Don't we all know that in 1945, Nazi Germany fell to the hands of the Allied forces? Well, not without a trail. Since 1946, when cleanup crews began to clean areas ravaged by WWII in Germany, the German government is still paying bomb-squads to cleanup leftover war material. Materials like grenades, bullet shell, mortars, and rockets are still being uncovered beneath the rock and metal underground. Across the surrounding landscape, there is still visible evidence that battles were fought or munitions were tested... and abandoned.
Not too many people know how the Nazi government fell in 1945, in retreat of the mostly-Soviet advance from the East. Jews held in concentration camps were rushed through trains and went on death marches towards the center of Germany for a final last stand... and left a messy trail behind. Although most of the evils of the concentration camps were destroyed to hide evidence of the Nazi crimes against humanity, we know today from the Jewish witnesses that the Holocaust was real.
Also, the large ammunition-manufacturers (labored by the Jewish and war prisoners) were hastily left behind with a trail. There were extremely-quick advancements being made to weaponry in these ammunitions-making and testing facilities of the Nazi camps. For example, had the retreat of the Nazis been delayed for more than 6 months, their V-2 Rockets, which were almost as damaging as any bomb-equipped Tomcat fighter of today. It could fire 120 miles away to a perfectly-targeted objective, and only needed a few more months to advance their own similar nuclear bombs.
This news story is just evidence of a reminder that Nazi Germany was only 60 years ago--- within the lifetime of most senior citizens. And how close this world truly was to the chaos that insumed the desperate, horrible, and bloody retreat similar to the ancient Romans. The Allies may have even been forced to surrender?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
United States of Iraq? Best to look back at America's Past
"http://planforiraq.com/dow
nload"
Arent we a little pissed and tired of "stay the course" and "cut and run"?
Why not consider that we do neither?
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), a democrat who, in his "Plan for Iraq", has a main basis for our victory in making a new stable Iraq that involves neither the American troops deaths nor the Iraqi's downfall.... STATES RIGHTS?! WHAT A CONCEPT!
Well, he feels that since it is clear that there are 3 seperate (and almost completely-distinguishable) regions of 3 particular groups of Iraqis: Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.
Here's how these regions are divided into 18 regions: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/
maps/atlas_middle_east/ira
q_divisions.jpg
... and i dont have an online source, but this week's newsweek mag had a map of the 3 main groups of sunnis, shiites, and kurds. (kurds top, shiite lower right, and sunnis everything else)
Doesn't our own history explain itself in this situation? The American Civil War was NOT all about slavery, but states rights. I, personally, am an advocate of the old Confederacy (except for the slavery and mob-rule problems), and believe that if the Confederacy gained independence, the world would be much different... but our government wouldn't be so conspiratorial, power-hungry, and politically-driven as it is today... and the world would prob be even more stable, considering the South and the North would've cooperated in both World Wars and the Cold War. Not only that, but there would've been heavy competition between the Union and the Confederacy, and that would've produced a more advanced North America (and I bet the Confederacy would've conquested Mexico, and the Union Canada- making them both better nations than they are today).
That is what could happen to Iraq, if we just consider the simple-genious of 3 states under a Confederacy-like Federalism, in which there are well-balanced and limited powers of the central government (capitol Baghdad). Oil would be evenly distributed proportionately and national security- but besides that, the states retain most of thier own powers.
nload"
Arent we a little pissed and tired of "stay the course" and "cut and run"?
Why not consider that we do neither?
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), a democrat who, in his "Plan for Iraq", has a main basis for our victory in making a new stable Iraq that involves neither the American troops deaths nor the Iraqi's downfall.... STATES RIGHTS?! WHAT A CONCEPT!
Well, he feels that since it is clear that there are 3 seperate (and almost completely-distinguishable) regions of 3 particular groups of Iraqis: Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.
Here's how these regions are divided into 18 regions: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/
maps/atlas_middle_east/ira
q_divisions.jpg
... and i dont have an online source, but this week's newsweek mag had a map of the 3 main groups of sunnis, shiites, and kurds. (kurds top, shiite lower right, and sunnis everything else)
Doesn't our own history explain itself in this situation? The American Civil War was NOT all about slavery, but states rights. I, personally, am an advocate of the old Confederacy (except for the slavery and mob-rule problems), and believe that if the Confederacy gained independence, the world would be much different... but our government wouldn't be so conspiratorial, power-hungry, and politically-driven as it is today... and the world would prob be even more stable, considering the South and the North would've cooperated in both World Wars and the Cold War. Not only that, but there would've been heavy competition between the Union and the Confederacy, and that would've produced a more advanced North America (and I bet the Confederacy would've conquested Mexico, and the Union Canada- making them both better nations than they are today).
That is what could happen to Iraq, if we just consider the simple-genious of 3 states under a Confederacy-like Federalism, in which there are well-balanced and limited powers of the central government (capitol Baghdad). Oil would be evenly distributed proportionately and national security- but besides that, the states retain most of thier own powers.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Since 1987, Conservative radio has flourished, Liberal radio slowly decayed of itself, and NPR has become a good un-biased network to show different views and events of our world.
So what's the problem?
Power-hungry politicians and lame-duck liberals playing politics with "The Fairness Doctrine" to get their voice heard by force. And now that the Congress is held by Democrats, Free Speech is fair game.
What is the Fairness Doctrine? In a nutshell, the Fairness Doctrine (a unianimous agreement with no true legislation) required all broadcasters of radio to give a "fair" amount of airtime to express opinions. That was... until 1987 when it was decided unconstitutional.
"The FCC held that the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was probably unconstitutional." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine)
Although it sounds "fair" to hold both voices for every issue presented, it can indirectly become commercial suicide. What if the people don't care to hear all sides of every single minute issue presented on talk radio? Well, the simple solution is that they will stop listening to it, because they dont have the time nor patience to listen to one issue with 10 viewpoints, rather than 10 issues with one viewpoint. (the only alternative is to limit 50 viewpoints to one measley sentence for one issue, as oppose to 50 comprehensive sentences with one viewpoint issue) When people tune out of the radio, advertising during the radio programs become useless and costly, so the radio station sponsors don't sponsor the station anymore. Once enough sponsors have gone, the investor of the radio station will have no choice but to give up the station.
... and to whom? Well, the only institutions who can afford to lose money by broadcasting are charities and the Government. Charities wouldn't care to spend money on stations, because broadcasting all viewpoints would be too expensive. But the Federal Government doesn't really have a limit to how much it can spend, considering it can just tax the American people, and doesn't seem to have a problem with deficit spending nowadays.
I also recall Nazi government relentlessly taking over all of the communications and using propoganda to convince the people to murder 3+million Jews in the 1930s-1940s
Here's a hypothetical preview of how our limitation of free speech will assume position under the Fairness Doctrine (limited to 13 words to conserve time for "equal" representation)...
Question: What do you think about the escalation of illegal-Mexican murder rates nationally?
Democrat: "Where are the statistics of the average murder rates nationally?It'd be worse!"
Socialist: "Well, why don't we count the rich-American murder rates, which are higher?"
African-American: "This is another right-wing attack on another minority, just like Rosa Parks."
Mexican-American: "Why are we, the Mexican-Americans, always targeted for this sort of attack?"
Asian-American: "This event does not specifically or definitively concern me in any direct way..."
Republican: "Well, this is one more reason why we should close the border now."
Green: "Someone should have given them a flower; then they would both be happy."
Nazi: "The Mexicans should have died; there would be less of the problem, right?"
Libertarian: "I'm assuming that they did this because they are upset with the government."
Communist: "This is blatently unfair; The government should kill both of them right now."
Without the Fairness Doctrine, with 130 words with one viewpoint:
Question: What do you think about the escalation of illegal-Mexican murder rates nationally?
Neal Boortz (Conservative-Libertarian): "On Saturday night a Tennessee State Trooper was shot and killed by 17-year-old Alejandro Guana and 19-year-old Orlando Garcia. It would seem that the two Hispanics were transporting drugs.
The next question is were these two Hispanic thugs in this country legally? Were they illegal aliens? Last week a 14-year veteran law enforcement officer was killed in a head-on accident as he was driving to work. You guessed it .. an illegal alien caused the accident.
Twenty-five Americans a day. That's the estimate of the death toll from the Mexican invasion. About one-half of that number from murders, the other half from traffic accidents.
That's going to change soon, though. The Democrats will soon be introducing their amnesty bill .. and George Bush will be all-to-eager to sign it."
.... which gave you more information? With the Fairness Doctrine (10 views with 13 words), or without (1 view with 130 words)?
And one more thing... doesn't NPR already cover the multiple viewpoints?
I admit, there are many radio shows, like Sean Hannidy and Rush Limbaugh, that do not...
It is mind-numb to believe this "fairness" eventually leads to a fair viewpoint. Considering the government, in the long run, would theoretically become the one sole viewpoint in the end, there will be
So what's the problem?
Power-hungry politicians and lame-duck liberals playing politics with "The Fairness Doctrine" to get their voice heard by force. And now that the Congress is held by Democrats, Free Speech is fair game.
What is the Fairness Doctrine? In a nutshell, the Fairness Doctrine (a unianimous agreement with no true legislation) required all broadcasters of radio to give a "fair" amount of airtime to express opinions. That was... until 1987 when it was decided unconstitutional.
"The FCC held that the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was probably unconstitutional." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine)
Although it sounds "fair" to hold both voices for every issue presented, it can indirectly become commercial suicide. What if the people don't care to hear all sides of every single minute issue presented on talk radio? Well, the simple solution is that they will stop listening to it, because they dont have the time nor patience to listen to one issue with 10 viewpoints, rather than 10 issues with one viewpoint. (the only alternative is to limit 50 viewpoints to one measley sentence for one issue, as oppose to 50 comprehensive sentences with one viewpoint issue) When people tune out of the radio, advertising during the radio programs become useless and costly, so the radio station sponsors don't sponsor the station anymore. Once enough sponsors have gone, the investor of the radio station will have no choice but to give up the station.
... and to whom? Well, the only institutions who can afford to lose money by broadcasting are charities and the Government. Charities wouldn't care to spend money on stations, because broadcasting all viewpoints would be too expensive. But the Federal Government doesn't really have a limit to how much it can spend, considering it can just tax the American people, and doesn't seem to have a problem with deficit spending nowadays.
I also recall Nazi government relentlessly taking over all of the communications and using propoganda to convince the people to murder 3+million Jews in the 1930s-1940s
Here's a hypothetical preview of how our limitation of free speech will assume position under the Fairness Doctrine (limited to 13 words to conserve time for "equal" representation)...
Question: What do you think about the escalation of illegal-Mexican murder rates nationally?
Democrat: "Where are the statistics of the average murder rates nationally?It'd be worse!"
Socialist: "Well, why don't we count the rich-American murder rates, which are higher?"
African-American: "This is another right-wing attack on another minority, just like Rosa Parks."
Mexican-American: "Why are we, the Mexican-Americans, always targeted for this sort of attack?"
Asian-American: "This event does not specifically or definitively concern me in any direct way..."
Republican: "Well, this is one more reason why we should close the border now."
Green: "Someone should have given them a flower; then they would both be happy."
Nazi: "The Mexicans should have died; there would be less of the problem, right?"
Libertarian: "I'm assuming that they did this because they are upset with the government."
Communist: "This is blatently unfair; The government should kill both of them right now."
Without the Fairness Doctrine, with 130 words with one viewpoint:
Question: What do you think about the escalation of illegal-Mexican murder rates nationally?
Neal Boortz (Conservative-Libertarian): "On Saturday night a Tennessee State Trooper was shot and killed by 17-year-old Alejandro Guana and 19-year-old Orlando Garcia. It would seem that the two Hispanics were transporting drugs.
The next question is were these two Hispanic thugs in this country legally? Were they illegal aliens? Last week a 14-year veteran law enforcement officer was killed in a head-on accident as he was driving to work. You guessed it .. an illegal alien caused the accident.
Twenty-five Americans a day. That's the estimate of the death toll from the Mexican invasion. About one-half of that number from murders, the other half from traffic accidents.
That's going to change soon, though. The Democrats will soon be introducing their amnesty bill .. and George Bush will be all-to-eager to sign it."
.... which gave you more information? With the Fairness Doctrine (10 views with 13 words), or without (1 view with 130 words)?
And one more thing... doesn't NPR already cover the multiple viewpoints?
I admit, there are many radio shows, like Sean Hannidy and Rush Limbaugh, that do not...
It is mind-numb to believe this "fairness" eventually leads to a fair viewpoint. Considering the government, in the long run, would theoretically become the one sole viewpoint in the end, there will be
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
