jerusalem, and tried to pray like a good Jew. All of a sudden my mom walked in. She immediately burst out laughing. That was the end of that. But whether or not my mom would have caught me, or laughed or not, trying to be religious never would have worked for me. Like I said, I’ve always lacked the spark of faith, and I knew it then.


National Public Radio had a program today about religions. Some professor dude at Iowa State University, I think, was arguing that all monotheistic faiths have a penchant within them for violence. Well, no shit. I needed a professor to tell me that?! Anyway, the program, or at least what I heard of it, annoyed me. All of the callers I heard were quite smug in their indictment of religion and its bloody history, but of course nobody mentioned the millions killed in the name of atheist communism or fascism.

All of a sudden I had an epiphany (actually, I’ve had this idea before, but I never really thought hard about it ... and I'm not claiming to have “discovered” this idea, either): Religions are not necessarily what is written in their holy books, et cetera, but rather religions are how their follows act. In other words, religion is what its followers do.

Case in point: In the Torah there’s all sorts of Taliban-like shit about stoning adulterers and the l ike, but everybody knows that Jews are, by and large, some of the most liberal and progressive folks out there. Even among the observant, stoning and death-sentences and the like haven’t been practiced in probably over a thousand years.

I am friends with a Franciscan priest, a former college instructor of mine who teaches Holocaust studies and comparative literature at the local university. On a couple of occasions I’ve had dinner at his home. He’s the nicest, kindest, most thoughtful and gentle person you’ll ever meet—and he’s a priest! Yes, at one time Catholics and other Christians were completely fucking nuts, but by and large not anymore. Yes, there is a passage or two in the New Testament where Jesus sounds kind of militant, but to judge all of Christianity based off of that is, as Mike Tyson would say, completely ludicrousth.

Or, take Islam. We are told time and again that Islam is a religion of peace. It could reasonably be argued that that’s not true; there are certainly a lot of violent passages in the Koran. Nevertheless, if one day the vast majority of Muslims reform their faith and reinterpret so that it really is peaceful, so that they cease following sharia literally, at that time Islam really will be a religion of peace. That’s good enough for me. (Let’s hope that day comes soon, for our sake and theirs.)

I am not anti-religion. I don’t see how any fair-minded person could be. There are so many different types of religious people, it is impossible to put them all into one group. Further, when you consider the bloody history of secular political ideologies, such as fascism and communism, we should remember that, as stated above, religious people are NOT the sole instigators and perpetrators of violence and mass slaughters in history. This doesn’t mean that a shit-load of religious people aren’t dangerous, or at least annoying as hell. The types of religious people that annoy me the most—apart from the murderous ones, and “annoying” doesn't really capture how I feel about them—are the proselytizers and those who try to convince me to believe as they do.

First of all, why can’t they accept that some people simply don’t have faith like they do? So they happen to believe in something that cannot in anyway way be empirically proved, good for them, but why do so many insist that I agree with them? It’s an insult to my intelligence. I respect the religious people who have their faith and don’t try to convince others, but for the ones that won’t accept my belief in science and empiricism over their faith and superstition, well … I wont say it. The most idiotic thing they do is when they try to prove faith with … faith!

Me: “Well, I’m a little dubious about why I should believe [fill in the blank].”
Annoying Religious Person: “I’ll tell you why you should believe that and do this.”
Me: “Okay, tell me why.”
ARP: “Because it says so in the Bible.”
Me: “That doesn’t prove anything.”
ARP: “But that’s what God commands in the bible.”

Talk about a tautological argument.

About two years ago “Old man Shapiro,” as I called him—a gruff old Jew for Jesus that I knew from the gym—would regularly try to save my soul. Finally I told him, “I don’t believe in souls.”

Shapiro: “What do you mean you don’t believe in souls. I’ll prove to you you have a soul.”
Me: “Okay, go for it.”
Shapiro: “You know when you dream, when you’re sleeping?”
Me: “Yeah.”
Shapiro: “Okay.”
Me: “What?!”
Shapiro: “Yeah.”
Me: “Dreams prove I have a soul? I don’t think so, sorry.”
Shapiro: “Well, if it isn’t your soul, what is it when you are dreaming.”
Me: “Uh, well, how about a physiological process in your brain, neurons firing off.”
Shapiro: “What about amputees, when they claim they can still feel their missing limb—what about that, huh?”
Me: “What about it, sheesh. None of this proves to me that souls exist.”

Shapiro, by the way, is a lawyer, ostensibly not a dumb person … I guess.

This brings me to abortion. Pro-choicers and pro-lifers simply have to realize that we are never going to convince the other of the righteousness of our points of view.

A pro-life person, from what I understand, is pro-life because he or she believes that the millisecond a sperm touches an egg, some sort of metaphysical “miracle” occurs and that a human life—or at least a complete human “soul”—has been created. Herein lies the point where their non-empirical religious faith comes into play. They believe it is murder to “kill” this “soul,” even though it cannot be rationally argued that a microscopic glop of amorphous cells are remotely human, or that a non-measurable thing called a “soul” has been created.

The pro-choicer, on the other hand, recognizes that this mush of cells is hardly a fully developed, sentient human being, and so they do not have a moral problem terminating it. Most pro-choice people feel this way about potential human life until around the second trimester, or at least that’s my view (I am opposed to abortion after the first trimester).

The point: neither side will ever see eye-to-eye. The battle over abortion will be with us for our entire lifetimes.

Finally, I remember when I was about 7 and a neighborhood kid told me I was going to go to hell because I was Jewish and didn’t believe in Jesus, or because the Jews killed Jesus, or something. I got freaked out and went home crying. My dad inquired what was wrong, and I told him. He replied, “Well, at least you’ll be with the family.”

If you are a person of faith, that is good for you. In a sense, I am envious; I wish I could be confident that I knew all the answers to life's mysteries. But you should also know, person of faith, that you can’t convince me to have faith by using faith as an example.

To anybody reading this essay, the key is that we all have to learn to live in peace with each other and have respect for our differences. I hope I don’t sound like I’m moralizing, but sometimes these simple truths must be repeated.

The Looming Chinese Threat, Part II

In today’s Washington Times, Don Feder again warns us about the looming Chinese threat in his latest article entitled “China's Zhu-doo diplomacy.”

I recently blogged here that the United States needs to aggressivly develop strong economic, diplomatic and military relations with countries surrounding China, specifically democratic India, which once fought a war with China. Feder agrees with me. He wrote that we should “[s]trengthen our growing alliance with democratic India. Sometime in this century, India's population and economy will surpass China's. In a recent Pew Research Global Attitudes Survey, pro-American sentiments were stronger in India than in other countries surveyed. China occupies a broad swath of Indian territory (taken in the 1960s), and is the principal patron of India's arch-enemy Pakistan. It's hard to imagine a more logical ally in a future conflict with the People's Republic.”

Another reason we should support closer ties with India: Indian cuisine easily rivals Chinese cuisine.

Self-Hating Jews Controlling the Media

From now on I'm going to publish Honest Reporting's communiques.

COMMUNIQUE: 21 July 2005

Unreliable Palestinian 'Witnesses'
The latest in a long pattern of media dissemination of false Palestinian accounts.The unreliability of Palestinian sources has long undermined the integrity of Mideast media coverage. In April 2002, Palestinian 'eyewitness' reports of an Israeli 'massacre' and 'mass graves' in Jenin were immediately transmitted and amplified around the world, but were later proven to be completely false.

This problem is still very much with us. Last month, AP and Reuters reported Palestinian prisoners' claims that their Israeli guards tore up copies of the Koran to humiliate them. A Palestinian prisoner later admitted that she herself did the ripping.

And yesterday (July 20) Reuters, relying on unnamed Palestinian witnesses, reported that 'Jewish settlers stabbed a Palestinian boy to death in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.' The accusation gained traction when The New York Times included the Reuters report in its own daily dispatch.

But today it's become clear that the boy's assailants were Palestinian. Haaretz reported:

Palestinians initially claimed the boy was stabbed during a violent clash with settlers... Later, however, senior Palestinian figures told Israel Defense Forces figures the boy was likely murdered within the context of a clan feud.

Reuters itself now reports senior Palestinian officials acknowledging that 'there is no evidence that settlers were behind the stabbing.' [UPDATE: Palestinian police have arrested a Palestinian suspect in the murder.]

So we have yet another case of dubious Palestinian claims unquestionably disseminated by the western media, but later proven false. Of course, the false version remains part of the public record, and for one who doesn't see the correction, the fabrication is the only version that sticks.

Media monitors EyeOnThePost caught a similar case this week, when the Washington Post reported that 'more than a dozen bystanders were killed [by IDF fire], according to [Palestinian] hospital officials'. That report was never substantiated, never repeated elsewhere ― and never corrected by the Post.

Joshua Muravchik notes in his book, Covering the Intifada: How the Media Reported the Palestinian Uprising:

Journalists seem to follow a canon that says when two sides are fighting, it is their obligation to report equally and with equal credence what is said by each. But the quality of the information provided by the two sides in this conflict is highly asymmetrical. By this I mean simply that the Palestinians repeatedly lie.

The time has come for the major news outlets to institute a mandatory fact-checking period before promulgating dubious claims from Palestinian 'eyewitnesses' of supposed Israeli outrages.

The other issue here is the further erosion of Reuters' credibility. This highly influential media outlet ― whose staff members were caught last week cavorting with a Jenin terrorist in a 'gag film' ― consistently demonstrates an eagerness to function as a pro-Palestinian mouthpiece.

Are Reuters' Mideast reports carried in your local paper? If so, HonestReporting encourages you to approach your editor with the mountain of material indicating that Reuters does not provide a public service in its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In response to Monday's HonestReporting communique, the New York Times has corrected a erroneous photo caption on its online 'Mideast slideshow.' The corrected version is here, and the Times stated:

A picture caption on on Saturday with an article about attacks on Hamas militants in Gaza described the scene incorrectly. It showed a Palestinian police tank involved in a battle with Hamas militants, not the attack on Hamas militants earlier in the day by Israeli forces.

Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.


Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Personal Trainer

I advertised this blog as having to do with, among many things, exercise and fitness. Well, speaking of exercise and fitness—I think I’m about to be hired as a personal trainer (PT) for Bally’s Vic Tanny! Yippee!

Upon being hired—which seems to be a sure thing—I’ll have 90 days in which to study and pass the American Council on Exercise (ACE) exam, and thus become a certified PT. In the meantime, however I will be able to work as a trainer.

I think this will be a fun and fulfilling job. What’s also nice is that if—nay, not if, when—I write articles about fitness, I’ll be able to include in my byline that I’m a certified personal trainer. I’m hoping that will give future articles additional credence, and thus a better shot at publication.

Wasted Lives, Wasted Potential

I haven’t written in a couple of days because my mind has been reeling. Long story short: I went to middle school with a kid who later ended up shot-gunning to death a guy with whom I attended high school. This happened in 1995. I’ve thought off and on about the incident for years, and I finally decided to explore the idea of writing a story about the whole sordid account. I've done a little research, conducted a few interviews, and dug up a few articles about it from microfilm. Through connections in the criminal justice system, I was able to track down the guy with whom I went to middle school—who is in prison now. I wrote him a letter.

Well, he replied to my letter, and his letter has blown me away—no pun intended. I didn’t know what to expect in his reply—or even if he would reply—but suffice to say, the letter I received reveled a young man who is highly intelligent, articulate and deeply thoughtful. It makes everything even more complicated. This guy will NEVER get out of prison until the day he takes his last breath. He's a lifer—no chance for parole. It’s all such a sad, tragic thing... It makes me feel compelled to do this story, to understand *why* this happened. Perhaps I’ll blog more about this in the future. Suffice to say, I've even been laying awake at night thinking about it, thinking about the killers (there were three killers: two had pistols; the guy I knew from my youth had a sawed-off shotgun. His job was to "finish them off."), and about the victims (one was completely innocent, in the wrong place at the wrong time. The guy I knew from high school was the intended target.).

... This wasn’t supposed to happen among people that I rubbed elbows with in my youth! Most of us have gone on to live normal lives—even successful lives—but for a few of us, something went terribly, horribly wrong.


That's what I want to learn.

Monday, July 18, 2005

The Looming Chinese Threat

For years I’ve pooh-poohed the idea that the United States would ever have to face China in any sort of “hot” military confrontation. Lucrative business ties, I thought—and the desire to deepen them and create prosperity for all—would prevent China from going toe-to-toe with its most important trading partner, the US. However, there have been a number of ominous signals from China that we should take seriously, specifically the threats last week by Chinese General Zhu Chenghu, who threatened to use nuclear weapons against us if we interfere with China’s plans for an invasion of Taiwan.

At a recent press conference in Hong Kong, Zhu, the head of China’s National Defense University, warned: “If the Americans are determined to interfere [against our aggression on Taiwan –ed.]…we will be determined to respond. We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all cities east of Xian (central China). Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds … of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

As Don Feder aptly notes, this was a “classic illustration of totalitarian disdain for human life. The People’s Republic is willing to sacrifice tens of millions of its own people – and to inflict similar casualties on an adversary – to achieve its geo-political goals.” Yikes. Click here to read all of Feder’s chilling article.

I think the United States should start prodding the Japanese to increase their defense spending. We should also aggressively strengthen military ties with as many of China’s neighbors as possible, such as India (who fought a war with China), Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, and whoever else wants to join. Perhaps a united front against the Chinese will get them to think twice before embarking on any insane military adventures against their neighbors.

Sunday, July 17, 2005

Iranians risk their lives to be free; world yawns.

The lack of coverage of events in Iran is astounding. Again, the mainstream media drops the ball. Much thanks to Michael Ledeen, who has consistently kept the spotlight on Iran.

Murder’s Row Rules: The Mullahs and Us

see web stats