Machiavelli's The Prince, Chapter III (part 2)

Chapter III (continuation of previous post)

When a territory that has a different culture is conquered, luck and hard work are needed to pacify the population, and the best way to pacify the people is for the king to live in the new territory. When the king lives on his new land, he can find and rectify disorders quickly. However, if the king rules from far away, he is not informed of problems until it is too late to fix the problems. Additionally, the presence of the king prevents corrupt officials from pillaging the land. The population will be satisfied by the king's prompt reaction to injustices, and those who wish to be good have reason to love the king while those wishing to rebel will have more reason to fear the king. Because of this, the territory can easily repel an enemy's military.

Another option is to send subordinates to the conquered villages to rule in the kings name (a worse option is to send an army to control the province). Subordinates are inexpensive, and they aggravate only a few people when confiscating lands from peasant to build their own manor (similar to a mansion, estate, or plantation). The few offended people remain poor and unorganized, so they are not a threat to the king, while the rest are pacified, and do not threaten the king because they fear the nobleman may also confiscate their lands. Thus, subordinates are cheap, loyal, offend few people, prevent the offended from posing a threat, and discourage resistance to the king. That being said, the population must be either treated well or crushed, because a well-treated population is not prone to rebellion, and a massacred population does not have the power to resist, but people with slight injuries have a reason and the power to rebel.

The final option, keeping a military in the province, is the most expensive and will consume the king’s entire budget, in which case the conquered lands harm the kingdom rather than help it. A garrison must be manned by nobles, and these nobles must be replaced because they must manage their own provinces. As a result, the entire kingdom is faced with the difficulties of pacifying the territory, and the nobles may become hostile. For these reasons, a garrison is as useless as a colony is useful.

A king who controls a new territory different from his own should make himself the leader and defender of his neighbors, and should weaken his most powerful neighbors. This ensures that a foreign leader does not earn the respect of the new territory, in which case that leader would pose a great threat. Once a powerful king enters his neighbors land, he is respected by the provinces, which resent their own king. In this case, the provinces rally behind the invader, who profits with very little effort. The invader merely needs to prevent the provinces from gaining too much freedom, and he can easily suppress anyone who would oppose his authority. However, one who does not manage territories properly will soon lose those new territories, and he will have endless troubles managing them in the meantime.


All that follows are the examples of Rome and Louis XII of France. The examples show Machiavelli’s ideas in context, but I do not think they are critical to an understanding of The Prince, so I will not attempt to summarize them.

Machiavelli's The Prince, Chapter III (first in a series of chapter III posts)

Chapter III: Concerning Mixed Principalities

New principalities present the greatest challenge to a new ruler. In new principalities, peasants change their rulers willingly in hopes of a better life, and this hope inspires them to resist new kings. However, the peasants are deceived by their fantasies, because experience dictates that life will go from bad to worse. The desire for change is bolstered by the ruler’s need to suppress the peasantry of his new lands.

In this way, a ruler has made enemies of all whom he has oppressed. Additionally, you are not able to satisfy your supporters in the new land because they want more than you can give, but you cannot take measures against these supporters because you feel grateful to them. Thus, a ruler must always be popular in a territory before he can conquer it.

When a new territory has a culture and language similar to that of the conqueror, the population is easier to control because the conqueror will cause few changes. If a king annexes a territory similar to his kingdom, he simply needs to eradicate the family of the former nobility and not alter laws or taxes, so the population remains unaffected and, therefore, will not resist the new king.


Updates to come later. It is somewhat difficult to understand Machiavelli, and even harder to explain him, so it takes a while to modernize the text.
There seems to be little of note in the news, with the exception of the elections, which everyone knows about already.

Is Arafat Dying?

Belmont Club article
This is one of many articles that advances the theory that Arafat is dying. An Arafat death may stir some things up in the election, but I don't see how it would cause any real change in poll numbers. However, it may really shake up the mid-east. The probable result would be an even less stable Palestine, one which has a complete lack of central authority. A lack of central authority means that Palestine can not operate as a nation on international terms, because international bodies and foreign nations will work only with a government or a single, united leadership. This would end almost all hope of co-existing Israeli and Palestinian nations under the current plans, and it would be very difficult to develop a new strategy. There is a slight chance that a new, better Palestinien leader could emerge (or be propped up), but their chance of success would be miniscule with groups like Hamas and local militias fighting for control.

Bush October Surprise: On Drudge Sunday Night, Wash. Post Mon Morning

Power Line: We just Got a Tip... is one source, and there are several others. Many say the story will run on Washington Time's front page Monday morning (top of the page, too), but the claim that Drudge may get the scoop does not have as much support.

It seems that the Bush campaign may have used the 'missing explosives' story to time how long it takes to rip up a (bad) October Surprise in this election.

Arab World Awaits US Election

Arabs Worried About The Impact Of 'Second US Civil War’, by Amir Taheri

That next week's presidential election is the closest in US history seems certain. What is causing concern in Arab and other capitals is that the intense passions unleashed by both sides could provoke instability and violence regardless of who wins.
...
"The prospect of the US being unable to take urgent decisions for months [due to a dispute over election results] cannot be taken lightly," suggests an Arab diplomat. "Such paralysis could be dangerous in our region where the situation remains volatile. The war in Iraq, the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the UN fight with Syria over Lebanon, and the Israeli plan to withdraw from Gaza cannot be put on the backburner for months."

To me, this is actually a good sign. I did not read the article considering the US election; but, rather, pondering the future of the mid-east over the next decade, no matter who wins the presidency. The mere fact that the Arab world could be put on hold or descend into chaos tells me that the American role in the mid-east has become indispensable and irremovable.

America is the only superpower, and the mid-east has recognized it as such. This recognition means many things (assuming the mid-east is right):
First, Arab nations will not strongly oppose the US, as they fear the unrestrained power of the American military (‘unrestrained’ by international or foreign bodies, to be exact).
Second, America’s word may be as powerful as America’s military, because America has an unlimited ability to back its word with a military.
Third, America no longer needs the highest GDP or greatest production capacity in the world to remain the economic superpower. This is because American currency will be the strongest in the world, American industry will be the safest and most reliable in the world, and technological advancements will ensure that the US military is the best in the world while guaranteeing new markets for which only American companies can supply.
Fourth, Atlas cannot shrug. America can’t ‘drop the ball’. More simply, America’s presence in the world must be constant and influential, so that international relations will work in harmony with the current structure of global politics. If America does not act like the only superpower, the position which America is stuck with, the world will completely ignore American influence and, therefore, the US will not be able to do what it must do on the international scene. This is comparable to a football referee who does nothing in the first half of a game, and is ignored by the players when he tries to do something in the second half, because the players no longer believe that the referee has any power. Simply, the power of the United States must be recognized by the world, and the US cannot fail its global responsibilities.
Fifth, the responsibility of the United States is not the task of ensuring internationalism. Internationalism simply for the sake of internationalism will set a precedent that the US should not be limited to. Internationalism because multi-national measures are needed is fine, but American power must be distinct and completely effective as a unilateral force. If America were to follow a policy of internationalism, America would be guided by the rest of the world. This contradicts the global balance of power, which shows that the US has the ability to lead the world. “Leading the world into internationalism” is not leadership; it is helping the world circumvent American power.


These points are, of course, based on my limited knowledge of international relations, and have a considerable possibility for error. In fact, I’ve never heard of a good “bullet points for an unopposed superpower”, but this post presents an interesting theory/theories at the least.

The Tragedy Of Blogging

American Digest: Blogger's Head Explodes

I won't quote any part of this, because the article is simply too great to allow readers to think that snipets are ample qualities of this post. Just read the article.

Boston Wins World Series

Boston beat the Cardinals 3-0 in the last game of the World Series.
A more complete article is here.

Russia Moved Iraq's Explosives Away?

From Drudge:

GERTZ // THURSDAY // WASH TIMES: Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

According to Glenn Beck, it would take 100 men and 40 dump trucks, working 12 hours a day, about 10 days to haul all the explosives away.
After US forces checked the weapons facility (which was supposed to be guarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN division), they found that the weapons were gone. The IAEA had decided to 'secure' the compound by putting a chain over the door, and attaching an IAEA seal to the chain. Needless to say, the chain and seal were gone when the US troops arrived.
Interestingly enough, US troops secured the road to and from the compound after leaving the building. This means that, though the building was not secured, there was no way that 40 trucks could travel to and from the compound over 10 days to move the explosives.

It looks like it will turn out that the IAEA, and therefore the UN, is actually responsible for not securing the explosives, rather than the US or the Bush administration. And, considering Drudge's incredible accuracy (believe it or not, he is more accurate than almost any other major source), it is likely that Russia helped move these explosives. I do not know why Russia would do this, or how Russian troops moving explosives in Iraq would go unnoticed, but I get the impression that a second Bush administration would use this to slap the UN and Russia whenever the we feel like they need a good whack in the head.

From Kerry Email: 'Quick, Get Fanatical!'

I am on the Kerry emailing list because I want to read the “we lost” message after the election. However, these guys send many emails (even though I attempted to unsubscribe a while ago, but I have decided to stay on recently). Now, they have sent an amusing “we only have one week left! Get fanatical!” message. Let me just illustrate how energetic the Kerry camp tries to be:
Sentences that end in with colon: 4
Sentences that end in with a question mark: 4
Sentences that end with a period: 8
Sentences that end with an exclamation mark: 33

Only punctuation marks that are used with their most common purpose are counted. For example, “WE WILL WIN THIS ELECTION!!!” and “VOTE!!!” (caps are in original) are counted to have three exclamation marks each, because a string of exclamation marks emphasizes the exclamation. However, a string of three periods, like in “Each volunteer can make a difference…just imagine” is not counted, because three consecutive periods indicate a pause, lapse in time, or the exclusion of a portion of a quote. Additionally, the line “But time is running out….” Does count for one period, as the last of these four periods signifies an end to the sentence (in special cases, it may mean that the sentence, paragraph, or entire text will never be finished. This was used at the end of a famous historian’s book when he was executed by Nazi’s mid-sentence).


I already know that the Kerry campaign can't use proper grammar, but this email was a bit too much.

Classic Works In Modern Language: Machiavelli's The Prince, Chapters I & II

In order to move away from 24/7 election coverage, but because the mainstream media reports nothing except the election 24/7, I have decided to take a tangent from commenting on recent events. I will, instead, re-write some notable works that have formed the foundation of politics, but which tend to be centuries old and use antiquated grammar structures. I hope to make these documents readable, and may build a “political theory” section of this website to organize them (but that is not in the near future). However, I believe this project may also improve my own understanding of these documents, and I can cite them whenever I want to defend an argument.

I will start with, perhaps, the most reasonable source for modern political theory; Machiavelli’s The Prince (link is to table of contents). Written around 1505 in Italy, and translated by W. K. Marriott (whom I believe did a good job). Please note, however, that I am doing little more than paraphrasing Marriott and Machiavelli, and probably not even doing so with great accuracy. I am merely trying to convey Machiavelli’s ideas in a way that modern people can easily understand.

First, some explanation: Machiavelli wrote The Prince not as a timeless work for political theory, but as a guidebook for the Medici family, whom he hoped would unite the many Italian provinces. The Medici family was one of the richest and most powerful in all of Italy, but they had little power beyond their single province. Machiavelli, in Florentine, intended members of this Medici family to obtain and use his book and finally unite Italy. However, the Medici family did not use Machiavelli’s work, and Italy was not united until the 19th century. The Prince remains an example of politics carried out not through morals, but through calculations and cunning to achieve the desired end regardless of what means must be taken.
Note: As I define it, “end” regards the final goal, while “means” are the methods or steps used to reach that goal.

The Prince, Chapter 1; How Many Kinds Of Principalities There Are And By What Means They Are Acquired

All governments are either republics or principalities (similar to monarchies, or ruled by a king).
Principalities have either been ruled by the same family for many generations or the ruling family is new.
The ruling family of principalities is either entirely new, or the principalities may be annexed by a larger nation which has an old ruling family.
The annexed principalities are either accustomed to living under a prince or king, or they may have lived in freedom without a royal family. Also, the principalities were either acquired through military means, or through peaceful means (such as becoming the ruler of the new principality when the original royal family dies out).

Chapter II; Concerning Hereditary Principalities
I will ignore the republics, and instead explain principalities. I will explain, in the order described above, how these principalities should be ruled and maintained.
It is easy to preserve lands that have been ruled by the prince’s family for many generations because the prince needs only to repeat the actions of his predecessors and fix isolated difficulties as they arise. A mediocre prince will, therefore, be able to rule his land easily unless he is conquered by a powerful military. However, the prince can easily regain his land once the conqueror has bad luck and his power is unstable.
An old royal family has little reason to disturb the province, so it will be favored by the peasants. And, unless the ruler has terrible flaws, the peasants will be naturally supportive of him. In generations of rule, the peasants forget their reasons to desire change, because one change always leaves a desire for further changes (this particular sentence is difficult to summarize. It basically says: “without a change in leadership, the population will be accustomed to life without change” The W. K. Marriott translation is “in the antiquity and duration of [a prince’s] rule the memories and motives that make for change are lost, for one change always leaves the toothing for another.”)

That ends chapter 2. Chapter 3, however, is quite long, and may take several posts to fully modernize. Plus, chapters 1 and 2 will likely need some corrections, because translation/modernization is a pain.

From Drudge: CBS Planned Stolen Explosives For Election-Eve

Article (the article may not last long, and is subject to frequent updates).

60 MINS PLANNED BUSH MISSING EXPLOSIVES STORY FOR ELECTION EVE

News of missing explosives in Iraq -- first reported in April 2003 -- was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crisis mode.

Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold..."

Elizabeth Jensen at the LOS ANGELES TIMES details on Tuesday how CBS NEWS and 60 MINUTES lost the story [which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003].

The story instead debuted in the NYT. The paper slugged the story about missing explosives from April 2003 as "exclusive."

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived. (VIDEO CLIP)

It is not clear who exactly shopped an election eve repackaging of the missing explosives story.

The LA TIMES claims: The source on the story first went to 60 MINUTES but also expressed interest in working with the NY TIMES... "The tip was received last Wednesday."

CBSNEWS' plan to unleash the story just 24 hours before election day had one senior Bush official outraged.

"Darn, I wanted to see the forged documents to show how this was somehow covered up," the Bush source, who asked not to be named, mocked, recalling last months CBS airing of fraudulent Bush national guard letters.

Apparently, CBS revived an old story, and planned to release it like breaking news right before the election, before actual facts or context had any time to come out. If this is true, I'm not very pleased with CBS, to say the least. In fact, this would be clear and blatant election tampering, in my opinion.
Now, one interesting point from the CNN article linked to in the quote:

Prior to the Iraq war, the high-grade explosives at Al Qaqaa had been under the control of IAEA inspectors because the material could be used as a component in a nuclear weapon, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said. IAEA and other U.N. inspectors left the country in March 2003 before the fighting began on March 19.

(underlining done by me)

So the media finally admits that Saddam had some suspicious materiel?

If Drudge is right, and it looks like he might be, I have little care for the continued existence of CBS. Getting a story or two wrong is unavoidable, and every single media outlet makes tons of accidental mistakes. However, purposefully manipulating this story, and after already fabricating the Bush National Guard memos, is despicable, unethical, and makes CBS unworthy of being called a “news source”. The Onion is more accurate than CBS, and The Onion makes their articles up!


Has America actually reached a point at which the media will blatantly lie to the public in order to give a politician a few extra votes? It was supposed to be the media that prevented this from happening, that’s why freedom of the press is in the First Amendment; so the media would be protected when they reveal a controversy.

A New Ballot Controversy - Debunked

from Glenn Beck.

This is an absentee ballot from Cuyahoga, Ohio. The instructions read "To vote for President and Vice-President, punch the hole beside the number for the set of candidates of your choice. Your vote will be counted for each of the candidates for presidential elector whose names have been certified to the Secretary of State".

If you wanted to vote for Bush, you would punch the box which the arrow in the Bush/Cheney cell points to, right (the box which is green)?
Look closer. A lot closer. In fact, look at the ballot as though it is meant to decieve you, and you may see the error. The number in the Bush/Cheney cell is 4, but the box which the arrow points to is box 14. In order to vote for Bush on this ballot, you actually have to punch the red box, which is numbered four, and located above the Kerry/Edwards box.
The source for this ballot asked many people in his building how they would vote for Bush on this ballot, and not one person actually voted for Bush correctly. Don't get excited about a controversy until you read the next paragraph.

There is one problem, however, with the claim of an anti-Bush conspiracy: the sheet listing the candidates is not attached to the sheet that is supposed to be punched. In other words, there is actually no problem with alignment between the arrows and punch-holes, because the two are not lined up.


However, there is certainly reason for confusion, because the absentee ballot has no reason for arrows (the arrows are for the normal ballot, and those line up correctly with the to-be-punched holes). Additionally, I cannot fathom why the particular numbering order is used on this ballot. I would think that Bush/Cheney or Kerry/Edwards would be first, followed by the third-party candidates. This would make the ballot a lot simpler, though the changes are cosmetic, and have almost no chance of affecting votes. And, of course, the "candidate disqualified" slot on the ballot is entirely useless.
Thanks to Power Line for taking apart this controversy. The Glenn Beck website is updated only once per day, and I assume that it was not known that the ballot is ectually in two parts when it was origionally posted (the ballot was also reported on Glenn Beck's national radio program at around 9:10 AM EST). So, now you know the rest of the story.

Brainiac + Dead Rats + Petri Dish = New, Interactive Mini-Brain

here, and here . From the first article:

A University of Florida scientist has grown a living “brain” that can fly a simulated plane, giving scientists a novel way to observe how brain cells function as a network.

The “brain” -- a collection of 25,000 living neurons, or nerve cells, taken from a rat’s brain and cultured inside a glass dish -- gives scientists a unique real-time window into the brain at the cellular level. By watching the brain cells interact, scientists hope to understand what causes neural disorders such as epilepsy and to determine noninvasive ways to intervene.
...
[DeMarse's] experimental "brain" interacts with an F-22 fighter jet flight simulator through a specially designed plate called a multi-electrode array and a common desktop computer.

“It’s essentially a dish with 60 electrodes arranged in a grid at the bottom,” DeMarse said. “Over that we put the living cortical neurons from rats, which rapidly begin to reconnect themselves, forming a living neural network – a brain.”

The brain and the simulator establish a two-way connection, similar to how neurons receive and interpret signals from each other to control our bodies. By observing how the nerve cells interact with the simulator, scientists can decode how a neural network establishes connections and begins to compute, DeMarse said.

Now this is simply incredible. I didn't even know scientists could keep neurons alive in a petri dish for a decent amount of time, much less hook them up to a computer and let them learn how to fly. The brain can only control the pitch and roll of the aircraft in simulated weather ranging from perfect weather to hurricane-force winds, but that's not bad for about 25,000 neurons in a petri dish wired to a common desktop computer. Additionally, these neurons were originally inside rats, so they aren’t a particularly brilliant type. However, the neurons technically do not sit in a petri dish, they have a petri dish-like glass plate with electrodes attached to it.

The scientist hopes to “get ideas from this system about how brains compute and process information”.

According to the article, all this was done with a $500,000 grant to “create a mathematical model that reproduces how the neurons compute”.


Give a scientist $500,000, and he grows a brain that can fly a bit. Give a man $20 million, and he will build a safe, reusable spaceship. Not bad!

Unfortunately, government likes to spend money on other things, like The National Endowment for the Arts, which spent $1,500 for a poem “lighght.” That wasn’t a typo, and it’s not even the poem’s title. That is the entire poem. If I say “brighght.” to The National Endowment for the Arts, the unpronounceable quasi-word might also be worth $1,500.

Perhaps it’s time to scrap The National Endowment for the Arts and replace it with a National Endowment for the Sciences.

Walk A Mile In The Other Party's Shoes.. Or Shirts

Political Poseur - Pretending to be a Republican in Blue California, By Richard Rushfield

This article is brilliant and hilarious. Richard Rushfield, of California, decided to wear the paraphernalia of each campaign in areas heavily supportive of the opponent. He went to malls, coffee shops, and the like, and staid away from places like campaign headquarters. He documents his experience as a ‘political untouchable’ in the excellent article (‘untouchables’ were people with diseases so bad that they carried a bell to warn others of their presence, so people could flee and the disease wouldn’t be spread, to the best of my knowledge). I won’t blockquote in order to better use space.

Inside The Republican Haven:
--------
“In my Kerry-Edwards shirt, I enter Red America certain that I am on the verge of inciting to rage a gang of angry yachtsmen who would soon be strapping me and my lefty leisurewear to their mizzenmast. Instead, I encounter only shades of indifference—head shaking, "crazy idiot" expressions from older, very wealthy, very white folks in Newport Beach; terse nods from the middle- to working-class citizens of Bakersfield, which seem to indicate that people here have much bigger things to worry about than whatever is on my stupid T-shirt. In Bakersfield, surprisingly, there's little indication that we are near the eve of an election: I see a total of two campaign bumper stickers, one for Bush and one Kerry, and one elderly lady with a huge Bush button pinned to the jacket of her pantsuit. Despite a recent visit from Dick Cheney, presidential politics seems to have bypassed Bakersfield, and the locals are not about to let a mere T-shirt drag them into the muck.

“Toward the end of the day, I find one person on whom the election has a deep hold. Strolling past a sunglasses booth in the mall, I am spotted by a tall and exceedingly thin man in his early 20s, with a buzz cut that makes him look ominously like a shock-therapy patient. As I walk by, he fixates on my shirt and begins to follow me, seemingly mesmerized by the power of my Kerry-Edwards logo. I look back and see him trailing behind me, mouth agape, his eyes glued to my back. Whether the shirt identifies me as his leader or whether it is his Manchurian Candidate-like signal to kill, I can't tell. I duck into the mall's Starbucks and the spell seems to break; he turns and wanders away.”
--------
Aside from one stupid zombie, not bad. Sounds like this guy actually got better treatment than me on a normal day, when I don’t wear political clothes.

Now, for Land O’ Liberals:
--------
…
“Next up: Café Tropical, the gritty Cuban coffee house in old Silverlake. I park my Bush-Cheney festooned car behind a Volvo station wagon decorated with a bumper sticker that reads, "Ban war without end. Not in our name." I order an iced espresso and sit beneath a collage of Che Guevara photos. Customers accessorize their coffees at the condiment station in front of me. Suddenly I look up to see Latino man, who appears to be in his early 40s, rushing toward me, an enormous grin on his face. "Where do you get that shirt?" he demands. He continues: "I know only three Republicans here. Everyone else loves Kerry. The Spanish language TV is so filled with bias. They don't tell you that Mr. Bush is a gentleman." People standing nearby watch our summit with anguished there-goes-the-neighborhood expressions. As my new friend leaves, he stands at the front door and, raising his fist, yells, "Viva Bush!" Spasms of horror seize the store and pulse out to the community beyond.
…
“On Vermont Avenue, irony fades into gentrification. A fashionably dressed woman seated at a sidewalk table makes a disgusted face at the sight of me. On line at Psychobabble coffee house, another woman in a blue velour tracksuit rolls her eyes and grimaces at me with undisguised hatred. Realizing there are no seats but the one next to me, she stares intently into her cup, avoiding my polluting glance, until another table opens and she quickly relocates. Out on the avenue once again, I am gifted with my second "Asshole" of the day, this time muttered by a young man with bright dyed raspberry hair.
…
“I enter the faux-rustic Brentwood Country Mart, a collection of shops intended to look like an olde-time barnyard. On the central patio, I pass a woman who looks up from her gaggle of children to see me passing and exclaims, "Ick! God!" A group of teen skater boys waiting on line to buy the Mart's famed "Chicken Basket" discuss whether Bush will be removed from office by the time they turn 18, thus saving them from the draft. I sit down to eat. Dining nearby is a young girl who looks to be about 6-years-old; she gazes at my shirt with a look so forlorn, I expect to learn that Dick Cheney just stole her crayons. Her mother arrives and gives her a hug of consolation. The girl starts to talk, but I can only make out "Bush shirt," which she says to her mother as she points my way. The mother turns and glares, shaking her head at me. I start to wonder what sort of person I am to inflict this on a poor child.

“Up in the San Vicente shopping area, things go even less smoothly. At the first intersection, an older man in the weekend wear of the very prosperous passes me and yells, "Bush-Cheney?!?" as though demanding an explanation. At the Coral Tree Organic Café, a willowy, bookish woman seated alone glares at me from across the room. When I smile and wave to her, she puts on her sunglasses.”
--------
Wow, now those people are downright nasty. Then again, it is California.

As the author alludes at the end of the article, he is on the left wing. The right wing has claimed for a long time that the political left is the more rude of the two parties. Excessive Evidence for this claim is provided by the likes of Al Franken, who has tackled anti-Dean protestors and had to be carried away by security when he refused to stop pestering Sean Hannity after a show. Additionally, he has been known to try to incite people to get a story, including (I believe) saying “I’m listening to this Mormon ramble on and on..” at the recent GOP convention to get a response out of Glenn Beck, a popular (and my favorite) talk-show host. I believe he has also punched O’Reilly a few times, and that’s about as moronic as someone can get. Liberals are supposed to be the “violence never solves anything” types, and yet there are plenty of liberals who were overjoyed to hear that Franken hit O’Reilly.

But, in all the time Rushfield was in Liberal Land, how could he not tell one person off for being intolerant?

No Surprise Here - Liberal British Newspaper Wants Bush Dead

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

-originally from www.instapundit.com, which quoted this segment before the Guardian website went down.

Earlier, The Guardian attempted to interfere with the US elections. I commented on the idiocy of this attempt before the interference actually started, here. The title for my post is bad, I admit, but it's better than the Guardian's argument.

When I read this, I started liking Bush even more. This newspaper not only wishes for Bush to die, but it calls America uncivilized, claims a Bush victory would prove that there is no god (does that mean Bush isn't Satan? If there isn't a god, then I doubt the Dark Prince has a reason to exist, either), and falsely implies that Iraq didn't want to get rid of Saddam ("unwanted bloodshed" refers to this).
After The Guardian attempted to directly interfere with the US elections by having readers send mail to voters in Ohio encouraging Americans to vote for Kerry, I intended to ignore The Guardian entirely, and laugh at what they say when I can't ignore them. Well, I have laughed at this quote, as it brings me to joy to ponder the mortification of journalists when Bush is re-elected, but I was convinced to mention this newspaper again because the quote is simply too good to not repeat.

This journalist, like the rest of Europe, is suffering withdrawal symptoms. I'm not talking about any particular drug, even though there's good reason to expect The Guardian has a private meth lab and "botanical garden" for its reporters. Rather, I am talking about losing power and influence over the world. From the 1500's to 1988 (and also during the entire Roman era), Europe was the center of the world. Even during the Cold War, it was the fulcrum on which US and Soviet power balanced. But, over the last decade, Europe has finally realized that America is the one and only superpower, and it has left Europe in the dust. Europe’s new way of clamoring for power is claiming that everything must be “legitimate” – i.e., with Europe’s approval. The UN itself doesn’t matter to Europe, as the UN is merely a tool to help reach an end, because Europe was willing to go after Kosovo without UN approval. If the US were to strive for legitimacy, as Europe claims is necessary, then we would be shackled to a lazy and fallen superpower. The US has no good reason to drag Europe, kicking and screaming the entire way, by a chain around the leg of each in order to improve the nation’s place in the world - or to improve the world itself.
Europe’s international weakness is proven by the fact that much of the continent can only appeal to American popular opinion, which The Guardian’s actions are an example of.

On the other hand, there is a chance that The Guardian conducted a publicity stunt. Abercrombie And Fitch, for example, sold pornography to stir up controversy and got tons of free advertising (A&F spent almost nothing on commercials for a year or two).


In either case, I hope to never mention The Guardian again. Unless, of course, it’s really, really funny.

My Hometown Bush/Cheney Headquarters Robbed

Cincinnati Bush/Cheney headquarters robbed

Cincinnati's headquarters for the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign was broken into overnight.
Money and a sign were taken from the office, on Seventh Street near Court Street. The thieves got in by breaking out a window.
The office was also ransacked, officials said. It also houses other Republican organizations.

I'll turn on the local news and try to find some update-worthy material.

Ann Coulter Creamed.. Literally

article
In short, two men threw pies at Ann Coulter during a speech at the University of Arizona. Because these men are girly liberals, they couldn't throw straight, and only hit Ann's shoulder.

How immature can two guys be? Couldn't they at least target a guy, rather than a woman? Yes, Coulter is quite vocal, and she can even grate my nerves once in a while, but I would never consider throwing a pie at her. I wouldn't even throw a pie at Michael Moore, even though he would probably be overjoyed to have an entire pie stuffed in his face for free (OK, that was a cheap shot, but Michael Moore deserves a few cheap shots).

A Fantastic Read From a Canadian

An essay by a Canadian
Read the essay. It is too good for me to summarize, and I'd rather link to the essay than quote it because the margins on It Is What It Is are better than those on my website.

Good Summary Of Genocide In Sudan

The war in Darfur summary. Everything in the article looks fairly accurate, and the artilcle is simplified to explain the conflict to non-news-fanatics. It's a good read if you don't know much about the Darfur genocide.

Time To Talk About Norway And The Environment, But Mostly Norway

ENN: Environmental News Network article
First, let me explain a bit about Norway, where this article was written. Norway is rich and socialist. Norway manages to keep those contradictory traits because it is a major oil exporter. In fact, Norway has at least 50 years worth of oil in the reserves that are currently being used, and possibly centuries worth of oil in reserves farther north, but little surveying has been done to find those reserves. Norway is also very cold, and Norwegians love to joke about how they refer to -75 degree weather as "a bit nippy". However, Norway manages to have surprisingly good music (to the extent that a Norwegian won the "World Idol" competition, if my memory is correct. Additionally, I’m listening to some Edvard Grieg, Norway’s most notable composer, right now), and Norwegians who know English can write it better than the British.
However, the frozen nation of Norway has some race problems, and the population views black as a sub-class, dependant on the government or charity to survive.
Back to Norway being rich: the nation has way too much money, and a lot f spare electricity. Either earlier this year or late last year, Norway actually shut down one of its largest hydropower plants for nine hours to tune a piano. The auditorium was carved into a mountain by the power company (yep, carved into the mountain), but the hum from power generators did not allow an expert to properly tune a piano in the auditorium in preparation for a major concert. So, the company turned the generators off for nine hours, long enough for the piano to be tuned and for the concert.
That’s Norway in a nutshell. A very cold, very rich, very socialist, and a bit racist nutshell.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry has won plaudits abroad for his promises to fight global warming but could find his hands tied at home if he wins next month's U.S. elections.
An ideological chasm separates the environmental policies of the two candidates, with President George W. Bush favoring more use of domestic coal and oil to cut dependence on Middle East oil, while Kerry seeks a shift to clean energy like solar or wind power by 2020.
…
"Kerry would engage with other countries about what would come after 2012 in a way that the Bush administration wouldn't," said Eileen Claussen, head of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. She said the environment came far behind Iraq, terror, and the economy in voter priorities.
The Republican president has derided Kyoto as too costly and says it is unfair because it exempts rapidly industrializing countries like China and India. "It's one of those deals where, in order to be popular in the halls of Europe, you sign a treaty," he said.
Kerry says Bush should have tried to renegotiate a "flawed" Kyoto rather than ditching it. Kyoto is set to enter into force in the next few weeks with Russian backing.
Kyoto aims to cut developed nations' emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Many scientists say storms, rising sea levels, and desertification may be the biggest threat to life on the planet in the coming centuries, justifying trillions of dollars in spending to crack down.

What this treaty comes down to is how much each person cares about the environment. People like me, who want an ozone sunroof, couldn’t care less about a useless piece of regulation like Kyoto. Environmental fanatics, on the other hand, think Humanity should sacrifice modern economies to prevent a bit of carbon from entering the atmosphere.

Read the article if you want to. No one is really interested in global warming, though, so I won’t bother to analyze the story in this post. Instead, I actually enjoy talking about Norway a bit, and I couldn’t pass up a good chance to bring the subject up.

Europe STILL Wants To Give Iran More Uranium

USATODAY.com - Iran insists on right to enrich uranium

Giving Iran one last chance to avoid the threat of U.N. sanctions, Britain, France and Germany will offer nuclear fuel and economic incentives at a meeting Thursday in return for assurances [that] the Tehran regime will suspend uranium enrichment, diplomats said.
The offer came as Iran announced Wednesday [that it has proposed a compromise] to end the standoff over its nuclear program. But Iran insisted anew on its right to enrich uranium, which the United States [claims] is part of a covert attempt to build an atomic weapon.

Iran vows to continue it's nuclear program, which the nation claims is intended only for generating electricity. This vow is a setback to European diplomats, who had hoped to prevent Iran from enriching uranium.

The line above is a paraphrase, because I find it oddly difficult to understand what the journalist has written. The original sentence used pronouns in a somewhat-cryptic way.

So, Europe wants to give Iran nuclear fuel in exchange for an assurance that Iran won't make nuclear weapons. A logical person would require Iran to give up machinery that can make nukes, or maybe exile some nuclear scientist, but these diplomats seem happy with the promise of a dishonest nation.

It was a deal like this that allowed North Korea to obtain nukes. And, I believe it may be a deal much like Europe's that also allowed Iran to build a nuclear program.


Let me explain this in a non-international-relations way. Suppose someone breaks into your house and tries to steal a lot of your property. You catch them and threaten to force them out. However, the thief insists that he still wants your stuff. To reach a compromise, you help him fill his truck with your stuff, and you do not call the police because he left peacefully (with a lot of your stuff, but you helped him steal it). A week later, the thief comes back with a bigger truck and starts emptying your house. Again, you agree to help him fill his truck so the thief doesn't damage your house (as the thief doesn't care about tearing up the house). So, the thief again drives away with more of your stuff, and you don't call the cops. This goes on until your house is empty, and the thief has all of your stuff.
If you didn't help the thief, he wouldn't have come back, so you would only lose some of your property. Also, because you helped the thief, he didn't really commit a crime because you willingly gave up your property. Also, had you called the cops, the thief would be arrested and everything would be replaced.
However, because the homeowner is naive and doesn't consider the future, he is left with nothing and has only himself to blame.

Europe is, in effect, the naive homeowner. Europe is willing to give Iran a greater ability to build nukes (or more advanced weapons, like hydrogen bombs), in exchange for a false promise of future good behavior. If this process of appeasement is allowed to continue, Europe will sacrifice everything to threatening nations. Once Europe sacrifices enough, the appeased will become more powerful than the appeaser. Then, the appeased is free to do whatever it wants, and may even conquer the former appeaser.

Brilliant Way To Prevent Sign Theft

The reason I am running this story is because it reveals a great method of preventing sign theft. The article is
Rocky Mountain News Article (it doesn't discuss the method, only hints to it). So, I'll explain the method.

The first thing you do is put your sign in the middle of some area with a very hard surface. If you have a way to put the sign in your driveway or on a patio, do so. Make sure that the hard surface covers at least a seven foot radius around the sign (this may not be necessary, depending on various conditions). Put some stakes into the ground, and run a chain through them, going around the sign but at least seven feet away from the sign itself.
Now, if someone tries to take your sign, they will trip over the chain and hit the ground fairly hard, which may be ample punishment. You want to keep the chain a decent distance from the sign because you do not want the thief to impale themself on your banner, which could lead to lawsuits or imprisonment due to "wrongful death" laws. Besides, convicted felons can't vote (but people charged with felonies, but not yet convicted, can vote), so impaling the thief wouldn't help your cause very much.
You may want to remove the stakes and chain early each morning, then replace them once it's dark, so you are certain to catch the thief by surprise.

Keep in mind, however, that signs are getting stolen pretty evenly for both Republicans and Democrats. However, I suspect that Nader signs have, by far, the shortest lifespan.

Iran Endorses... Bush?

The Globe and Mail article

The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of U.S. President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbours al-Qaeda terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.
Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.
“We haven't seen anything good from Democrats,” Mr. Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.
Iranian political analyst Mohsen Mofidi said ousting the Taliban and Saddam Hussein was the “biggest service any administration could have done for Iran.”
And Mr. Bush, he said, has learned from his mistakes.
“The experience of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the responsibility Bush had, will make it a very remote possibility for him to risk attacking a much bigger and more powerful country like Iran,” he said.
Mr. Mofidi added that “Democrats usually insist on human rights and they will have more excuses to pressure Iran.

I will have to rethink my entire analysis of Iran. This re-analysis has nothing to do with the possibility that Iran actually supports Bush; rather, it is because I thought Iran acted in international affairs based on rational calculations. I will agree that ousting Saddam Hussein had a positive side-effect for Iran, as the two have been at odds since the end of the Iran-Iraq War (which Saddam ended unexpectedly so he could use his entire military for the Gulf War). However, a democratic, non-fundamentalist neighbor is not good for Iran, especially because the people of Iran do not support the government.
It also seems that Iran does not realize the power and plans of the Bush administration. No matter how much better the Iranian military is than that of Iraq, they can be destroyed just as decisively, if not more so, than the Iraqi military in Gulf War II/Iraqi Liberation. Not only does the US have great experience in mid-east warfare, but we’ve also been improving weaponry and will not make many of the mistakes (though they weren’t very costly by military standards) of Iraq.
Bush seems quite determined to keep forcing democracy down the throat of Arabs. I suspect that Iran may be next. Perhaps Syria is a target, and the US would love to topple the Saudi royal family, but Iran is a big and easy target, especially now that over 100,000 US troops are right next door in Iraq.

British Politician Comments On Sudan

'If this isn't genocide, then what on earth is?'
I'll keep this post slightly toned down, because I don't want to describe genocide. But, just so you know, I believe journalists have a rule of thumb when reporting genocide: if the Nazis did it, then it's reportable on primetime TV. If the Nazi's didn't do it, stick with cable/satellite, a late-night report, or ignore the gory details altoghether. There are many details that don't get reported.

So, to quote parts of the article:

A traumatized, helpless mood of resignation simmers in the [refugee] camps. Sometimes it boils over, as, for instance, at Otash camp, near Nyala, where a policeman was lynched. A woman had recognized him as one of those who massacred her family
I understand why Tony Blair wanted face-to-face discussions with President Omar al-Bashir when he visited Khartoum this month. But before we shake too many hands in Sudan we should remember the blood on them.
Britain refuses to follow America's lead in saying that what is happening in Darfur is genocide. The Government's line is that it would not help it in its efforts to put pressure on the Sudanese Government.
. . .
Above all, [the refugees] told us, the genocide must end. One, Sheik De Allah, said poignantly: "We are a simple people. We know our farms and cattle and that's all we want. The Government created Janjaweed and has created this situation. We are desperate and pray that the international community will intervene."

That summarizes the situation as cleanly yet accurately as possible. If you want a more accurate description of what's happening in Darfur, you will have to read about some very horrific events, as genocide can not be separated into politics and crimes, as required for a family-friendly article.

"Help, I Can't Get HBO!"

TV Calls Air Force for Help

An Air Force search and rescue alert was trigged by Chris van Rossman's flatscreen Toshiba TV. It has a built-in VCR, DVD and CD player. And an undocumented feature that has authorities scratching their heads.
Some sort of electric glitch was causing van Rossman's TV to transmit on the international distress frequency. The signal was picked up by a satellite and relayed to the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center in Virginia.
Van Rossman had no idea until airmen, deputies and Corvallis, Oregon, police were knocking on the door of his apartment. The errant signal was traced to his TV set.
Van Rossman was warned to keep the TV off or face a $10,000 fine for sending a false distress signal.
A spokeswoman for Toshiba says they've never heard of this sort of problem before. But the company is promising to give van Rossman a new TV.

I wonder how strong a distress signal must be for a satellite to pick it up.
And, rather than forcing the TV to stay off with the threat of charging $10,000, can't they find some material that would block the distress signal?

I won't bother fact-checking this story, because it's probably impossible to fact-check. Besides, t's simply too funny to take seriously.

Make A Note: AIDs Protesters Are The Worst

21 Arrested in Arlington Protest of Bush Administration AIDS Policy

Arlington police arrested 21 protesters yesterday after they chained themselves to the front door and one another at Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters during a demonstration against administration policies.
About 120 protesters took part in the demonstration outside the building on Wilson Boulevard that houses the campaign headquarters, police said. The protest began about 2 p.m. and lasted 90 minutes, they said.
The protest was organized by ACT UP and Housing Works, a nonprofit agency that provides social services, housing and health care to people with AIDS in New York, said Robert Cordero, director of federal advocacy for Housing Works.

I believe ACT UP was the same organization that got several protesters into the RNC Convention while Bush was speaking. About three of these protesters were carried out by a platoon of Secret Service officers.
These guys have become dangerous because of their actions. By disrupting the Bush speech, they could have caused a lapse in security. Additionally, they caused as much chaos as possible outside of the convention. Of course, the Secret Service prepares for fanatical protestors like these, but they certainly are not appreciated, and their antics cause a lot of trouble.

I suppose that the protesters do not realize that HIV/AIDs is receiving more funding from the federal government, per infected person, than any other major disease. In 2003, HIV/AIDs research received nearly 2.8 billion in federal funding. This translates to $5,500 for every person identified as having AIDs (which kills about 14,132 per year). Heart diseases, which kill about 700,000 per year, receive only about 2.1 billion in federal funding.
In other words, HIV is disproportionably funded to an extreme. Compared with other common causes of death, it is quite overfunded. The deathrate due to HIV has been plummeting since 1995, from 45,000 in 1995 to 15,000 in 1999 (I am unable to find more recent data).
In 1998, more people of every 5-year age group (one group is 0 to 4 years old, the next is 5 to 9 years old, the next is 10 to 14 years old, ect) died due to suicide rather than HIV/AIDs. With the exception of groups within the 30-year-old to 64-year-old bracket, more people died due to homicide (murder) than due to HIV/AIDs. And, within the 30 to 64 bracket, the death rates are quite close. source. That source may take a while to load, as it is a large Centers for Disease Control document.
So, HIV-positive people not only have an overfunded infection (according to the data), but their disease actually doesn't kill very many people in the US.

Don't get me wrong, every person knowing they are going to die abnormally soon has a right to be unhappy. However, unintentional injuries (which tend to come out of nowhere and with no warning at all) kill far more people than HIV/AIDs does. I believe the protesters had a far greater chance of being killed by a car (accidentally) when leaving the Bush-Cheney HQ than they were to die of HIV/AIDs at the Bush-Cheney HQ. The likelihood that many protesters were not HIV-positive makes this possible.

Keep in mind, somewhere between 2 and 8 people die each year by being crushed by a giant roll of paper. Another 2 to 8 (at the least) are killed by giant spools of wire in a similar fashion.

There are plenty of ways to die, and HIV is a less-common one. However, government insists on ending it with incredible amounts of money, giving the shaft to people with cancer or heart diseases, along with many other fatal problems.


To me, it seems that these protesters are simply fanatics who want to disrupt the democratic process. Actually, that’s exactly what they are, and HIV is an unrelated factor.

Revolutionary New Idea: Replace Machines With Humans

Ottawa Citizen article

Scientists have discovered a way of manipulating a gene that turns animals into drones that do not become bored with repetitive tasks. The experiments, conducted on monkeys, are the first to demonstrate that animal behavior can be permanently changed, turning the subjects from aggressive to "compliant" creatures.
...
The experiments -- detailed in the journal Nature Neuroscience this month -- involved blocking the effect of a gene called D2 in a particular part of the brain. This cut off the link between the rhesus monkeys' motivation and reward.
Instead of speeding up with the approach of a deadline or the prospect of a "treat," the monkeys in the experiment could be made to work just as enthusiastically for long periods. The scientists say the identical technique would apply to humans.

News flash for the scientists: monkeys are stupid. Humans, on the other hand, are naturally greedy and have this thing called "being self-aware", which means humans can consciously use their brain (to some extent), and might insist on a reward for their hard work, anyway. Monkeys just learn a habit. In this case, the monkeys don't realize that they won't get a reward.

Congratulations to these scientists. They have managed to make monkeys stupider. Instead of dropping the monkeys on their heads when they are young, the scientists spent a lot of money and time to isolate and manipulate a "misled idiot" gene to greatly improve the chance of obtaining properly retarded monkeys.

This is exactly what humanity needs, isn’t it? Even dumber people with absolutely no ability to learn anything new.

They could have found a cure for baldness. But, apparently, science desperately needs a way to reliably and humanely retard monkeys.


And, just so you know, I have no idea what these scientists really did. I’m simply making this stuff up as I go. Maybe these scientists have found a universal cure for depression and ended inefficiency to greatly improve humanity’s desire for a better future. If this is the case, maybe they will get a Noble Prize. However, I find it comical to discuss the possibility of more-retarded monkeys. By the way, I have nothing against the mentally impaired/challenged/handicapped/handicapable. It is simply fun to joke about new scientific discoveries and theorize (technically, “hypothesize”) how useless they could be.

Just How Many Bills Has Kerry "Passed?"

Factcheck.org article

At the final presidential debate, Bush said Kerry had passed only five bills during his career, and Kerry said he had passed 56. Actually, we found eleven measures authored by Kerry have been signed into law, including a save-the-dolphins law, a law naming a federal building, a law giving a posthumous award to Jackie Robinson last year, and laws declaring "world population awareness weeks" in 1989 and 1991.

Bush counted only measures technically defined as "bills," leaving out four "joint resolutions" that also have the force of law, and he also omitted two laws whose House versions were adopted in a form nearly identical to Senate versions authored by Kerry.

When Kerry said "I've actually passed 56 individual bills that I've personally written" he was counting everything that had passed the Senate, whether or not it cleared the House. He also counts 24 resolutions that have no force of law.

If a senator makes $158,100 per year (according to this), and Kerry has been a senator for 20 years, he's made $3,162,000 to: save several dolphins, authorize $53 million in grants for woman-owned small businesses, name a federal building after Fredrick C. Murphy, fund the National Sea Grant College Program, and grant a visa and permanent US residence to Kil Joon Yu Callahan.
However, Kerry also made two bills almost identical to the House version, and the House version was passed in the senate to avoid compromises between the senate and house. These bills: awarded a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), and Increased the maximum research grants for small businesses from $500,000 to $750,000.
Kerry also passed 24 Senate resolutions that had no chance of becoming laws. These resolutions include a ban on commercial mining of minerals in Antartica, encouraging Europe to ban driftnets for European Community fishing fleets, and to rename the Committee on Small Business.
Additionally, Kerry passed bills in the senate to allow 10 foreign-built vessels to transport cargo or people along the US coastline. Because there were 10 different ships, Kerry passed 10 different bills, one for each ship. None of these passed the House.

I'm sure people wonder who Kil Joon Yu Callahan is, or why Kerry thought any commercial company would even want to mine in Antartica, or why Kerry bothers with foreign fishing nets and a few dolphins. I have the same questions. IN 20 years, couldn't Kerry have passed just one big peice of legislation?

Interesting poll analysis

USS Clueless -- Poll Trends

Not bad. This article brings up some good points, all of which seem fairly accurate.

Sudan Update

Article

China is trying to stop the United Nations imposing sanctions on Sudan over the crisis in the Darfur regionto protect its oil imports from the country, say western diplomats.
For the past six years Beijing has been the Sudanese government's main backer, buying 70 per cent of its exports, servicing its $20bn debt and supplying the Khartoum government with most of its weapons.
...
The UN Security Council is committed to reviewing the situation on a monthly basis. Given the stream of bad news, it could soon move to embargo Sudan's oil exports. China's ambassador to the UN, Wang Guangya, has already threatened to veto any such resolution, but diplomats say Beijing may have to give in to mounting international pressure.
Beijing is already under fire for its support of Burma, North Korea and Iran, countries also accused of breaches of international law. China was also singled out in the recently released Charles Duelfer report on Iraq's WMD, along with Russia and France, for breaching the UN sanctions against Iraq and subverting the oil-for-food programme. But China is almost alone in supporting Sudan. After the US imposed sanctions in November 1997, the rest of the world - apart from companies from Pakistan, India and Malaysia - have kept their distance.

Indeed, China has been friendly with Sudan because of oil. Over the last few years, China went from a major oil exporter to a major oil importer, and it has every intention to use more oil. In addition, China has been investing heavily in Austrilia to develop the mining industry.
China's industrial growth depends on availability of foreign resources, and the Chinese government can not afford an economic collapse.

Update On 'Voter Outreach' Trashed Ballots Story

After nearly 24 hours for this story to pass through the media, few realize that the story is fake. The forgery of this story has been determined by a few individuals (including me), while many others have also found reason to suspect parts of the story. Also, any existing organization of a decent size seems to be listed in a google.com search. With the incredible number of people writing about virtually anything, it is very difficult for something not to appear on google.

Klas-TV, in Las Vegas (aptly nicknamed the "city of sin") has run three stories alleging that a group named "Voters Outreach of America" has deliberately destroyed registration forms made by democrats. Destruction of registration forms is illegal, as well as a potential dirty trick. Klas-TV, in its two earliest articles, claimed that Voters Outreach of America is also known as America Votes (the reference in the first article shortly after I emailed Klas-TV requesting that they recheck their facts, no other part of the article was changed).
Oddly enough, America Votes, which certainly does exist, has absolutely no relation to the RNC, and probably has absolutely no affiliation to any republican at all. America Votes was created by AFL-CIO, the Media Fund, moveon.org, and over a dozen other liberal organizations in order to coordinate the actions of the founding groups. The president of America Votes was Deputy Chief of Staff to Nancy Pelosi, a notable democrat (if not outright liberal). This information is from the official America Votes website, and is backed up by a credible non-partisan source (ww.opensecrets.org) as well. Klas-TV claimed that Voters Outreach of America is "largely, if not entirely funded, by the Republican National Committee". It is certain that America Votes was funded entirely by the groups that its official website links to, none of which can claim to be right-leaning and are despised by the RNC. Additionally, there is no consensus on the name of this Voters Outreach, as some call it Voters Outreach of America while other refer to it as Voters Outreach for America.
Actually, let me quote the DNC itself for the Voters Outreach-America Votes link: "In Oregon, 'Voters Outreach', also known as 'America Votes,' has been linked to Sproul & Associates, a firm that has been paid some half a million dollars by the RNC. from here. This is part of a letter from Terence R. McAuliffe, Chairman of the DNC, to the chairman of the RNC. Additionally, the mere title of the article, “McAuliffe Letter Demands Answers from Gillespie On RNC Funded Voter Fraud” is innacurate. There is no “voter fraud”, as “voter fraud” does not nclude destruction of registration forms, to the best of my knoweldge.
Additionally, this story happens to coincide with an article here; “RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie issued the following statement today regarding a Kerry/DNC campaign document that instructs Democrats to make up charges of voter intimidation even if no signs or evidence of voter intimidation actually exist”. This story was also run by Matt Drudge.

When this story was first released, "Voters Outreach of America" and "Voters Outreach for America” had about four results in google.com, with at least one of those results being the news article. The closest things that can currently be found is a careerbuilder.com form here. Oddly enough the group that filed the form is in "US-MO-Springfield" (US standing for United States), while the Voters Outreach cited in the article is in Nevada. I am under the impression that the description under the form might not be entirely accurate, as that description ends with “Source - Reno Gazette Journal - Reno, NV”. I do not believe a normal description ends with a “source”, especially a media source.


But, there is still the question on Voters Outreach of America. A google search simply on "Voters Outreach" turned up few results. That was, at least, until a few hours ago. Since then, tons of people have been mentioning the group in story after story (including dailykos.com, which receives about 500,000 visits per day). One of the first results was National Voter Outreach, which claims no affiliation or relation to Voters Outreach of America and/or Voters Outreach for America.


This story has done exactly what I feared it did when I finished my last article: explode.
In only 24 hours, hundreds of websites have brought up this story, and it certainly looks like evidence is being fabricated (like that job application I mentioned earlier). I assure you, this ‘evidence’ did not exist 24 hours before I wrote this article.

Additionally, many have incorrectly connected the group mentioned in this story to another group falsely claiming to be America Votes in other states. I have no good reason to believe that Voters Outreach is connected to any of these other groups (one of which includes a prominent republican, the Sproul mentioned in the DNC letter). It seems that these groups were found when people searched for America votes controversies, and they were able to find several less-than-respectable groups that are unlikely to be involved in any nation-wide controversy.


I did, and still do, believe that this story is fraudulent. Since its release, it has exploded, and that explosion created ‘evidence’ that did not exist before. Many dots have been connected, though those dots have reason to be connected. I have found no evidence that Voters Outreach existed before Klas-TV published their article, with the exception of documents that are most likely fraudulent.

This story is still developing and expanding, so I can not hope to cover all necessary details after I publish this post. Many individuals, such as Michael John McCrae, have done excellent work checking this controversy, and they deserve quite a bit of credit. I must, however, note that this story is still developing and therefore quite prone to errors. Readers are more than welcome to share any new evidence in comments, and I can be contacted through the email address in the column on the right.