Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Gresham's Law In Action

Gresham's Law In Monetary Markets: When paper or counterfeit money is allowed to float in the system, people tend to use up their paper money and hoard the gold-backed coins.

Gresham's Law in Politics: When false reasoning is allowed to float in gatherings of leaders, others tend to devolve to fake arguments, and hoard their real designs.

ROME - Top U.S. and European officials agreed Wednesday on urgent action to halt the fighting in Lebanon and on the creation of a multinational force to keep the peace. But the two sides had starkly divergent views of what that means.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, who attended and issued a dramatic appeal for peace, had difficultly containing his disappointment. He said the Rome conference made "some progress," but pleaded with world leaders to keep working toward a cease-fire.

Saniora said the violence has brought his country, still rebuilding from its 1975-1990 civil war, "to its knees."

Of course, no mention that maybe, just maybe, Lebanon was brought to its knees by Hezbollah's occupying large parts of Lebanon, and placing armaments almost exclusively in civilian areas. No mention that maybe, just maybe, Hezbollah is the cause.

UN Security Council Resolution 1559:

The Security Council...Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias.

Bummer Behaves Himself

Sometimes Bummer gets mean.

Yes, Bummer sent the below to Cecilia.

Bummer, behave!


i am sure your in-box is absolutely flooded with mail over your poem.

i understand one's creative and emotional yearnings, and the complex voices that cry for attention when historically complicated events unfold.

i understand that you are trying to express those complicated, and heartfelt, feelings.

sometimes the hard hearts don't fully appreciate how and where emotion can relate to the movement of history and of men and women.

sometimes, it all just sounds like whomp, whomp, whomp.

i hope you have some supportive friends who give you comfort.

now, having said that, some think that you risk having a fascist cretin jihadist engage in a violent rape of you, just prior to his sawing off your head. such silly people.

they just aren't in tune with the rythym of the whomp whomp whomp sounds. the miss the poetry and beauty.

i sometimes wonder about the whomp whomp whomp sounds in a room in the middle east, as it is penetrated by a hizbollah rocket aimed at a school, packed with ball bearings designed solely to shred civilian flesh. are those whomp whomp whomp
sounds as beautiful as your poems?

the people just don't understand. they cannot see the beauty, they cannot understand why a real woman wants a real man.

thanks for showing us the way, cecilia.

bummer dietz


Let's revisit the leftist Dialectic:


(Marxists love it when you use poly-syllabic dirty works.)

Thesis = liberal democracy which does not confront the gathering storm, as it adversely affects the lifestyle of abundance which results from liberal democracy

Antithesis = unrelenting Islamic fascism causing war, and which will not ‘negotiate.’

Synthesis = war in which the fascist leaders must be eradicated, to the man, thereby once again preparing the field for the flowering of liberal democracy and its fruits.

Bring on the mid-east war. It has already begun, most however prefer the Phony War/Twilight War phase. As we sit today, the outcome is not in doubt. (Cf. Potsdam Ultimatum.)

The sooner the West emerges from the Twilight phase, the sooner we have the Synthesis.
War and decimation: Democracy predicate?

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Liberal MSM + Trial Lawyers = Attack !!

This website - - is a sorta Dun&Bradstreet of medical clients.

It will list litigous patient - those who sue and lose - so that the free market can deal with them as the market sees fit. Same as people or businesses who buy on credit, and don't pay.

It also attaches jeopardy to scumbag lawyers who file nuisance lawsuits on behalf of half-wits who don't know any better.

Kudos. Of course, the leftist MSM and its allies will soon attack this brilliant example of a free press and free enterprise, under some claim that "______ [insert name of suspect class] are being denied their 'civil right to receive healthcare."

Actually, the attacks have begun - check out this report:
Web Site Encourages Blacklist of Med-Mal Plaintiffs
Tuesday July 25, 2:57 am ET
Rebecca Riddick, Daily Business Review

In the latest effort to enable doctors to shun patients who sue, an offshore company has launched an Internet site that lists the names of plaintiffs who have filed medical malpractice cases in Florida and their attorneys.

The site,, encourages doctors to consider avoiding patients who are listed in the database, and it strongly encourages plaintiffs who have lost their cases at trial to turn around and sue their plaintiffs attorney.

"If your attorney proceeded with a lawsuit without warning you of the risks involved, you may be the victim of Legal Malpractice and may be entitled to compensation," the site states.

The new Web site is likely to trigger a fresh round of acrimony between doctors and plaintiffs lawyers in their long-running war over medical malpractice litigation. Plaintiffs lawyers and medical ethics experts say the site is unethical.

Andrew Yaffa, a plaintiffs attorney at Grossman Roth Olin Meadow Cohen Yaffa Pennekamp & Cohen in Boca Raton, Fla., called the site "disgusting." Yaffa said "it's a devious attempt to intimidate people from pursuing their rights."

The registered operator of the Web site, Medico-Judicial Online Media, has begun gathering data on Florida medical malpractice cases filed after July 4, said company spokesman Vishal Castun. The operators plan to make the database available for free starting next July, and eventually hope to publish a database covering medical malpractice cases across the United States. is based on the Caribbean island of Nevis. Castun said the offshore location will protect it against lawsuits. Castun declined to identify the principals behind the project. The site says it is "an information/news service written by journalists, not attorneys."

Castun said the site will list only cases that did not end in a plaintiff verdict on all counts because those cases presumably did not have merit or were frivolous. That, he said, distinguishes the site from a controversial Web site launched by Texas doctors in 2004. That site was quickly shut down following widespread criticism that it was unethical for doctors to turn away patients who have filed malpractice suits.


Castun said is intended for use by physicians, potential plaintiffs in medical and legal malpractice cases, and legal malpractice attorneys. Revenue will come from selling advertising to legal malpractice attorneys, he said.

Castun said the site does not take any formal position on whether doctors should screen out patients based on whether they are listed in the database. The Web site will simply "report the news," he said.

But the language on the site clearly encourages doctors to avoid such patients.

"A physician may feel that a patient who has filed a medical malpractice suit and lost a trial before a jury of their peers harbors unrealistic expectations of their physician and probably of the health care system at large," the site says on a page of information for doctors. "Accordingly, a responsible physician who feels that a patient's behavior demonstrates unrealistic medical expectations has both a right (and arguably a responsibility) to refuse elective care to that patient."

The Web site suggests that doctors also should consider refusing elective care to plaintiffs attorneys who bring the medical malpractice cases that did not result in plaintiff verdicts.

Bill Allen, program director for the University of Florida medical school's bioethics, law and medical professionalism program, said the site treads on thin ethical ice.

Physicians are legally free to form their own doctor-patient relationships, Allen said. But as professionals and state licensees, they have a general obligation to provide care. Allen also warned that the site could create serious problems for patients in rural areas and those who need specialty treatment, given the shortage of medical providers in rural locations and in specialty fields.

The American Medical Association, however, defended the right of doctors to use such information to screen out patients. Dr. Cecil Wilson of Winter Park, the chairman of the AMA board of trustees, said that "in the absence of an emergency, physicians have the right ethically [to choose] who they would elect to have as a part of their practice."

Wilson said the AMA has no official policy on the creation of this type of patient database.

A spokeswoman for the Florida Medical Association said the FMA shares the AMA's views on the matter.


In 2004, a group of Texas physicians launched The site listed the names of plaintiffs, attorneys and expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases. That site did not make any distinction between cases that ended in plaintiff verdicts and those that ended in defense verdicts or settlements.

According to the New York Times, a North Texas man had trouble finding a physician for his 18-year old son after his name was posted on the site. He had filed a medical malpractice suit after his wife died from a missed brain tumor, and had won an undisclosed settlement. was shut down four days after the Times article was published.

Castun argued that his will avoid the Texas site's mistakes. "The Texas site was doomed to fail on a number of points," he said. "It wasn't fair because all patients were listed. Of course there was going to be outrage." He said organizers of spoke with the creators of the Texas site to try to learn from their errors.

Unlike the Texas site, plans to list only plaintiffs who filed cases that ended in a defense verdict, a settlement, or a plaintiff verdict on only one count while other counts were dismissed.

The overwhelming majority of med-mal cases that go to trial result in defense verdicts. A large percentage of claims never go to trial, and many of those result in settlements. Some experts say that it's not possible to say that cases are "frivolous" just because they don't result in a plaintiff verdict.

A study released in May by researchers at the Harvard University School of Public Health concluded that claims that the U.S. medical malpractice system is riddled with frivolous lawsuits are overblown.

The researchers found clear-cut evidence of medical error in two-thirds of malpractice cases that are filed around the country. In those cases that involved a medical error, 73 percent of the plaintiffs received some sort of compensation. Of the one-third that did not involve a medical error, 72 percent of the plaintiffs did not receive compensation.

"Most malpractice claims involve medical error and serious injury, and claims with merit are far more likely to be paid than claims without merit," said Dr. David Studdert, one of the authors.


Castun said is being established to "even the playing field" between doctors and patients. Patients, he said, can look up doctors' malpractice histories on various Web sites. will allow doctors to look up patients' histories.

But the information on the Web site about looking up doctors' histories is inaccurate. points users to the National Practitioner Data Base to examine doctors' malpractice histories. But that database is not accessible to the public, only to health care organizations, and it only lists claims above a certain amount. The AMA has fought fiercely against Democratic congressional efforts to open the database to the general public.

The other database LitiPages cites is that of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. But that site only lists claims against doctors who have liability insurance. Florida doctors are not required to carry a professional liability policy, and it's estimated that one-third of Florida-licensed doctors do not have a policy.

Florida physicians are required to report malpractice verdicts and settlements to the state Department of Health, which posts their malpractice histories on publicly accessible physician profiles. But the Daily Business Review reported last year that the state has been lax in enforcing this reporting requirement.

There is other questionable legal information on the site as well. Among other things, the site advises potential medical malpractice plaintiffs that they can sue their lawyer for legal malpractice if the lawyer asks them to waive the strict caps on contingency fees approved by Florida voters in 2004. But many legal experts say clients have the right to waive the cap, and the Florida Supreme Court and Florida Bar have declined to prohibit this practice.

Another controversial feature of is that it encourages plaintiffs who did not win a verdict to sue their attorney for legal malpractice.

But South Florida lawyers who represent plaintiffs in legal malpractice suits criticized that advice. "It is beyond ignorance to suggest that the plaintiff who loses a medical malpractice case would automatically have a claim against their lawyer for legal malpractice," said Miami attorney Warren Trazenfeld, who often represents plaintiffs in legal malpractice lawsuits.

North Miami Beach attorney Michael Lechtman agreed. He said it generally would be very difficult to successfully sue a medical malpractice lawyer for failing to win a plaintiff verdict because it would require showing that the case would have been won except for the attorney's negligence. That essentially requires retrying the med-mal case.

Lechtman said he would never advertise on a site like "Sounds like it's doctors trying to get back at the attorneys who sued them," he said.

Laurie Zoloth, a bioethics professor and director of the Center for Bioethics, Science and Society at Northwestern University medical school in Chicago, also criticized the new Web site.

"Having the right to seek legal redress when you are wronged is important in a democratic state," she said. "It surely should not result in being medically blacklisted."

Monday, July 24, 2006

How Many Times....?

"How many times do I have to tell you, 'No'?" -- BummerMama, circa 1968.

Flash forward to similar journalist fantasy-cum-"ain't gonna happen":

Gaza groups ready to deal on cease-fire, release of Shalit

By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent

All groups in Gaza, including Hamas, would now accept a cease-fire deal with Israel which would include releasing Gilad Shalit, according to the Palestinian Agriculture Minister, who also heads the coordinating committee of Palestinian organizations there.

Ibrahim Al-Naja said the factions were ready to stop the Qassam rocket fire if Israel's ceased all military moves against the Palestinian factions in Gaza. They are also ready to release Shalit in exchange for guaranteeing the future release of Palestinian prisoners.

Hamas leaders did not confirm this report on Monday, but if it is true, then this is the first time that Hamas has indicated its acceptance of the Egyptian proposal to solve the crisis.

Egypt's proposal did not include an Israeli commitment to the immediate release of Palestinian prisoners, only guarantees for their future release.

Saturday, July 22, 2006

NY Times: Treason Rag Loses One Subscriber

Bummer cannot continue to pay money to the NYTimes every day. Home delivery subscription has been cancelled.

Grafitti attack:

U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis

WASHINGTON, July 21 — The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel THE WHITE-SKINNED CAPITALIST PUPPET STATE, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure BY THE ARTICLE YOU ARE READING threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah; HOWEVER, WE ARE DISCLOSING THIS MILITARY SECRET IN ORDER TO TRY TO CAUSE THE BELOVED BROWN-SKINNED, COLLECTIVIST FREEDOM FIGHTERS OF THE ARAB STREET TO "RISE UP" AGAINST THIS CONTINUING COLONIALISM, WHICH ISRAELI AID IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY CIVILIZED PERSON EXCEPT THE COWBOY ADMINSTRATION OF BUSH, AND WHICH IS POSSIBLE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE TWAIN EVILS OF TECHNOLOGICAL HEGEMONY BROUGHT ABOUT BY JEW SCIENTISTS WHO INVENTED THE BOMB, AND JOHNNY-COME-LATELY JEWISH ELEMENTS NOW CALLED "NEOCONS."

The munitions that the United States is sending to Israel are part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed, the officials said. But Israel’s request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs was described as unusual by some military officers WHO DON'T EXIST, BUT RATHER WERE INVENTED BY MAKING SEVERAL CALLS TO FAR-LEFT RETIRED OFFICERS WHO WILL AGREE TO ANY QUOTES WE PUT IN THEIR MOUTHS, and as an indication that THE RICH WHITE COLONIALISTS WHO CALL THEMSELVES Israel still had a long list of targets OF INNOCENT BROWN CIVILIANS in Lebanon to strike.


The new American arms shipment to Israel has not been announced publicly, BECAUSE MOVEMENTS OF ARMAMENTS AND TROOPS TO OUR ALLIES ARE MILITARY SECRETS, EXCEPT THOSE RULES DON'T APPLY TO US, and the officials who ARE COMMITTING TREASON described the administration’s decision to rush the munitions to Israel would discuss it only after being promised anonymity. The officials included employees of two government agencies WHO ARE COMMITTING TREASON, and one described the shipment as just one example of a broad array of armaments that the United States has long provided THE WHITE COLONIAL CRUSADERS KNOWN AS THE STATE OF Israel.

One American official said the shipment should not be compared to the kind of an “emergency resupply” of dwindling Israeli stockpiles that was provided during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, when an American military airlift helped Israel recover from early Arab victories, BECAUSE SUCH COMPARISONS WOULD REVEAL THAT THIS DISCLOSURE WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A FELONIOUS LEAK OF MILITARY SECRETS, MEANT TO HARM THE CAPITALIST COUNTRIES OF THE U.S. AND ITS ALLY, THE TERRITORY OF WEALTHY WHITE PEOPLE CALLED ISRAEL.

...Israel’s need for precision munitions is driven in part by its strategy in Lebanon, which includes destroying hardened underground bunkers where Hezbollah leaders are said to have taken refuge, as well as missile sites and other targets that would be hard to hit without laser and satellite-guided bombs. HOWEVER, NOW THAT WE HAVE PRINTED THIS STORY, HEZBOLLAH WILL HAVE 72 HOURS TO MOVE ALL THEIR SHIT OUT OF HARM'S WAY, SUCH HARM SPECIFICALLY BEING THESE ARMAMENTS DROPPED BY CAPITALIST WHITE-COLORED JEW PEOPLE ON INNOCENT BROWN PROGRESSIVES KNOWN AS "HAMAS" AND "HEZBOLLAH" POLITICAL PARTIES. SO, WE'RE SAVING LIVES HERE, FELLA. AND BUYING SOME TIME FOR THE GOOD PEOPLE AT THE U.N. TO IMPLEMENT A CEASE FIRE, WHICH WE ALL KNOW IS THE ONLY REAL SOLUTION TO THIS JEWISH PROBLEM.

Pentagon and military officials declined to describe in detail the size and contents of the shipment to Israel, SINCE IT IS A CONFIDENTIAL MILITARY SECRET and they would not say whether the munitions were being shipped by cargo aircraft or some other means. But an arms-sale package approved last year provides authority for Israel to purchase from the United States as many as 100 GBU-28’s, which are 5,000-pound laser-guided bombs intended to destroy concrete bunkers. The package also provides for selling satellite-guided munitions.

An ILLEGAL, TOP SECRET MILITARY DOCUMENT THAT WE WILL INNOCOUSLY DESCRIBE MERELY AS AN "announcement" in 2005 that Israel was eligible to buy the “bunker buster” weapons described the GBU-28 as “a special weapon that was developed for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground.” The ILLEGALLY OBTAINED document added, “The Israeli Air Force will use these GBU-28’s on their F-15 aircraft.”

American officials said that once a weapons purchase is approved, it is up to the buyer nation to set up a timetable. But one American official said normal procedures usually do not include rushing deliveries within days of a request. That was done because Israel is a close ally in the midst of hostilities, the official said, CAREFUL TO PARROT THE REQUESTED QUOTE FOR THE TREASONOUS NYTIMES, AND ALSO CAREFUL TO AVOID ANY MENTION OF THE DOG-BITES-MAN REBUTTAL TO THIS ENTIRE MADE-UP STORY, TO WIT:


Although Israel had some precision guided bombs in its stockpile when the campaign in Lebanon began, the Israelis may not have taken delivery of all the weapons they were entitled to under the 2005 sale.

Israel said its air force had dropped 23 tons of explosives Wednesday night alone in Beirut, in an effort to penetrate what was believed to be a bunker used by senior Hezbollah officials.

A senior Israeli official said Friday that the attacks to date had degraded Hezbollah’s military strength by roughly half, but that the campaign could go on for two more weeks or longer. “We will stay heavily with the air campaign,” he said. “There’s no time limit. We will end when we achieve our goals.”



Dershowitz Double

Wow. When Paradigms Collide. Liberal Democrat Alan Dershowitz continues narrating the clash in his head between leftist drivel and -- for the past few days, anyway -- solid, no-bullshit commentary on the farce that is the MSM coverage of the Israeli military attack.

Bummer posted Alan's WSJ essay yesterday. Today's LA Times piece shreds the MSM anti-war nonsense about "civilian casualties." Kudos to Alan for the courage to publish his sound views, which are unlikely to garner him any faculty awards at HLS:

'Civilian Casualty'? It Depends
Those who supports terrorists are not entirely innocent.

By Alan Dershowitz
ALAN DERSHOWITZ is a professor of law at Harvard. He is the author, most recently, of "Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways."

July 22, 2006

THE NEWS IS filled these days with reports of civilian casualties, comparative civilian body counts and criticism of Israel, along with Hezbollah, for causing the deaths, injuries and "collective punishment" of civilians. But just who is a "civilian" in the age of terrorism, when militants don't wear uniforms, don't belong to regular armies and easily blend into civilian populations?

We need a new vocabulary to reflect the realities of modern warfare. A new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the Middle East: "the continuum of civilianality." Though cumbersome, this concept aptly captures the reality and nuance of warfare today and provides a more fair way to describe those who are killed, wounded and punished.

There is a vast difference — both moral and legal — between a 2-year-old who is killed by an enemy rocket and a 30-year-old civilian who has allowed his house to be used to store Katyusha rockets. Both are technically civilians, but the former is far more innocent than the latter. There is also a difference between a civilian who merely favors or even votes for a terrorist group and one who provides financial or other material support for terrorism.

Finally, there is a difference between civilians who are held hostage against their will by terrorists who use them as involuntary human shields, and civilians who voluntarily place themselves in harm's way in order to protect terrorists from enemy fire.

These differences and others are conflated within the increasingly meaningless word "civilian" — a word that carried great significance when uniformed armies fought other uniformed armies on battlefields far from civilian population centers. Today this same word equates the truly innocent with guilty accessories to terrorism.

The domestic law of crime, in virtually every nation, reflects this continuum of culpability. For example, in the infamous Fall River rape case (fictionalized in the film "The Accused"), there were several categories of morally and legally complicit individuals: those who actually raped the woman; those who held her down; those who blocked her escape route; those who cheered and encouraged the rapists; and those who could have called the police but did not.

No rational person would suggest that any of these people were entirely free of moral guilt, although reasonable people might disagree about the legal guilt of those in the last two categories. Their accountability for rape is surely a matter of degree, as is the accountability for terrorism of those who work with the terrorists.

It will, of course, be difficult for international law — and for the media — to draw the lines of subtle distinction routinely drawn by domestic criminal law. This is because domestic law operates on a retail basis — one person and one case at a time. International law and media reporting about terrorism tend to operate on more of a wholesale basis — with body counts, civilian neighborhoods and claims of collective punishment.

But the recognition that "civilianality" is often a matter of degree, rather than a bright line, should still inform the assessment of casualty figures in wars involving terrorists, paramilitary groups and others who fight without uniforms — or help those who fight without uniforms.

Turning specifically to the current fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Hamas, the line between Israeli soldiers and civilians is relatively clear. Hezbollah missiles and Hamas rockets target and hit Israeli restaurants, apartment buildings and schools. They are loaded with anti-personnel ball-bearings designed specifically to maximize civilian casualties.

Hezbollah and Hamas militants, on the other hand, are difficult to distinguish from those "civilians" who recruit, finance, harbor and facilitate their terrorism. Nor can women and children always be counted as civilians, as some organizations do. Terrorists increasingly use women and teenagers to play important roles in their attacks.

The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit. Some — those who cannot leave on their own — should be counted among the innocent victims.

If the media were to adopt this "continuum," it would be informative to learn how many of the "civilian casualties" fall closer to the line of complicity and how many fall closer to the line of innocence.

Every civilian death is a tragedy, but some are more tragic than others.

Friday, July 21, 2006

Terrible Arithmetic of War - II

Bummer remains astounded at how little the average person understands about the deliberate use by islamofascists of civilian shielding.

From the Wall Street Journal - an essay too important to remain hidden behind a firewall:

Arithmetic of Pain

Wall Street Journal
July 19, 2006

There is no democracy in the world that should tolerate missiles being fired at its cities without taking every reasonable step to stop the attacks. The big question raised by Israel's military actions in Lebanon is what is "reasonable." The answer, according to the laws of war, is that it is reasonable to attack military targets, so long as every effort is made to reduce civilian casualties. If the objectives cannot be achieved without some civilian casualties, these must be "proportional" to the civilian casualties that would be prevented by the military action.

This is all well and good for democratic nations that deliberately locate their military bases away from civilian population centers. Israel has its air force, nuclear facilities and large army bases in locations as remote as anything can be in that country. It is possible for an enemy to attack Israeli military targets without inflicting "collateral damage" on its civilian population. Hezbollah and Hamas, by contrast, deliberately operate military wings out of densely populated areas. They launch antipersonnel missiles with ball-bearing shrapnel, designed by Syria and Iran to maximize civilian casualties, and then hide from retaliation by living among civilians. If Israel decides not to go after them for fear of harming civilians, the terrorists win by continuing to have free rein in attacking civilians with rockets. If Israel does attack, and causes civilian casualties, the terrorists win a propaganda victory: The international community pounces on Israel for its "disproportionate" response. This chorus of condemnation actually encourages the terrorists to operate from civilian areas.

While Israel does everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties -- not always with success -- Hezbollah and Hamas want to maximize civilian casualties on both sides. Islamic terrorists, a diplomat commented years ago, "have mastered the harsh arithmetic of pain. . . . Palestinian casualties play in their favor and Israeli casualties play in their favor." These are groups that send children to die as suicide bombers, sometimes without the child knowing that he is being sacrificed. Two years ago, an 11-year-old was paid to take a parcel through Israeli security. Unbeknownst to him, it contained a bomb that was to be detonated remotely. (Fortunately the plot was foiled.)

This misuse of civilians as shields and swords requires a reassessment of the laws of war. The distinction between combatants and civilians -- easy when combatants were uniformed members of armies that fought on battlefields distant from civilian centers -- is more difficult in the present context. Now, there is a continuum of "civilianality": Near the most civilian end of this continuum are the pure innocents -- babies, hostages and others completely uninvolved; at the more combatant end are civilians who willingly harbor terrorists, provide material resources and serve as human shields; in the middle are those who support the terrorists politically, or spiritually.

The laws of war and the rules of morality must adapt to these realities. An analogy to domestic criminal law is instructive: A bank robber who takes a teller hostage and fires at police from behind his human shield is guilty of murder if they, in an effort to stop the robber from shooting, accidentally kill the hostage. The same should be true of terrorists who use civilians as shields from behind whom they fire their rockets. The terrorists must be held legally and morally responsible for the deaths of the civilians, even if the direct physical cause was an Israeli rocket aimed at those targeting Israeli citizens.

Israel must be allowed to finish the fight that Hamas and Hezbollah started, even if that means civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon. A democracy is entitled to prefer the lives of its own innocents over the lives of the civilians of an aggressor, especially if the latter group contains many who are complicit in terrorism. Israel will -- and should -- take every precaution to minimize civilian casualties on the other side. On July 16, Hasan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, announced there will be new "surprises," and the Aska Martyrs Brigade said that it had developed chemical and biological weapons that could be added to its rockets. Should Israel not be allowed to pre-empt their use?

Israel left Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. These are not "occupied" territories. Yet they serve as launching pads for attacks on Israeli civilians. Occupation does not cause terrorism, then, but terrorism seems to cause occupation. If Israel is not to reoccupy to prevent terrorism, the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority must ensure that these regions cease to be terrorist safe havens.

Mr. Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Missile Tax

So Lebanon wants damages from Israel:

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Israeli troops clashed with Hezbollah guerrillas on the Lebanese side of the border Wednesday, while Lebanon's prime minister reported a death toll of 300 and demanded compensation from Israel for the "unimaginable losses" to the nation's infrastructure.

The Israeli Knesset should immediately enact a missile tax. Any neighboring state which sends, or allows to be sent, a missle across into Israel, must pay a $500,000 per missile tax.

So with over 10,000 missiles launched from Lebanon into Israel, that would be about $5 billion of unpaid missile taxes owed to Israel.

Another example of a missile that is missing an appropriately displayed tax revenue stamp

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Walking the Walk in Iraq

What a surprise. Bummer just found out that a 15-year acquaintance from Hollywood is (or has been) in the war zone.

A few months ago, Pat Dollard's name came up in a Hollywood conversation. "He lost his mind," was the response to the question, "Where is Pat?"

Bummer didn't follow up, but just learned what constittues "losing your mind" to a Hollywood liberal: Pat Dollard went into the Iraq war zone.

Check out Pat Dollard's work. He is walking the walk, while the rest of us are just pussies talking a bunch of smack.

Monday, July 17, 2006

Said With A Straight Face

Yeah, that right wing MSM has gotta go:

New Alliance Of Democrats Spreads FundingBut Some in Party Bristle At Secrecy and Liberal Tilt
Washington Post
Monday, July 17, 2006

An alliance of nearly a hundred of the nation's wealthiest donors is roiling Democratic political circles, directing more than $50 million in the past nine months to liberal think tanks and advocacy groups in what organizers say is the first installment of a long-term campaign to compete more aggressively against conservatives.

A year after its founding, Democracy Alliance has followed up on its pledge to become a major power in the liberal movement. It has lavished millions on groups that have been willing to submit to its extensive screening process and its demands for secrecy.

These include the Center for American Progress, a think tank with an unabashed partisan edge, as well as Media Matters for America, which tracks what it sees as conservative bias in the news media. Several alliance donors are negotiating a major investment in Air America, a liberal talk-radio network.

Bush Chews, Blair Gets Yo'ed

Bummer is no Bush lover, but Bummer often defends Bush against left-wing loons who claim he is stupid. (Note that Bush had a higher grade point average at Yale than did Citizen Soldier John Kerry, yet the MSM never refers to Kerry as "stupid".)

Lefty loons cite Bush's feeble public speaking abilities as proof. (Yes, Bush is perhaps the lamest public speaker in the history of the U.S.) Bummer counters by poining to the 2000 election trail - Bush spoke and quipped like the next door neighbor.

Alas, Bush caught on tape today, talking with Tony Blair, complete with a dinner roll stuffed in his mouth. Sounds like the guy next door to me.

Bush: Yo Blair How are you doing?
Blair: I'm just...
Bush: You're leaving?
Blair: No, no, no not yet. On this trade thingy...[inaudible]
Bush: yeah I told that to the man
Blair: Are you planning to say that here or not?
Bush: If you want me to
Blair: Well, it's just that if the discussion arises...
Bush: I just want some movement.
Blair: Yeah
Bush: Yesterday we didn't see much movement
Blair: No, no, it may be that it's not, it may be that it's impossible
Bush: I am prepared to say it
Blair: But it's just I think what we need to be an opposition
Bush: Who is introducing the trade
Blair: Angela
Bush: Tell her to call 'em
Blair: Yes
Bush: Tell her to put him on them on the spot.Thanks for [inaudbible] it's awfully thoughtful of you
Blair: It's a pleasure
Bush: I know you picked it out yourself
Blair: Oh, absoletely, in fact [inaudble]
Bush: What about Kofi [inaudible] his attitude to ceasefire and everything else ... happens
Blair: Yeah, no I think the [inaudible] is really difficult. We can't stop this unless you get this international business agreed.
Bush: Yeah
Blair: I don't know what you guys have talked about but as I say I am perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of the land is but you need that done quickly because otherwise it will spiral
Bush: I think Condi is going to go pretty soon
Blair: But that's that's that's all that matters. But if you, you see it will take some time to get that together
Bush: Yeah, yeah
Blair: But at least it gives people...
Bush: It's a process, I agree. I told her your offer to...
Blair:'s only if I mean... you know. If she's got a..., or if she needs the ground prepared as it were... Because obviously if she goes out, she's got to succeed, if it were, whereas I can go out and just talk
Bush: You see, the ... thing is what they need to do is to get Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over
Blair: [inaudible]
Bush: [inadubile]
Blair: Syria
Bush: Why?
Blair: Because I think this is all part of the same thing
Bush: Yeah.
Blair: What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way...
Bush: Yeah, yeah, he is sweet
Blair: He is honey. And that's what the whole thing is about. It's the same with Iraq
Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Bashad [Bashir Assad] and make something happen
Blair: Yeah
Bush: [inaudible]
Bush: We are not blaming the Lebanese government
Blair: Is this...? (at this point Blair taps the microphone in front of him and the sound is cut.)

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Cross Of Plastic and the Petro Peso

The B23 know that Bummer thinks often of what, exactly, is "money" or "currency" in various markets -- monetary, political, cultural, etc.

The US Constitution has an interesting architecture regarding currency.

This is coming, folks. Why can't California issue its own currency? Sure, Article I, Section 10 prevents a state from "coining" money or "emit[ting] bills of credit". But California and its sub-districts issue billions of dollars of bonds each year; certainly, those are "bills of credit." Certainly, these violate Section 10. No, you cry?

If not, then it's a very narrow reading / strict construction of the Constitition that allows it. As such, then, for a state to "issue debit cards" would not violate the "coining" language....

In case you haven't noticed, Visa, MasterCard and AMEX have already taken over the currency game, with a 3% to 5% scrape off the top.

"The right to coin money and issue money is a function of government....We believe it is a part of sovereignty and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than can the power to make penal statutes or levy laws for taxation. .... Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business." - WJ Bryan

For what it is further worth, a barrel of oil is already a medium of exchange.

Soon, a state -- or foreign country, for that matter; why not Mexico? Why not Saudi Arabia? -- will figure out that it can be a medium of exchange in this country.

A Petro Peso -- a coin backed by the promise of delivery of a barrel of oil.


The most famous speech in American political history was delivered by William Jennings Bryan on July 9, 1896, at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The issue was whether to endorse the free coinage of silver at a ratio of silver to gold of 16 to 1. (This inflationary measure would have increased the amount of money in circulation and aided cash-poor and debt-burdened farmers.) After speeches on the subject by several U.S. Senators, Bryan rose to speak. The next day the convention nominated Bryan for President on the fifth ballot.

"The Cross of Gold"
Willam Jennings Bryan
Democratic Nominee for US President, 1896


I would be presumptuous, indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this were but a measuring of ability; but this is not a contest among persons. The humblest citizen in all the land when clad in the armor of a righteous cause is stronger than all the whole hosts of error that they can bring. I come to speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty—the cause of humanity. When this debate is concluded, a motion will be made to lay upon the table the resolution offered in commendation of the administration and also the resolution in condemnation of the administration. I shall object to bringing this question down to a level of persons. The individual is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles are eternal; and this has been a contest of principle.

Never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed such a contest as that through which we have passed. Never before in the history of American politics has a great issue been fought out as this issue has been by the voters themselves.

On the 4th of March, 1895, a few Democrats, most of them members of Congress, issued an address to the Democrats of the nation asserting that the money question was the paramount issue of the hour; asserting also the right of a majority of the Democratic Party to control the position of the party on this paramount issue; concluding with the request that all believers in free coinage of silver in the Democratic Party should organize and take charge of and control the policy of the Democratic Party. Three months later, at Memphis, an organization was perfected, and the silver Democrats went forth openly and boldly and courageously proclaiming their belief and declaring that if successful they would crystallize in a platform the declaration which they had made; and then began the conflict with a zeal approaching the zeal which inspired the crusaders who followed Peter the Hermit. Our silver Democrats went forth from victory unto victory, until they are assembled now, not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up the judgment rendered by the plain people of this country.

But in this contest, brother has been arrayed against brother, and father against son. The warmest ties of love and acquaintance and association have been disregarded. Old leaders have been cast aside when they refused to give expression to the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause of freedom. Thus has the contest been waged, and we have assembled here under as binding and solemn instructions as were ever fastened upon the representatives of a people.

We do not come as individuals. Why, as individuals we might have been glad to compliment the gentleman from New York [Senator Hill], but we knew that the people for whom we speak would never be willing to put him in a position where he could thwart the will of the Democratic Party. I say it was not a question of persons; it was a question of principle; and it is not with gladness, my friends, that we find ourselves brought into conflict with those who are now arrayed on the other side. The gentleman who just preceded me [Governor Russell] spoke of the old state of Massachusetts. Let me assure him that not one person in all this convention entertains the least hostility to the people of the state of Massachusetts.

But we stand here representing people who are the equals before the law of the largest cities in the state of Massachusetts. When you come before us and tell us that we shall disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your action. We say to you that you have made too limited in its application the definition of a businessman. The man who is employed for wages is as much a businessman as his employer. The attorney in a country town is as much a businessman as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis. The merchant at the crossroads store is as much a businessman as the merchant of New York. The farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, begins in the spring and toils all summer, and by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of this country creates wealth, is as much a businessman as the man who goes upon the Board of Trade and bets upon the price of grain. The miners who go 1,000 feet into the earth or climb 2,000 feet upon the cliffs and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured in the channels of trade are as much businessmen as the few financial magnates who in a backroom corner the money of the world.

We come to speak for this broader class of businessmen. Ah. my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic Coast; but those hardy pioneers who braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose—those pioneers away out there, rearing their children near to nature’s heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds—out there where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their children and churches where they praise their Creator, and the cemeteries where sleep the ashes of their dead—are as deserving of the consideration of this party as any people in this country.

It is for these that we speak. We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest. We are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned. We have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded. We have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came.

We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them!

The gentleman from Wisconsin has said he fears a Robespierre. My friend, in this land of the free you need fear no tyrant who will spring up from among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of aggregated wealth.

They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which rest Democracy are as everlasting as the hills; but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen and we are attempting to meet those conditions. They tell us that the income tax ought not to be brought in here; that is not a new idea. They criticize us for our criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States. My friends, we have made no criticism. We have simply called attention to what you know. If you want criticisms, read the dissenting opinions of the Court. That will give you criticisms.

They say we passed an unconstitutional law. I deny it. The income tax was not unconstitutional when it was passed. It was not unconstitutional when it went before the Supreme Court for the first time. It did not become unconstitutional until one judge changed his mind; and we cannot be expected to know when a judge will change his mind.

The income tax is a just law. It simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the backs of the people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man who is not willing to pay his share of the burden of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.

He says that we are opposing the national bank currency. It is true. If you will read what Thomas Benton said, you will find that he said that in searching history he could find but one parallel to Andrew Jackson. That was Cicero, who destroyed the conspiracies of Cataline and saved Rome. He did for Rome what Jackson did when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America.

We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe it is a part of sovereignty and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than can the power to make penal statutes or levy laws for taxation.

Mr. Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have a different opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business.

They complain about the plank which declares against the life tenure in office. They have tried to strain it to mean that which it does not mean. What we oppose in that plank is the life tenure that is being built up in Washington which establishes an office-holding class and excludes from participation in the benefits the humbler members of our society. . . .

Let me call attention to two or three great things. The gentleman from New York says that he will propose an amendment providing that this change in our law shall not affect contracts which, according to the present laws, are made payable in gold. But if he means to say that we cannot change our monetary system without protecting those who have loaned money before the change was made, I want to ask him where, in law or in morals, he can find authority for not protecting the debtors when the act of 1873 was passed when he now insists that we must protect the creditor. He says he also wants to amend this platform so as to provide that if we fail to maintain the parity within a year that we will then suspend the coinage of silver. We reply that when we advocate a thing which we believe will be successful we are not compelled to raise a doubt as to our own sincerity by trying to show what we will do if we are wrong.

I ask him, if he will apply his logic to us, why he does not apply it to himself. He says that he wants this country to try to secure an international agreement. Why doesn’t he tell us what he is going to do if they fail to secure an international agreement. There is more reason for him to do that than for us to expect to fail to maintain the parity. They have tried for thirty years—thirty years—to secure an international agreement, and those are waiting for it most patiently who don’t want it at all.

Now, my friends, let me come to the great paramount issue. If they ask us here why it is we say more on the money question than we say upon the tariff question, I reply that if protection has slain its thousands the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us why we did not embody all these things in our platform which we believe, we reply to them that when we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and that until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished.

Why is it that within three months such a change has come over the sentiments of the country? Three months ago, when it was confidently asserted that those who believed in the gold standard would frame our platforms and nominate our candidates, even the advocates of the gold standard did not think that we could elect a President; but they had good reasons for the suspicion, because there is scarcely a state here today asking for the gold standard that is not within the absolute control of the Republican Party.

But note the change. Mr. McKinley was nominated at St. Louis upon a platform that declared for the maintenance of the gold standard until it should be changed into bimetallism by an international agreement. Mr. McKinley was the most popular man among the Republicans ; and everybody three months ago in the Republican Party prophesied his election. How is it today? Why, that man who used to boast that he looked like Napoleon, that man shudders today when he thinks that he was nominated on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. Not only that, but as he listens he can hear with ever increasing distinctness the sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely shores of St. Helena.

Why this change? Ah, my friends. is not the change evident to anyone who will look at the matter? It is because no private character, however pure, no personal popularity, however great, can protect from the avenging wrath of an indignant people the man who will either declare that he is in favor of fastening the gold standard upon this people, or who is willing to surrender the right of self-government and place legislative control in the hands of foreign potentates and powers. . . .

We go forth confident that we shall win. Why? Because upon the paramount issue in this campaign there is not a spot of ground upon which the enemy will dare to challenge battle. Why, if they tell us that the gold standard is a good thing, we point to their platform and tell them that their platform pledges the party to get rid of a gold standard and substitute bimetallism. If the gold standard is a good thing, why try to get rid of it? If the gold standard, and I might call your attention to the fact that some of the very people who are in this convention today and who tell you that we ought to declare in favor of international bimetallism and thereby declare that the gold standard is wrong and that the principles of bimetallism are better—these very people four months ago were open and avowed advocates of the gold standard and telling us that we could not legislate two metals together even with all the world.

I want to suggest this truth, that if the gold standard is a good thing we ought to declare in favor of its retention and not in favor of abandoning it; and if the gold standard is a bad thing, why should we wait until some other nations are willing to help us to let it go?

Here is the line of battle. We care not upon which issue they force the fight. We are prepared to meet them on either issue or on both. If they tell us that the gold standard is the standard of civilization, we reply to them that this, the most enlightened of all nations of the earth, has never declared for a gold standard, and both the parties this year are declaring against it. If the gold standard is the standard of civilization, why, my friends, should we not have it? So if they come to meet us on that, we can present the history of our nation. More than that, we can tell them this, that they will search the pages of history in vain to find a single instance in which the common people of any land ever declared themselves in favor of a gold standard. They can find where the holders of fixed investments have.

Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between the idle holders of idle capital and the struggling masses who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country; and my friends, it is simply a question that we shall decide upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight. Upon the side of the idle holders of idle capital, or upon the side of the struggling masses? That is the question that the party must answer first; and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic Party, as described by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic Party.

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union.

I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have.

If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

Saturday, July 15, 2006

War and Decimation: Democracy Predicate?

One hates to think that a violent dialectic is required in order to set the stage for lasting democracy to grow in the Middle East.

"Among the numerous advantages [of a democratic union] , none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. ...The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations."

-James Madison, Federalist 10

Yet, dictatorships tend to break and control internal violence, too.

We attention-deprived Americans tended to believe that the Iraqi people would -- within a few months or so -- quicky adopt lasting democratic principles, and live happily ever after. This didn't happen.

Most importantly, perhaps America assumed that Iraqis would risk personal death and ruin to serve the greater good. Those who know US history know the problems associated with convincing 1860's citizens to go to a bloody war for ... "union?" But they did, albeit there were many motives. (Bummer thinks that the natural desire of a bored, 17-year old farm boy to seek adventure, certainly played a stronger role than credits; this is hard to see 150 years later, when the current fashion is for 17-year olds to join anti-war protest marches that include lots of 17-year old girls who wear tank tops.)

In any event, what to make of today's Iraqi atrocity?:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen kidnapped the head of Iraq's Olympic committee and more than a dozen employees Saturday after storming a sports conference in Baghdad, police said. The kidnappers wore camouflage Iraqi police uniforms and
security guards outside the meeting said they did not interfere because they thought the gunmen were legitimate law enforcement, police said.

Ahmed al-Hijiya, president of the committee, was taken in the assault, which came a day after the coach of Iraq's national wrestling team was killed by kidnappers.

Must the level of such civilian atrocities rise to an unbearable level, before a critical mass of individuals each make the personal decision to fight?

"If I do nothing, my family or me are likely to die. If I fight, I may die but perhaps all this will stop..."

Perhaps the mayhem in Iraq is a predicate to the civilians getting as mad as hell, that they will not take it any more.


Pushing over to Israel:

An Israeli friend just back from Jerusalem confirms that he and others are astonished that Hizbollah fighters were able to get the jump on Israeli soldiers on post, killing some and kidnapping others, thereby triggering the current mid-east crisis. The current IDF soldiers are second or third generation. They were not born when the '67 or '73 (or maybe even the '82) wars occured. Perhaps the current IDF soldiers lack the costancy of purpose that came from the bath of fire of their fathers?

We shall see.

Friday, July 14, 2006

Some Middle East Images

Israeli jet targeting image from June 1981 raid on the Iraqi Osirak reactor.

Some F-15 friends of Israel.

NeoSanity: A Couple of "Told You So's"

Now that a full-blown hot war seems likely between Israel and Palestine, Syria and Iran (and whatever other Arab state throws down), and the largely cold war aspect of the Global War on Terror goes hot, here are a few archive posts which may have made you furrow your brow and think that Bummer was a little "unsound."

A true moderate, but perhaps you thinks Bummer is a little hard when it comes to IslamoFascism. "Bummer isn't nuanced enough to be a serious guy. His methods are ... unsound."

On rethought, perhaps Bummer is a pretty sane guy. On rethought, perhaps Bummer has a lot in common with WC when it comes to the Gathering Storm. As events unfold, perhaps Bummer is one of those few - as in, less than 25% and maybe less than 10% - who understand where things are going. Functioning in the reality-based world.

Call it: NeoSanity

Sleeping at Night

Get Down With the Big Bomb

War Clouds and Wolfowitz

Boys Will Be Boys

German Oasis

Did He Speak of Such Things?


Straw Man and Wolfowitz

Thursday, July 13, 2006

World War 4

Bummer sees that the Wolfowitz Plan is working. The Islamofascists realize that if a quasi-secular democratic government stabilizes in the Middle East -- that is, Iraq -- the IslamoFascist movement will be disabled for generations.

The MSM has vague yearnings to support Islamofascists, because:

1. IslamoFascists are brown; ergo, their cause has some merit.
2. IslamoFascists hate the U.S.; ergo, their cause has some merit.
3. IslamoFascists continually play a race and related cards; ergo, their cause has some merit.
4. IslamoFascists oppose capitalism; ergo, their cause has some merit.
5. IslamoFascists give strong lip service to the "international community," the UN, etc.; ergo, the MSM is smitten with sympathy.
6. IslamoFascists use human shields and give daily photo ops to MSM journalists; ergo -- since it bleeds, it leads -- the MSM warms to their cause.

What are the chances that the anti-War MSM will examine their own ridiculous bias? Zero, of course.

Most of the B23 agree, I think (but chime in if you don't).

Bummer has said for some time that WW4 began on September 11, 2001.

WWI: 1914-1918
WWII: 1939-1945
WWIII: The Cold War: 1947 – 1989
WW IV: The Islamo Fascist War 2001 - ?

With the Israeli military reaction to terrorist actions from Gaza and Lebanon, Israel is now in full war footing with Hezbollah and god knows how many other flavors of arab and islamic terrorists.

Some others are noting that this is WW4, and that Iran is the hub.

David Twersky, NYSun:

"Just last Friday, Iranian President Ahmadinejad warned that Israel's return to Gaza could lead to an "explosion" in the Islamic world that would target Israel and its supporters in the West...."If an explosion occurs, then it won't be limited to geographical boundaries. It will also burn all those who created [Israel] over the past 60 years," he said, implicitly referring to America and other Western nations who support Israel.

"The war with Iran has begun."
An astute Powerline reader reveals the wheel spokes which lead to Iran as the hub:

Iran has orchestrated much (if not all) of the current unrest and violence in order to:

(i) distract attention from its nuclear weapons program,

(ii) tie down Israel militarily in order to reduce the chances that Israel could launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities,

(iii) scare the American public (and politicians) into rejecting any unilateral military option against Iran for fear of further inflaming the Mideast, and

(iv) create world furor against Israel (and indirectly the U.S.), to further raise the stakes and international opposition to any unilateral military strikes.


We have entered a hot phase of this somewhat cool world war.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

The Much-Improved Envoy, c. 2006

So Israel has now crossed another border, this time into Lebanon after the Hezbollah kidnapping of two IDF soldiers.

Flashback, 26 years ago, below. I think the IDF's 2006 version of "envoy" will prove much more effective than the envoy envisioned by the late 70's/early 80's zeitgeist:

The Envoy

- Warren Zevon
1980 Zevon Music BMI

Nuclear arms in the Middle East
Israel is attacking the Iraqis
The Syrians are mad at the Lebanese
And Baghdad does whatever she please
Looks like another threat to world peace
For the envoy

Whenever there's a crisis
The President sends his envoy
Guns in Damascus
Woe, Jerusalem

Nuclear arms in the Middle East
Israel is attacking the Iraqis
The Syrians are mad at the Lebanese
And Baghdad do whatever she please
Looks like another threat to world peace
For the envoy
Send the envoy . . .
Send for me

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

MSM Sports Writers Are Scared Pussies

For those living in a cocoon:

In the World Cup finals on Sunday, a largely immigrant (black and north african) French team played a bunch of baller white romans (the Italian team). By all fair analysis, the French team had more skill, but the Italians won the game on sudden death kicks after overtime.

The French team captain and undisputed leader, Ziedine Zidane, was ejected from the game for headbutting Italian player Marco Materazzi. The video shows the two together. Materazzi says something, but neither he nor Zidane appear emotionally charged. No big deal at all. Zidane trots away, and after 10 seconds or so is about 5 to 10 yards ahead of Materazzi. Zidane then turns 180 degrees, and comes back towards Materazzi. (Again, no emotion, as if he was in a routine field position change.) 3 yards in front of Materazzi, and moving towards Materazzi, Zidane drops his head like a billy goat and head-butts Materazzi in the chest.

In legal terms, it was about as pre-meditated as a personal foul can get. No words needed. That a video caught the entire 20-second sequence is ... well, fortunate.

Fair pundits will note that the ejection took the emotional steam out of the French team, which lost the match 15 minutes later.


Apologists now claim that Materazzi committed a hate crime, calling Zindane a terrorist. Materazzi denies it.


I'm sure that soccer players - like American footballers and basketball players - use only the Queen's English.

What a bunch of IslamoRacist Crap.

Can you find a single MSM story - sprots page or otherwise - that exposes this lame victimization claim for the farce that it is?

Friday, July 07, 2006

Jawdropping Rightwing Lunacy

Hillary Clinton took political payoffs. It occured in what are called "settlement" transactions. Imagine it is SuperBowl Sunday. 12 friends at your house each give you $10 and ask you to call your bookie and "bet on the team you suggest." Thunder Bay is a 2-1 favorite.

You call the bookie. You place 4 bets on the Omaha Destroyers, and 8 bets on the Thunder Bay Boogers. Omaha wins. You have 4 winning tickets. Each $10 ticket is worth $30.

You go back into your living room. Who gets the winning tickets?


That's "settlement fraud." Knowing that truth is a defense to libel, Bummer Esq. says straight out, "Hillary Clinton committed fraud in the commodities market."

Many RoC folks agree with Bummer.

Now imagine that instead of 2 teams playing, it's a horse race. 12 races, each with 12 horses. And this will continue for weeks.

Some longshots will win. They will pay 3-1, 6-1, 12-1. Toss in Trifectas, Perfectas, Boxes, etc., and the possibilities become endless.

Instead of 12 friends in your house, you have 2000. All betting on the races. And many, many have simply given you (their broker) a blank check to "bet on horses you like." So every race, the broker makes sure to buy a $2 ticket on every horse. At the end of the day, looking back, many races will have a nice payoff. Races 2, 4, 6 and 10 each had a 5-1 payoff. You, the broker, get to decide at the end of the day - when you know which tickets are winners and which are losers - who gets allocated what bets. You get to dish out the goodies among your 2000 clients at the end of the day. Alas! Hillary has been allocated the winning ticket in every winning longshot race! She holds the winning ticket in races 2, 4, 6 and 10.

At the end of the trading day, Hillary now has $48. She started the day with only $2. Now, do that every day for a couple of weeks. Hillary's "gains" are paid for by little scrapes against the other 1999 clients. No one notices. And in a non-cumputerized trading environment, no one gets busted.

Needing to funnel payoffs to the Clintons, the notoriously rigged mercantile exchange was used to "create" six figures in Hillary's account. All via the device of settlement and allocation fraud. That is, backstamping trade ticket allocations.


Now imagine if some Leftwing foilhat polisci professor wanted to exonerate Hillary. S/he'd say something like:

"It is cheaper to grease a politician with well-timed commodity trades, than with cash. Backwards-allocating and settlement of winning trades give political donors the biggest bang for the buck."

Of course, any good RoC citizen would go nuts at this implicit approval of fraud, and would demand that such professor be brought up in front of the Trustees to have their tenure revoked.


Bummer, why are you railing about Hillary in a piece entitled, "Jawdropping Rightwing Lunacy?"


Because SEC Commissioner Paul S. Atkins is worse that a Leftwing foilhat professor. Foilhat professors are not Merc cops. Paul Atkins is a cop. The top cop. And yesterday, he effortlessly justified Hillary Clinton-type backstamping fraud - so long as good corporate Republican types were the recipients. (This is the top cop, watchdogging this area):

Companies that build in a profit for executives on stock options by making grants ahead of good news are not guilty of insider trading, said Paul S. Atkins, a commissioner at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. Atkins said such maneuvers — which some federal officials say might be criminal fraud — were good for shareholders because directors could issue fewer options to reward executives knowing the price would rise, and then could pay lower

"It is cheaper to pay a person with well-timed options than with cash," Mr. Atkins said during a speech at a corporate governance forum in Washington yesterday. He said timing the grants gave companies "the biggest bang for the buck."

Jawdropping Lunacy. A cop justifying fraud. "These thugs need to eat, and this is an efficient way to feed them."

Atkins will be - and should be - gone by the November elections.

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Benedict Arnold Gallery of Stars

Axis Sally
WWII Nazi Collaborator
Wanted the US to Lose the War
US Won
Sally Went to Jail

Tokyo Rose
WWII Axis Collaborator
Wanted the US to Lose the War
US Won
Rose Went to Jail

William "Bill" Keller
Publisher of US Military Secrets During WWIII
Wants the US to Lose the War
US Will Win

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Criminal Rabbits

Bad rabbits. Bad rabbits eat the garden and vineyard. Bad.

Bad rabbits won't reason. Not enough owls to correct the rabbits. But the rabbits must be corrected.

Government says no guns here. But government can't hear bullets if they are subsonic.

Nice, nice 22 subsonic rimfire ammo. Subsonic makes life good for the plants. Bad for rabbits, good for plants.

No shock wave. No report. Illegal in big cities because they are favored by gang assassins. But Bummer isn't deterred.

Let's review the bow wave on the subsonic:

Grapes happy. Garden happy. Neighbors undisturbed. Cops away. Rabbits bye-bye. Bummer happy.

Bummer and the Enthymeme

Bummer loves the enthymeme. Technically, it means:

"en·thy·meme --- Logic: A syllogism in which one of the premises or the conclusion is not stated explicitly."

A college professor introduced young Bummer to the concept. In referring to the hypnotic cadence and structure of fundamentalist ministers, and some black leaders, he used the concept of the enthymeme. An example (from memory) was something like:

Speaker: Are we going to allow sin to become the ruler of our daily lives?
--Crowd: No!
Speaker: Are we going to allow ignorance and destruction to be our master?
--Crowd: No!
Speaker: Are we going to allow the devil to make our house his brothel?
--Crowd: No!
Speaker: Are we going to allow this Proposition P to pass next Tuesday?
--Crowd: No! *

This is an argument by enthymeme, as the following will show why:

Speaker: Are we going to allow sin to become the ruler of our daily lives?
--Crowd: No!
Speaker: Are we going to allow ignorance to be our master?
--Crowd: No!
Speaker: Are we going to allow the devil to make our house his brothel?
--Crowd: No!
[missing premise: Proposition P is sinful, devilish, and born of ignorance]
Speaker: Are we going to allow this Proposition P to pass next Tuesday?
--Crowd: No!


Sometimes, a really good speaker will use the hyper-enthymeme. That is, rather than relying upon an unstated premise, the speaker will rely upon an unstated conclusion. There are a number of psychological and sociological studies that show that a timely-reinforced conclusion reached by a person (rather than merely dictated to the person), becomes an opinion set in inertia - it is hard to change.

The use of the hyper-enthymeme is an effective way to set the table for that to happen. Using the above, but with a hyper-enthymeme (i.e., the conclusion is not directly stated):

Speaker: Are we going to allow sin to become the ruler of our daily lives?
--Crowd: No!
Speaker: Are we going to allow ignorance and destruction to be our master?
--Crowd: No!
Speaker: Are we going to allow the devil to make our house his brothel?
--Crowd: No!
Speaker: Then I ask you: Proposition P is on the ballot next Tuesday, and you must decide how to vote. Yes, or no.
--[Crowd to themselves: Well....No!]

The rythmic cadence of the previous "No" answers to the previous questions, prompts the listener as to what the correct conclusion should be - "No!" The listener -- who may have no idea what Proposition P even says - nonetheless comes up with the "No" answer. In a crowd, that nascent conclusion gets reinforced, sometimes by just a few others in the crowd [planted?] who yell out, "No!" 3 seconds later.

Great orators use repeating syllables ("No!"), rhyme, rythme and aliteration to enhance/encourage the listener to come to the desired conclusion.

Alas, the listener (1) came up with the answer "no", (2) had it reinforced by a peer group, and (3) therefore, tends to hold the conclusion/belief more strongly than one in which a hyper-enthymeme was not present. So goes the theory.


Umm, Bummer.... hows that '01 Maya tasting? We digress....


Bummer has been a bit mum about the whole uproar over the NYTimes article revealing the overseas SWIFT terror tracking.

Why, Bummer? It seems to be the textbook example of the theme of your blog, to wit:

Effete leftist MSM media thugs demanding immunity from the laws of the land.


Well, frankly, it is the textbook example. But sometimes, per the hyper-enthymeme described above, it is best to just let that conclusion hang out there.

Percolate. Simmer. Hang in the air.

Folks can connect the dots, just fine. Bummer's voice isn't needed on this hyper-enthymeme.

* -- Really good preachers and civil rights leaders usually slip in some rhyme and aliteration.

Zionist War Crimes and CogDis

Whatever you think about the latest Israeli-Palestinian violence*, there is a core Leftist assemblage that lacks the capacity to form a logical or coherent thought regarding the issues.

Example 172: If Israel had any intention of engaging in ethnic cleansing, it would take them about 23 minutes -- OK, maybe 24 -- to accomplish it.** The logical conclusion is that Israel is not engaged in any sort of ethnic or religious pogroms.

Alas, Cognitive Dissonance (4 our of 5 noises in my head go WHOMP WHOMP WHOMP) besets the Leftist protest set, as anything supported by the US Government must be nefarious, and incoming messages to their brains that tend to rebut their worldview must get distorted so as to be shoe-horned into their increasingly fanciful and reality-devoid paradigm. This is especially apparent when any US-made weapon gets pointed at any person who is darker than a Norwegian. (Irony note: Check out the skin tone of the fellows below).

Alas, it's not about Israeli defense or the Hamas governing mess/terrorists kidnapping an IDF soldier for human ransom. Nope, it's ...... nefarious Zionist ethnic cleansing !!***:

* - Should come as no shock to the B23 that Bummer gives a huge benefit of any doubt to the IDF... .

** - Sorta like the science fiction logic loop that Time Travel will never exist for human beings, because if it were ever to be invented (in the 'future'), it would be apparent to us now (as in, right now), as time travelers from the infinitely long 'future' would have already traveled back to our current time and would be among us now, revealing themselves to us now, as such. They are not; ergo, they never will be. Similarly, if the ultimately competent IDF had the strategic intention of genocide, the IDF would have made short work out of accomplishing it. So, unless you assume that the IDF is the least competent military on earth .... .

*** - This photo gets my vote for irony-free foilhat zone of the year. As is the case so often, hat tip to anti-idiotarian LGF.