Sparrow Chat

Happy Thanksgiving!

2006-11-23T12:26:00.000-06:00

Another Thanksgiving Day; a day when most Americans stuff themselves beyond capacity with turkey and pumpkin pie, and give thanks to their God for - what?

Here are a few suggestions:

For providing us with a food surplus at our table, while You let millions in the world starve to death - we give You thanks.

For propagating the deaths of 3,709 Iraqi civilians only last month by our pre-emptive invasion of their country, while we remain safe in our homes - we give You thanks.

For keeping us safe from harm, while You allow the genocide, rape and torture of a whole African nation in Sudan - we give You thanks.

For You maintaining the sweatshops in India and China so we can buy cheap goods at Walmart, while those who produce them live on less than two dollars a day - we give You thanks.

For You supporting our friends in Israel, and helping us supply them with weapons to kill and maim those nasty, dirty, Palestinian pagans - we give You thanks.

For You helping us to interfere freely in the politics and cultures of other nations around the globe, creating wars and internal strife so we can maintain the gloriously material standard of living we, as Americans, expect and deserve - we give You thanks.

For doing all of this in the name of Your Son, Our Savior Jesus Christ - we give You thanks.

God Bless America.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Filed under:
God Bless America

Never Could Stay In One Place For Long.........

2006-11-22T12:06:00.000-06:00

How fast the time flies by. It must be symptomatic of approaching old age.

"Approaching?" - who's he trying to kid? Well advanced, more like!

It only seems a week or so back I was complaining bitterly about Blogger, and threatening to take my non-paying custom elsewhere. In fact, it was way back in October. The 24th, to be precise.

Not one to make idle threats, ever since then Sparrow Chat has been preoccupied in moving to a new blog-nest. Although not completely furnished in a manner befitting its occupant, the rudiments are now in place and it is, at least, habitable. There may yet be some rearrangement of the fixtures and fittings.

With the modern trend towards bigger, wider computer screens the hardest task has been accommodating "Sparrow Chat" to the vast array of shapes and screen resolutions now knocking around cyberspace. Those still stuck with 800 X 600 will be able to read it, though it lacks aesthetics. Anything less and you're out the game, I'm afraid.

It is an ongoing project, so be prepared for changes - for the better and sometimes for worse. At times it may even disappear altogether. If so, rest assured, it will return once RJ has sorted out why it went in the first place.

Blogger has stubbornly refused to allow transfer of posts from http://evenlittlesparrows.blogspot.com so I have been copying posts to the new site for a month or so. So far, I haven't attempted to move the Haloscan commenting system and set it up. I believe it can be done, but whether I have the necessary 'geekiness' time will decide.

A transfer date is yet to be set, but feel free to drop by and say "Hello."

The new address is - yes, you've guessed it: Sparrowchat.com

Filed under: New place

Ah! Sunday Morning........

2006-11-19T11:05:00.000-06:00

I really shouldn't do it, but for some reason - perhaps just a streak of masochism - I can't resist it.

It's a Sunday morning, early - around 7 o'clock. The rest of the household is still asleep and I'm limited in my activities because of noise. We have one of those "open-plan" houses so beloved of architects in the eighties. You know, they tried to save a few bob on construction costs by doing away with doors and calling it "fashion."

For thirty minutes of sanity I watched a recording of the BBC World News, benefiting from the only newscast of this American weekend with relatively little bias - and, some actual news. But by seven-thirty it's over. Then I start to get the symptoms, the itchy fingers reaching for the TV remote. There's another half hour to kill before the deliciously conservative CBS "Sunday Morning" magazine program with Charles Osgood, and meanwhile, the religious nutters are beckoning.

Almost unconsciously, I begin to flip the channels.

Statistically, one third of Americans are obese, and Pastor John Hagee is undoubtedly in the top ranks of those numbers. Unlike the "Savior" he continually espouses, Hagee has grown fat preaching a doctrine of hatred, specifically against Islam. First and foremost, Hagee is a Jew lover. He is a prolific writer of nonsense, mostly praising the Jews and slamming everyone else in the Middle East. His latest book, "Jerusalem Countdown" is bound to be a bestseller, bought by the gullible and witless in their tens of thousands.

"Jerusalem Countdown" is just a rehash of that old, done-to-death idea of God using the Middle East conflict as a prelude to Armageddon. In Hagee's version the Islamists get a good whupping, while to the strains of an angelic choir (of course) Christians and Jews unite in a long procession to Heaven - not least those who have contributed to the spread of Pastor Hagee's teachings, and of course, his waistline.

"Jerusalem Countdown" contains "shocking information of the impending war", originating between Israel and Iran, but escalating into the atomic destruction of mankind.

Can we afford not to read it? I don't see there's much point. If Armageddon is pre-ordained by God, reading a book isn't going to make a lot of difference. If it isn't, Pastor Hagee is, at best, deluded; at worst, an outright liar and charlatan. Personally, I know where my bet would be placed.

So entranced was I with Pastor John, that I missed most of Pastor Benny Hinn on the channel next door. I was just in time to hear him telling me I was "bowed down by demonic forces". Why? For not accepting Jesus into my life - and contributing to Pastor Benny's welfare fund.

Sorry, Pastor Benny, but I'm not bowed down by demonic forces. Quite the opposite, in fact. I love my life, always have done, and don't need the rantings of charlatan preachers like you to tell me otherwise. Of course, I do realise that I won't end up going to the same "Heaven" as you and Pastor Hagee.

That fact, of itself, helps bring even more joy into my sadly irreligious life.

Ah, it's eight o'clock on Sunday Morning, and time for Charles Osgood.

Thank God!

Filed under:
Musings

Land Of The - Free, To Do What?

2006-11-17T10:52:00.000-06:00

Junk food advertising is to be banned on all TV programs targeting under-16's by January 2007.

Now that really is a step in the right direction. With obesity reaching epidemic proportions, the government has felt it necessary to take action - despite screams of protest from the junk food industry.

Melanie Leech, spokesperson for the industry called the measures "over the top", adding, "We are shocked that after a lengthy consultation Ofcom has moved the goalposts........this issue has always been about advertising to young children and [the] industry responded on that basis with a package of strong measures designed to meet the government's objective."

Ah, but as always when industries are left to regulate themselves they never do so effectively, and government must step in and do it for them. Like naughty children, the corporations pout and bluster, claim it's unnecessary, and feign innocence.

Still, it's good that a government of the people, by the people, for the people, can step in and regulate such irresponsibility by big business.

If only the American government would do the same!

Oh, didn't I mention - this legislation is being enacted in the United Kingdom, not the United States.

The American government spent one million dollars in 2004 on a study of this self-same problem. The study group agreed: "There is strong evidence that exposure to television advertising is associated with obesity" and concluded that "most of the food and beverage products promoted to children are high in calories, sugar, salt and fat and low in nutrients."

Another suggestion by this "study-group" was that Congress should "enhance nutritional standards and create incentives, including awards and tax breaks, to encourage companies to develop and promote healthful products for children and adolescents." [my underline]

Or, to put it another way - let's PAY these bastards to stop serving poison to our kids! Dammit, these fat-cat industrialists don't grow obese on their own products. Their waistlines expand due to fine wines, rich foods, and company lunches - all paid for by the parent whose kid's health is being ruined by their crap burgers and artery-clogging pop-tarts.

According to a Washington Post article from December 7th, 2005, Daniel L. Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers, in responding to this report, said:

""Government stepping in and saying what should be in messages on TV is a very radical proposal and is unconstitutional. If you do it for food, there's no reason it can't be done for other controversial product categories. People are already trying to restrict the advertising for prescription drugs."

Unconstitutional, Mister Jaffe? Tell us whereabouts in the American Constitution it says you have the right to ruin the health of American children for profit?

The advertising of prescription drugs has never been allowed in Britain - and, believe me, Brits are better off for it. They leave their doctors to decide how best to medicate their illnesses. It's what we pay doctors for, isn't it?

As for government regulation being unconstitutional, doesn't the government regulate pornography on TV? Wasn't a national television network recently fined heavily for accidently broadcasting to the nation a brief glimpse of Janet Jackson's nipple during a Superbowl game? Or was that just the pornography industry instigating self-regulation?

The Washington Post again:

"The Grocery Manufacturers of America, which represents major foodmakers, said it was disappointed that the report did not cite many of the changes food companies have made in the past year.........McDonald's, for example, added milk and apples to children's meals. PepsiCo Inc. has mandated that half of its revenue from new products come from healthful products. Kraft Foods Inc. announced this year that it would stop advertising its less nutritious products on television and radio and in magazines aimed at children under 12. Many food companies have sponsored fitness campaigns and curricula at schools and youth clubs."

Wow! It quite takes one's breath away.

Parent and child walk into McDonalds. Parent asks child, "What would you like - a nice apple with milk, or a double Macburger and large fries?" Child responds, "I'd love the apple and milk, mommy."

Just as if!

Junk food firms sponsor fitness campaigns and curricula at schools and youth clubs - like Philip Morris promotes giving up smoking on its half-baked website solely to promote its name and product on TV - after government regulation banned tobacco advertising, Mister Jaffe.

Unconstitutional? Philip Morris probably thought so.

If that's unconstitutional, then let's have more of it, but by a government of the people, elected by the people, and by golly, for the people - not for the convenience of fat-cat, corporate America, whose sole aim is to increase its power and wealth at the expense of the American people and their children.

Filed under: Price of freedom

Of Rape, Intolerance and Enslavement........

2006-11-15T11:05:00.000-06:00

"Take all your overgrown infants away.......somewhere.....and build them a home, a little place of their own.......the Fletcher Memorial Home for Incurable Tyrants and Kings..." ~ Pink Floyd.

Once again vicious, inhumane, aspects of organised religion rear their ugly heads today as Pakistan's national assembly voted to amend the country's strict Sharia laws regarding rape and adultery. Islam is dominated by men, and the religious laws they "interprete" are heavily weighted on the side of the male sex.

If a Pakistani woman is raped, Sharia law states that she requires four male witnesses to the crime before she stands any chance of sucessfully prosecuting the offender. Such legal demands conveniently free men to rape whomsoever they choose and statistically one woman is raped every two hours, one gang-raped every eight hours, in Pakistan.

Thankfully, secular law has now stepped into the breach, where common humanity was lacking, and today's vote means rape cases can now be tried in the secular courts where the pre-condition of four male witnesses does not apply.

Predictably, the Islamic hierarchy is screaming its self-centred concerns - stating that the new bill is a recipe for "free sex" throughout the country. Even if correct, that's surely an improvement on the "enslaved sex" so encouraged by these bigots in the past.

It's time these people had their noses pushed out of any further interference in the laws of Pakistan, along with their Christian counterparts in other areas of the world. Religious control of the masses has too long been the policy of those who garb themselves in finery, surround themselves with pomp, and dictate hypocrisy under the guise of divine knowledge.

The Middle East is still largely controlled by such misbegots, and in America the last six years has seen government allow the rise of similar evangelical, fundamentalist, mini-dictators, to positions where they threaten freedoms held sacrosanct by the Constitution:

The freedom of a woman to decide what is best for her body; the freedom to control scientific research using logic and humanity, rather than garbled, necrotic, interpretations of writings by long-dead simpletons without knowledge of the very term "stem-cell"; the freedom to believe what we choose without these disreputes trying to shove their garbled ideals down our throats at every opportunity.

These are just a few of the freedoms these egomanic, power-crazed, enslavers of human minds, continuously try to take away from Americans. They would impose their version of so-called "Christian" law in America, just as the Islamic brigade have imposed Sharia law on much of the Middle East.

Thankfully, Pakistan has today taken another small step into modernity. It has a long way yet to go.

But, so has America - still tainted and abused by the very religious bigotry its forefathers left British shores to escape.

BBC report HERE.

Filed under: Religious bigotry

Alliance Of Civilizations - Or, Just Voices In The Wilderness?

2006-11-14T11:06:00.000-06:00

"Our world is alarmingly out of balance. For many, the last century brought unprecedented progress, prosperity, and freedom. For others, it marked an era of subjugation, humiliation and dispossession. Ours is a world of great inequalities and paradoxes: a world where the income of the planet’s three richest people is greater than the combined income of the world’s least developed countries; where modern medicine performs daily miracles and yet 3 million people die every year of preventable diseases; where we know more about distant universes than ever before, yet 130 million children have no access to education; where despite the existence of multilateral covenants and institutions, the international community often seems helpless in the face of conflict and genocide. For most of humanity, freedom from want and freedom from fear appear as elusive as ever."

The above quote is from the beginning of a report released by the UN yesterday. The report is entitled "Alliance of Civilizations". It is a lengthy tome - understandable, considering the idea was espoused over two years ago - and has been over a year in the compiling. Anyone wishing to peruse it in its entirety may do so (as a pdf. document) HERE.

Despite the disreputable Fox News Channel calling it a "questionable initiative", the writers have produced a document worthy of attention, though it is unlikely to receive very much of that from the world's politicians, whose present-day philosophy of "grab what we can for our own and stuff everyone else" is at odds with the message of peace, goodwill, and understanding emanating from its pages.

The original idea was put forward by the, then, Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, back in 1998, but no-one in the West showed much enthusiasm and it wasn't until 2005 that the Spanish prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, called out in the UN for "an alliance of cultures" to combat poverty and increasing Islamic radicalisation . Kofi Annan supported the idea, and the result was yesterday's report.

Two members of the "High Level Group" responsible for compiling the document were Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, and Karen Armstrong from the UK. Archbishop Tutu is one of very, very few high-ranking officials of the Christian church who deserves respect and admiration. Ms Armstrong's knowledge as a historian of world religions is unsurpassed. Any think-tank involving both these people deserves more than a cursory glance.

Yet, reading through the report was a disappointing experience, in that it seemed to contain much that was simply obvious common sense. In a way, Fox's damning as a "questionable initiative" seemed less unreasonable, though for vastly differing reasons.

I was left with the conclusion that our world society could not possibly be evolving into something more "civilized", but rather must be degenerating into a free-for-all where no-one really cared what happened to others provided they, themselves, were fine. And really, this is what the report is all about. As a species, we are moving away from the ideals and principles once sacrosanct in our society. The milk of human kindness no longer overflows. It has run out.

Sure, we dig into our pockets and give to charities; some of us even get off our backsides and organize events, but why we do these things is questionable. Do we truly and unselfishly act to help those in other countries less well off than ours? Or, is it simply as a boost to our egos - another "step on the stairway to heaven"?

George W Bush took America to war in Iraq and Afghanistan so as, he said, ".......to not have to fight the terrorists on American soil." The implication being that it was alright to kill Iraqis and Afghans - to fight a war on their turf, rather than ours. Is that because we consider them less important as human beings? Would it be more disastrous if the carnage happening on the streets of Baghdad right now was instead happening in New York, or Washington? Are not the rights of Baghdad's innocent residents just as important as those of Americans?

Not to Americans - that is painfully obvious. And, of course, its not fair to single out Americans even if their president was the one to bring such differences into focus. We all are happier knowing it's happening to "them", rather than "us". We can all express sympathy and throw up our arms in horror at the lastest atrocity in the Middle East, while deep inside feeling smug and content that it's not our personal problem.

That's what the "Alliance of Civilizations" is all about. It is a blueprint of what should be done to stop the degradation our species is imposing on itself. It basically says we should care for one another; nurture our relationships with other cultures; heal the wounded and the sick; love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

It has a certain familiar ring. Someone else spouted much the same ideas two thousand years ago.

He wasn't listened to, either.

Filed under: Questionable initiatives

Time To Dance To The Tune Of The West.........

2006-11-13T12:57:00.000-06:00

James Baker is telling George Bush he must go cap in hand to the Syrians and Iranians if there is ever to be peace in Iraq. Tony Blair is calling for both countries to play a larger role in Middle East peace generally.

For more than three years now, both national leaders have been bad-mouthing the Iranians and Syrians - George Bush even denouncing Iran as part of his "axis of evil". Can the governments of either country be blamed if they show less than enthusiasm for leaping into the fray when Bush and Blair crook their fingers?

Or, should they, perhaps, consider it an honor to be called to serve the great Western powers in their hour of need?

Many Americans will automatically assume the latter.

Filed under: Expectations

Those Were The Days..........

2006-11-12T08:43:00.000-06:00

Posting has been light of late, for which Sparrow Chat apologizes profusely.

The reason: integrating a new laptop computer into our meagre network, and a larger flat panel monitor for the rather aging Dell 3400S desktop that has been the mainstay of Sparrow Chat production for the last three years.

Of course, the geeky among us will snigger at the idea of taking so long to achieve such simple tasks, but happily the millions of non-geeks out there (with whom I proudly ally!) will understand how complex - not to say, excessively irritating - the whole process can be.

One expects to plug in, switch on, and go to work. None of it! Just deciding on a suitable screen resolution - for both laptop and desktop monitor - becomes a frustrating business when every webpage suddenly looks totally different. The new 19" flat panel made Sparrow Chat look all squashed up in the middle of the screen, or alternatively, fat and blurry when set to the low resolution used previously. At one point I was in favor of consigning the darned thing to the garbage and reverting to the old, yet trusted, friend it had replaced. Yes, I do mean that hernia-inducing, lump of cathode-ray tube so reminiscent of an early post-war television set, which, like its 1950's cousins somehow provided a warmer, more welcoming, picture than the sterile, pixelated, ice-images resulting from today's modern technological achievements.

This digital age is not all it's cracked up to be. Any audiophile worth his stack of redundant Long Playing vinyl will tell you that the sound from a stylus whirling through a groove at 33rpm is far more satisfying to the ear than an MP3 player squawking its baseless rendition of Beethoven's Ninth. Britain's most prestigious Hi-Fi manufacturer, Linn, still sells as many of its top of the range Sondek turntables, at around $2000 each, as it did in the 1970's (when I owned one). This, despite the product it is designed to play being obsolete for over twenty years.

Sadly, the old Commodore 64 computers, around at about the same time, couldn't match today's Inspiron laptops - so we are stuck with the digital, for all its many drawbacks; not least of all - the geeks, who smirk at our ham-fistedness in taking a week to perform what they can do in a couple of minutes.

Filed under:
Bygone days

"New American Century" - Dead, Or Merely Stunned?

2006-11-10T20:01:00.000-06:00

The election is over. The post-mortems will occupy the media for weeks to come. Is America turning blue? Have the Republicans had their day?

Give me a break!

No, America is not changing color and the GOP will be back. The doctrine of "Project for the New American Century" has not yet been laid to rest. It's sad, but true. This election was a protest over a president who ignored his people, and an administration that used political office to feather its own nests.

Two years ago, America re-elected George W Bush by a bigger majority than in 2000. Mind, it could hardly have got smaller! This time, marginally less than half America voted for the man. Most of the polls were close. America is hardly turning blue.

Midterms, in any nation, are often characterized by protest voting, and this one was no exception. If Democrats believe this is their turning point, and its all about coasting to the presidency in 2008, they'd better think again. The presidential race will be a whole different ballgame from the midterms.

Unless, of course, Pelosi and gang can pull something good out of their new blue bags over the next two years.

If they put their minds to it, that shouldn't be difficult. There's been enough corruption and scandal surfaced in the last twelve months to suggest an awful lot more still hidden under the White House carpets. Shaking it out, giving it a good airing, may provide enough political fodder to carry the voters for another twenty-four months.

It will take more than sorting Iraq and bringing the troops home. In another two years, George Bush would claim his policies achieved success, and many voters are crass enough to believe it. Couple that with a possible challenge by Senator John "two-faced" McCain, a darling of many on the 'redder-side-of-blue' America, and the suggestion of another Kerry debacle if Democratic nominations go their usual inept way, and you have a recipe for the biggest Republican rave-up in recent history, circa 2008.

America was battered emotionally by 9/11/2001. Its reaction was to kick out blindly, with disastrous consequences for most of the world. Those that suffered most were the ones not involved in 9/11. Those that gained the most were the Islamic extremists. It's not just nations directly in the firing line that come off worst when America reacts so aggressively. No-one can have failed to notice the upsurge in violence around the globe in the last three years. Even in countries not directly effected by Islamic terrorism, violence has reared its ugly, barbaric head.

America has that effect on the world. When America practises peace, the world relaxes a little. When America roars, everyone becomes unsettled and mini-wars break out around the globe.

It's an awesome responsibility, and one that Americans do not recognize easily. It's the price of being the greatest; the most powerful.

America behaved like a spoilt child after 9/11. Like a schoolyard bully it lashed out at the weak; the innocent. Whoever was "do-able". It supported a gang of schoolyard bullies out for all they could take, using a national disaster to subvert the course of world history for their own purposes.

It is a lesson in how complacency can have disastrous results. The Nazi party used complacency to rise to power in the 1930's.

For now, the endgame is played out. The pieces have to be picked up and somehow put back together. Let us hope the Democrats have learned some lessons and take their new-found power seriously and responsibly. If not, 2008 could start it all over again.

Meanwhile, the "Project for the New American Century" will wait patiently to be unfurled once more.

Filed under:
Dead or dormant

Ebb, Or Flow?

2006-11-09T15:52:00.000-06:00

Most of America has been gripped by election fever this week, and it certainly seems the Democrats have trounced the ruling GOP good and proper. One has to wonder though, why almost half of America still insisted on voting for the same lame-duck government that has dragged this nation through the mire for the last five years.

Despite the mess in Iraq, the abandonment of New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina, a trade deficit of over $64 billion, and the steady flow of corruption and sex scandals emanating from Washington, nearly half of Americans still firmly believed in George W Bush and his band of.........well..... fill in the blanks yourselves!

It remains to be seen how Nancy Pelosi and her followers will alter matters over the next two years. While George W Bush has publicly offered an olive branch and Rumsfeld has fallen on his sword, it is unlikely that the president will enjoy his final two years in office, given that he can no longer dictate his own terms or ride roughshod over any opposition. Indeed, it will be interesting to see whether he makes the best of a bad job (at least from his own point of view) or retires to his Texas ranch in a sulk, the first time he doesn't get his own way.

The rest of the world will watch cautiously to see how America's foreign policy pans out in the coming months. It will take more than just the Democrat's trouncing of the GOP to regain the confidence of a world shattered by such high levels of aggression and degradation, as displayed by the US since 9/11/2001.

But, maybe - just, maybe - the tide is on the turn.

Filed under:
Comeuppances

Riverbend Is back..........

2006-11-06T12:47:00.000-06:00

After some months without blogging, "Riverbend" of "Baghdad Burning" has begun writing again. Here is one paragraph from her most recent post, "When All Else Fails.....":

It’s not about the man- presidents come and go, governments come and go. It’s the frustration of feeling like the whole country and every single Iraqi inside and outside of Iraq is at the mercy of American politics. It is the rage of feeling like a mere chess piece to be moved back and forth at will. It is the aggravation of having a government so blind and uncaring about their peoples needs that they don’t even feel like it’s necessary to go through the motions or put up an act. And it's the deaths. The thousands of dead and dying, with Bush sitting there smirking and lying about progress and winning in a country where every single Iraqi outside of the Green Zone is losing.

Please use the link above to read the rest. Preferably, before you cast your vote in the American midterm elections tomorrow.

Filed under: Defining democracy

Just Who Is Guilty Of What?

2006-11-06T09:44:00.000-06:00

Perhaps the biggest, non-event of the year occurred this weekend with the verdict of "Guilty", and subsequent death sentence, on Saddam Hussein. This happening, just coincidentally close to the midterm American elections, excited media outlets to even greater fervor as polling day approaches. Saddam's impending fate captivated the headlines, and held those with nothing better to do on a Sunday, glued to the TV screen.

Was anyone ever doubtful of the outcome? Did some enterprising, not to say optimistic, gambler bet his shirt on the ex-Iraqi president's innocence? It's doubtful; Saddam's guilt was a conclusion as foregone as George W Bush stating the repubs will resoundingly win the midterm elections.

What was really in doubt, from the first moment Saddam entered a courtroom in the Iraqi "Green Zone", was the trial being seen to be fair and just. The prosecution of a head of state, by an occupying nation through a puppet government, would be unacceptable to the US, or any other western nation, if it were to occur anywhere else but Iraq, and if the occupying power were other than American.

Saddam Hussein did not receive a fair trial. The defence was not allowed to present a proper case. Some may argue it didn't matter; that his guilt was never in doubt. But it does matter. It matters because Saddam Hussein was removed from power by nations supposedly offering the people of Iraq something better. George W Bush still insists he is "spreading democracy" throughout the Middle East. Part and parcel of democracy is justice; both done, and seen to be done.

What are the Iraqi people to think when they witness a similar style of 'justice' as meted out in Saddam's era, used to convict the dictator? They will believe justice is not important to democracy; only revenge.

Saddam Hussein will undoubtedly hang, though his death sentence has still to be ratified by the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. Talabani won't sign the papers. He doesn't believe in the death penalty as punishment for a crime. However, he won't insist on commuting the sentence to life imprisonment, as that would upset the Americans. Instead, he will take a similar stance to that of Pontius Pilate, when trying Jesus of Nazareth. He will wash his hands of the affair and leave it to one of his underlings.

There is a certain irony that links Saddam Hussein to Jesus of Nazareth. Both were leaders in their individual way; both were caught and brought before an occupying power; both were passed back to their own kind for trial and sentencing; both had followers who would use them as martyrs for a cause.

Of course, history tells us they were very different men. One was killed for, ostensibly, doing good; the other for doing bad. Each was, however, considered a threat by the occupying force of the time.

The whole concept of capital punishment has been debated on Sparrow Chat before, and regular readers are aware of the writer's views - that it is utterly demeaning and debasing to the perpetrators, and besmirches humanity as a species.

Will hanging Saddam Hussein help bring the conflict in Iraq to an end? No. It will only make matters worse. What, then, is the point? Had the dictator been tried and found guilty at the Court of Criminal Justice in the Hague he would have spent the rest of his life in prison, far away from Iraq and any influence he may still have held there. As it is, his death will be seen as martyrdom by those who still support the Ba'athist regime, giving further excuse to escalate the violence and slaughter presently prevailing in the country.

Had the occupying forces done what was right, and removed Saddam Hussein for trial by an international court, the Iraqi people may have realized that democracy treats justice and revenge as separate issues that can never be compounded. Sadly, because the two are so frequently confused in the United States, it was never going to happen in Iraq while the Americans remain in control of the country.

Revenge can never be justice. In order for justice to be just, it must remain impartial. Americans, in general, have still not grasped that basic concept of democracy, and are not, therefore, - despite George Bush's fanciful words - in a position to educate others on the subject.

Filed under: Defining democracy

The Devil's In The Devout........

2006-11-04T20:30:00.000-06:00

"The farther up you are, the more you are a target for Satan."

Thus spoke a member of Ted Haggard's congregation today. Or, to put it another way: Ted Haggard doesn't have to take any responsibility for his actions because it's all Satan's fault.

Frankly, it would be more in keeping with the true spirit of Christianity if Ted Haggard was seen as the imperfect human being we all are, and accepted for that, rather than the ostracism he is presently experiencing at the hands of his "church".

Yes, he is a hypocrite. He is also living proof that homosexuality is not a quirk to be overcome by prayer and supplication. Neither is it a disease to be healed before the pulpit.

It's a fact of life. Some are gay; some are straight; some are in the middle. Satan - whatever that is - has nothing to do with it.

Condemnation is a sport in this country. Americans have to be at the pinnacle, and the only way is down. Those in public office must be perfect. Anything less is reprehensible.

The "sex thing" is a primary target. Bill Clinton's exploits with Monica Lewinsky were really not worthy of the hype, but prudish America loves a scandal. When five schoolchildren are slaughtered in an Amish schoolhouse it merits barely a week in the media. When a president gets an illicit blow-job, the nation falls apart. In America, it seems violence is a more natural human action than sex.

The current president is tight-lipped about his Christian buddy's excursion into drugs and gay sex. Were he more of a man, he might learn from the revelations about Ted Haggard and adjust his blinkered view of life accordingly. But then, Haggard has never followed his Redeemer's policy of love and forgiveness for the sin of being human. Consequently, it's erroneous to expect George Bush to learn anything from the experience.

In his book, "Dog Training, Fly Fishing, & Sharing Christ in the 21st Century", Haggard writes:

"I want my finances in order, my kids trained, and my wife to love life. I want good friends who are a delight and who provide protection for my family and me should life become difficult someday . . . I don't want surprises, scandals, or secrets . . ."

His finances are undoubtedly in order. As for his kids and wife, we can only speculate, though it is doubtful either is enjoying life right now, given the "surprises, scandals, and secrets" that have come to light over the past few days.

"Satan" had nothing to do with Ted Haggard's come-uppance. It was simply the result of one of those all-to-frequent deceptions practised by human beings pretending to be something they are not, for the sole purpose of maintaining power over others gullible enough to be duped.

Filed under: Father Ted

And In Second Place..........

2006-11-03T17:25:00.000-06:00

Britain, Canada and Mexico believe George W Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Kim Jong-il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to a recent survey. The American President only slightly lags behind Osama bin Laden as the man most to be feared.

See the full results in the Guardian report Here.

Filed under: Baddies

What Are You Driving?

2006-11-03T11:36:00.000-06:00

Buying a new car is something most people do a number of times in their lives. For many the choice will be limited to a Ford, or a Chevy, or maybe even a Toyota. Whatever make of car we choose, it will come off a production line - and while the color, furnishings, or engine size may be optional, the vehicle is never going to be totally unique to us. Somewhere out there, among the throng of traffic queues, there will be others just like it.

Of course, for those well-endowed with material wealth, uniqueness is a commodity that can be bought. Except in the richest neighborhoods, a Ferrari might be considered unique even if "off the peg". A hand-crafted, made to measure, Ferrari would be totally unique - even in Saudi Arabia!

Yet most of us are quite content with our massed produced Ford, or Chevy, or Toyota, and lavishly cater for its every need, usually on a Sunday morning after church.

We choose our religion the same way we buy our cars.

Most of us never consider the unique spiritual pathways, being content to settle for the same old "Christianity", "Islam", or even "Eastern Orthodoxy". Just like the Fords, Chevys, and Toyotas, we take what we are given.

As in the car industry, there are options - like "Protestantism", "Methodism", "Catholicism", or one of the many forms of Islam - but which one we choose depends on much the same criteria we use when buying our cars - what did father always drive? How has the latest advertising affected us? "If it was good enough for Uncle Joseph....."

Children the world over are dragged off to churches while still in their prams, forced into accepting that mommy or daddy knows best, and rarely allowed to consider another choice until old enough to make their own decisions - and even then, any suggestion of change will bring rumblings of discontent from priest and parent alike. Why breaking out of the mold is considered unthinkable probably has more to do with "brand-loyalty", or supporting the local football team, than any deep spiritual significance.

Most of us will never be in a position to afford a unique Ferrari. That degree of material wealth is only available to a few. Spiritual richness, however, is achievable. All it takes is a desire to examine our own beliefs, not in the light of the pastor's latest Sunday sermon, but by removing our ego from the equation and asking, "Do I really believe everything my religion has told me?"

Chances are, when we are honest enough with ourselves to take our beliefs apart and reassemble them piece by piece, the shattering conclusion is that we believe what we believe simply because everyone else does. We attach ourselves to the convenience of mass produced religion so we don't need to take the responsibility of thinking deeply for ourselves. Let the local pastor do it once a week and then we can forget it all till next Sunday and get on with our material lives.

Spiritual life doesn't screech to an abrupt stop as we shake the pastor's hand while leaving church. It is part and parcel of every moment, of every second, of every day that we live. Indeed, it is only in those very 'moments' that we exist at all. Everything else is gone, or has yet to happen. How many moments are there between leaving church on Sunday and entering it again the following week?

Every moment is an opportunity to be rich spiritually. It just depends on whether we're prepared to settle for the same old Ford - or drive our own unique Ferrari.

Filed under: Choices

Nicaraguan Politics By An Insider......

2006-11-02T12:51:00.000-06:00

I recommend to all my readers the new blog, "American in Nicaragua" by Muriel Laverty.

Ms Laverty is originally from Martha's Vineyard but has now lived permanently in Nicaragua for some time. She began posting articles on "Vineyard Views", the internet tome of my good blogging pal, Al Devito, but has now decided to publish her own.

It makes fascinating reading.

Filed under: Nicaragua

It's Time Boys Stopped Being Boys - And Became Men......

2006-11-01T11:21:00.000-06:00

The recent row between George W Bush and John Kerry is yet another example of the poor quality America seems to demand of its politicians these days.

John Kerry's ineptitude - his unpreparedness for the lines he had to speak, hardly project an image of a future presidential candidate in 2008. In fact, the cock-up was perhaps more reminiscent of George W Bush at his best.

No-one in their right mind could possibly believe Kerry was referring to the troops in Iraq, when he spoke to students of the end result of inadequate education, even though it came out of his mouth that way. It was an obvious line-fluff. But then, John Kerry has never been a great political joke teller, coming only marginally ahead of George Bush in that area.

Bush is demanding an apology on behalf of American troops. Bush should really be posturing for an apology on his own behalf. Had Kerry's remarks been uttered correctly, so everyone understood what he meant, Bush may have felt justified in seeking redress, even if he didn't achieve it.

As it stands, American troops should be demanding an apology, not from John Kerry, but from George W Bush for instigating the quagmire in which they now find themselves.

John Kerry was still incorrect, even given the true interpretation of his fluffed lines. On occasions in the past, educated, intelligent, presidents have led this country astray.

That the man presently in control is neither intelligent, nor intellectual, is hardly the sole reason for the Iraq war. That came about due to perverted political ideals on the personal agendas of powerful forces in the White House and Pentagon; agendas that were allowed to be realised by a president who came to power with no fixed political schedule of his own.

Unless, of course, you count Social Security reform? Now, let me see - whatever happened to that?

Filed under: Pathetic squabbles

The Tide Does Not Stay Full Forever.........

2006-10-31T11:33:00.000-06:00

"Al Qaeda is killing more Americans in Iraq in order to influence the US elections."

Vice President Dick "waterboarding's a no-brainer" Cheney, yesterday made that claim during a Republican election rally. Possibly, there are some American "no-brainers" who might just believe him. Frankly, such statements emphasise the desperation of the Republican leadership. I doubt Al Qaeda are terribly interested in who wins the mid-terms. Americans are Americans to Al Qaeda, and all are considered equally bad.

Of course, Cheney would have everyone believe it's Al Qaeda killing US soldiers. The truth is that it's mainly Iraqis doing the killing - insurgents, not terrorists. America is an occupying force in Iraq. Iraqis are doing what Ohians, or New Yorkers, or most other Americans would do if Washington was home to a foreign army imposing its will by force. Then US citizens would be classed as terrorists and shot, or tortured, or raped.

The rise in deaths of American soldiers in Iraq - 103 this month - comes as the direct result of George W Bush and his government failing to behave responsibly towards another sovereign nation, and has nothing to do with mid-term elections.

Thankfully, most Americans understand that. Consequently, George W Bush is compelled to campaign in Texas, and other hot Republican states, because he is an embarrassment to Republican candidates in other areas.

Yesterday, he told a crowd of admiring red-necks, "The Democrats' goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republicans' goal is to win in Iraq."

He is so right. The Republicans have no intention of getting out of Iraq, ever. If they did, why build an 'embassy' covering 104 acres and containing one of Saddam Hussein's finest palaces? The Republicans intend to subdue Iraq, then use it as a base to "democratize" the Middle East.

Quite rightly, and understandably, the residents of the Middle East are making their objections known in the way they know best. They will continue to do so, whoever wins the midterm elections, until US policy in Iraq is drastically changed.

This administration's counterparts across the Atlantic - The British government in general, and Prime Minister Tony Blair in particular - are presently under siege by opposition Tory MP's and minority parties clamoring for an enquiry into all aspects of the Iraq war. A vote today in Parliament could possibly go against the government, according to BBC reports. Unless Tory leaders get assurances of a full enquiry taking place within a year, they have threatened to side with the minority Lib-Dems and vote against the government. Many Labour MP's, unforgiving of Blair's rush to war in 2003, may vote with the opposition.

It seems this last year in office for Britain's longest-serving Prime Minister, is likely to prove difficult, to say the least.

Could it be that the tide is finally on the turn?

Filed under: Home to roost

Wake Up, America!

2006-10-30T11:33:00.000-06:00

"The world has to act now on climate change or face devastating economic consequences...." according to a 700 page report compiled for the British government by Sir Nicholas Stern.

Americans will be voting in a few days time. How many consider global warming a vital political issue?

How many have accosted their political representatives concerning this problem? Just how often in the pre-election debates has global warming been mentioned as an issue?

Do you know your party's policy on global warming? Does your party have a policy on combating climate change?

George W Bush has a plan. At least, he said he had a plan last June:

"And so I believe in -- and I've got a plan to be able to deal with greenhouse gases."

Does anyone know what it is?

It's possible to get a clue from other things he said in June 2006:

"I think it's -- I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over where it's man-made or naturally caused. We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing that -- the technologies necessary to -- to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives: one, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons and for national security reasons.

Let's examine what he's said:

He's right - global warming is a problem.

He's wrong about everything else. There is no longer any debate among independent scientists (i.e. those not employed by the oil companies or other environmentally polluting industries) about man's part in global warming. The evidence is now overwhelming. Man is the primary cause.

Technology alone cannot solve the problem. Becoming less dependent on foreign oil has absolutely nothing to do with saving our environment. Becoming totally independent of oil from anywhere would have a big impact, assuming technology can find non-polluting alternatives.

George W Bush again:

"That's why we're pressing for clean coal technology. That's why the hydrogen initiative is -- is robust. In other words, we want our children being able to drive cars not fueled by gasoline but by hydrogen. That's why I've been a strong advocate of ethanol as an alternative source of -- of fuel to run our cars."

He says he is a strong advocate of ethanol as an alternative fuel source, so our children can drive cars fuelled by hydrogen. While early research indicates hydrogen can be produced from ethanol, it is at least ten years away even if the political will is there to make it happen, and at this moment it isn't. George W Bush is more concerned with ruling the world, than saving it.

Finally, from the President of the USA:

"I strongly believe that we ought to be developing, you know, safe nuclear power. The truth of the matter is, if this country was -- it wants to get rid of its greenhouse gases, we got to have nuclear power industry be vibrant and viable."

Is he really suggesting we might all run our cars, trucks, buses and aeroplanes on nuclear fuel?

Here is what Mister Bush envisages, at some point way in America's future:

That all vehicles will be powered by hydrogen and all domestic energy production will be nuclear. He mentions nothing of the 14% emissions from industry; the 14% of emissions from agriculture, and the 18% emissions from other land use i.e. deforestation.

George W Bush has no plan. He just has a daydream. To turn his daydream into realty will take a minimum fifty to one hundred years, even given the political and corporate will.

Sir Nicholas Stern says the world has to act NOW....or face devastating consequences. It can't wait for George W Bush to wake from his daydream and realise his lack of policy has destroyed civilization as we know it.

This is not just a legacy we leave for our children. It will happen in our lifetime. It's happening NOW. We need to act NOW.

Don't believe politicians who say its not an issue. Remember, those same politicians told you there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Nearly three thousand Americans have died because of that lie.

How many will die because your representatives refuse to take action to reverse climate change?

In ten years it may be too late. Wake up, America!

Refs: HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE.

Filed under: Global warming

And This Lot Think They Can Run The World?

2006-10-29T20:05:00.000-06:00

What is the point of America holding midterm elections? Is it to stop the present ongoing carnage in Iraq? Perhaps, it's to curb the runaway legal process hijacked by a president intent on becoming the first US dictator? Maybe, it's to prevent the evangelical right-wing nutcases from getting their way and condemning us all to the sort of laws commonplace in Islamic states?

Are the midterm elections about any of these matters? Does America care about its poor and underprivileged; or, that it's vice-president condones torture, even though - of course - "America doesn't do that sort of thing"; or, that abortion is closer to becoming illegal than at any time since the judgment of Roe-v-Wade?

Does Mr & Mrs Average American care about any of these things?

Not according to either of the political parties. All that matters to Republicans and Democrats alike, is how well they can master the art of smearing their opponents.

Politicians nationwide have the idea that policies don't matter to their voters. It is no longer a question of who can govern this country with maturity and statesmanship; or, which party has the policies most likely to draw support from the majority. All that matters is making your opponent look bad.

Perhaps this strategy works in America. If you have no policies, just attack your opposite number and hope the voter will believe you.

It's called "negative campaigning", and in a country with such diametrically opposed voters as America, it probably works. Certainly, the Democrats have produced no manifesto for change. Republicans will, no doubt, give more of the same old aggressive strategies - if one can call the 'make it up as we go along' approach they've utilized for the last eight years, a 'strategy'.

There is a better way to choose a government than the American electoral system. It's called football. Throw both sides into a stadium for ninety minutes and let them fight it out.

Democracy? Give me a break!

Filed under: Embarrassing to witness

Good Dog; Bad Men?

2006-10-26T12:17:00.000-05:00

Having spent a large portion of my life working alongside a variety of creatures with whom we share this planet, I am convinced that one of the greatest disservices we bestow on the animal kingdom is our overwhelming desire to anthropomorthize.

The British are renowned for their 'love of animals', unless like me you have been on the receiving end of British brutality towards other species, when you come to realize the fallacy of the phrase. Americans generally are not quite so gushing, but nevertheless follow closely on British heels.

With the possible exception of Disney cartoons, nowhere is our anthropomorphism more obvious than the desire to make 'war heroes' of our animals.

In his article, The Cult of the Heroic Animal, George Monbiot assesses the reasoning behind this trait and arrives at a disturbing conclusion.

Filed under: So cuddly

Maintaining "Less Than Perfect" Standards......

2006-10-25T10:16:00.000-05:00

There was a radio playing this morning in the local car-repair shop. It was tuned to one of those talk show channels and the guy running the show was giving his political spiel on how the nation would fall apart overnight if Democrats took control of Congress in the forthcoming elections.

Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum was a phone-in guest on the show. After a prodigiously long eulogy extolling the virtues of Mister Santorum, our talk-show host suggested that now was not the time to oust Republicans given the matter of national security, of such importance it would mean catastrophe for America were Democrats to take charge.

Needless to say, Santorum agreed wholeheartedly, suggesting that while there may be some Republicans in Congress who were, shall we say - less than perfect - it was better to wait until the terrorist threat to America was dealt with before ousting them.

Sparrow Chat is not given to lowering its standards to the sewage-swamp level political campaigners sink into around US election time, otherwise there might be the temptation to point out that this is the same Senator Santorum who insisted only recently that WMD's had been found in Iraq. This is the same Senator Santorum who owns a mediocre $87,000 house in Pennsylvania, while living for eleven months of the year in a $643,000 property in Leesburg, Virginia.

This the same Senator Santorum who, in September 2006, the "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)" included in their second annual report on members of Congress with ethics issues, entitled "Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch)". According to the report, "Santorum’s ethics issues stem from the manner in which he funded his children’s education and his misuse of his legislative position in exchange for contributions to his political action committee and his re-election campaign."

This is also the Senator Santorum who was criticised for financial irregularities in regard to the "Operation Good Neighbor Foundation", a charity he established in 2001 for which, among other issues, Santorum's campaign finance chief, lobbyist Rob Bickhart, was paid $75,000 in salary by Operation Good Neighbor and whose company, Capitol Resource Group, rents office space to the charity.

This is also the Senator Santorum who insists the 'right to privacy' does not exist under the American Constitution; who denounces gay people as "sexual deviants"; who inferred that the 'liberal' people of Boston were to blame for the clergy scandal in the Roman Catholic Church; who blamed the citizens of New Orleans for their plight after Hurricane Katrina; who is sponsoring a bill to prevent the National Weather Service from competing with private sector weather services, and who with his wife -

- took their stillborn baby home from hospital, introduced it to the other children in the family, then slept all night in bed with the body. That is weird, but he has a right to do that in the privacy of his own home - under the 'right to privacy' as laid down in the US Constitution.

Yes, there is always a temptation to sink to such levels, but Sparrow Chat will instead simply suggest that there has NEVER been a better time than NOW to remove those "less than perfect" Republicans from public office.

Filed under: Political dogsbodies

A Matter Of Scientific Opinion.........

2006-10-24T12:24:00.000-05:00

A recent American report suggests men who use cellphones frequently may end up with low sperm counts and decreased fertility.

If true, the population of America should be drastically declining - judging by the huge number who drive around all day with a phone clamped to their ear.

British scientists pooh-pooh the research, saying men who spend all day on the phone are generally fat, lazy, burger-guzzling, slobs with already low sperm counts.

Who do you believe?

Filed under: Male problems

Preoccupations..........

2006-10-24T10:49:00.000-05:00

Posting is light at present due to a preoccupation with 'geek' matters. We all know what this means - RJ's head starts to glow red-hot and eventually explodes in a shower of molten frustration.

For sometime, Blogger has been a source of irritation, and the possibility of moving 'Sparrow Chat' to the same host as the 'Even Little Sparrows' website is occupying RJ's limited number of still functioning little gray cells.

This means upgrading hosting plans and delving deep into subjects only understood by the geekiest of geeks - dammit, if they'd only use the English language! - but no doubt all will come clear, or at least a little less murky, in due course.

Meanwhile, Sparrow Chat continues as usual, but look out Blogger - your days may well be numbered!

Filed under: Masochistic tendencies

The Question Mark Over Black Barack.......

2006-10-22T18:27:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama, junior US senator from Illinois announced today on "Meet the Press" that he was considering a run for the presidency in 2008.

Would Obama make a good US president?

The answer is undoubtedly, yes - providing he could evade the clutches of corporate America, and not let his ambitions cause him to lose sight of the high standards he has set himself.

When he questioned the handling of the Iraq war by the Bush administration, he said:

"When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world."

Speaking of national unity, he said:

"The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

Anyone who can speak such words - and mean them - has to be considered potentially worthy of the highest office.

Barack Obama is probably ready and worthy to be the next US president.

The more relevant question, though, is whether America is ready for Barack Obama. He has one unfortunate handicap when it comes to reaching for presidential office in America. He is black.

Anyone, who at this point raises their hands in the air and mutters about it "not being an issue", is naive, to say the least. Sure, there are blacks in high political office, but America has never even come close to voting one into the highest office in the land. That has always been the white man's domain.

To enthrone a black couple as president and first lady is a step too far for many Americans, although most would never admit it in public. Many wouldn't even admit it to themselves, but would eschew the option in the privacy of the voting booth.

Racism is huge in America, and has been swept under a carpet that long ago lost touch with the floorboards. It pervades almost every aspect of life. African-Americans, in general, are still very much an underclass, and those born of mixed white/black relationships, instead of reaching up the social ladder, are frequently pushed back to the bottom of the pile.

Of course, many will scoff and quote individual examples of blacks who made it good. Most of the scoffers will be white. In a country of 300,000,000 people some from every walk of life will make good, even those born with a handicap of being the 'wrong color'.

President Barack Obama would almost certainly be the right choice in 2008 to mend broken fences and move America back into the position of respect it once held in the world, what now seems an awfully long time ago. That he is a black man would prove an enormous advantage in achieving that, for it would show the world that Americans have matured and are ready to accept the equality of multi-culturalism so obviously in denial, at home and abroad, in the wake of both Katrina and the Iraq war.

The question mark does not hover over Barack Obama; instead, it hangs over the American people, and whether they have really matured to that degree?

Filed under: Left pending

NBC Sell Out To The Religiots.......

2006-10-20T20:05:00.000-05:00

After saying they would screen Madonna's 'Confessions' concert in its entirety, NBC has now reneged and agreed to cut the song, "Live toTell", and its attendant crucifixion scene.

Despite pious shrieks of anguish from religious nutters around the globe; an abortive investigation by German prosecuters for potential blasphemy (Germany has the strongest anti-blasphemy laws in Europe); a bomb hoax attempt by a Dutch priest (very Christian!), and a call from Vatican Cardinal Ersilio Tonino for her excommunication, no-one has succeeded in preventing Madonna from completing her concert in its entirety.

Of course, it goes almost without saying that the America of "President" George W Bush, religious "leaders" like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and a team of around seventy-five million ego-entwined, self-obsessed, opiniated, evangelical half-wits, will manage what others of their ilk in Europe failed to do.

But they won't succeed by invoking the laws of the land, because they know they can't. Instead, they'll use the well tried and tested "American method": Political, religious and corporate pressure on organizations that daren't say 'No'.

It's even better than laws.

It works every time.

But Sparrow Chat refuses to be muzzled:

Click HERE for the short video version.

Madonna - religious blasphemer? Pah!

Madonna's a Goddess of Pop.

America, - land of freedom? Pah!

America's the Goddess of Hypocrisy.

Filed under: Crass idiocy

Even Muslims Agree On This..........

2006-10-20T10:42:00.000-05:00

The recent case for wrongful dismissal brought by schoolteacher, Aishah Azmi, who insisted on wearing a veil to teach English lessons to immigrant children in Britain, has been thrown out by the court.

In a BBC report, "......Dewsbury Labour MP Shahid Malik told the BBC: "I would appeal to Mrs Azmi now just to let this thing go. There is no real support for it.

He continued, "I have got Muslim parents in my constituency who have said that they wouldn't send their children to a school where the teachers wore veils while they were teaching.........I just think there is very little support for this, she is very isolated and it would be healthy all round if she just let it go and just accept the tribunal result."

The report also states: "The chair of social and family affairs at the Muslim Council of Britain, Reefat Drabu, said the veil was not obligatory. She said Mrs Azmi's stance was "exacerbating the misunderstanding" of Islam, and making things harder for Muslim communities in Britain.

Reading the BBC report gives more information, but ignore the comments of Conservative Party leader David Cameron, he just wants to be the next British Prime Minister.

Filed under: Sanity reigns

Another Of CNN's Opinionated Presenters........

2006-10-19T19:07:00.000-05:00

"I'm not here for the Iraqi's," one CPA staffer said, "I'm here for George Bush." ~ from 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City' by Rajiv Chandrasekaran.

They don't get it, do they? They......just.....don't.....get it!

One of CNN's resident Republicans, Jack Cafferty, today ran an hour long segment entitled "Broken Government". Most of it was a rehash of what anyone with two functioning brain cells has known for weeks; or in some cases months, or even years. After listing all the sins of Congress and the Administration over the last - well, three years, at least - Cafferty featured an interview with Andrew Sullivan, of Daily Dish fame, wherein the discussion turned to the war in Iraq. While Cafferty nodded sagely in agreement, Sullivan insisted it was all Rumsfeld's fault for not sending more troops in the first place.

Regular readers of Sparrow Chat will know the opinion held of Rumsfeld and frequently expressed in these pages, but the situation in Iraq neither had, nor has, anything to do with troop numbers. It does, however, have a great deal to do with Donald Rumsfeld. 500,000 troops would have made little difference, except perhaps in razing Baghdad to the ground and slaughtering most of the population - and they'd still have come back with their roadside bombs and RPG's.

The "war" was won back in 2003. The "peace" has been lost ever since.

And just who lost it? The Republican Party - the GOP - lost the peace; the American administration lost the peace. The war was not in Iraq; the war was in Washington - between the Pentagon and the State Department. The result of that war was the arrival in Iraq of a collection of "Hooray Henrys", (the Coalition Provisional Authority) whose only qualifications were a slavish devotion to George W Bush and the Republican Party. These party faithful, many of them so young they were still wet behind the ears, had the job of rebuilding Iraq, with no knowledge or experience of what was required, but pots and pots of American tax-payer dollars to spend. Needless to say, they spent the money but rebuilt very little.

At the same time, America's 'Viceroy', L Paul Bremer III, disbanded the Iraqi army and put thousands of soldiers out of work, then threw thousands more Baath party members out of their jobs to swell the ranks of the already 40% unemployed. The majority of Baath Party members in Iraq were ordinary Iraqis who were forced to join the party under Saddam Hussein, or starve. Bremer, with one stroke of his gold fountain pen, took away that option.

Where did all these tens of thousands go? They joined the insurgency.

Most Iraqis had every reason to hate the Americans after the fall of Saddam Hussein, not because of the invasion, but due to their behavior afterwards.

The Americans promised jobs, electricity, a vibrant economy, security, and decent plumbing. They delivered none of these. Everything got worse. Unemployent rose alarmingly, the electricity generating stations were not properly serviced and rebuilt, the economy collapsed, sewage ran down the streets, and security - well, we all know about the security situation. Iraqi civilians were treated like animals, locked up for no good reason, humiliated, tortured. The words 'Abu Ghraib' will cause decent Americans to shudder for years to come.

Publicly, the US blamed their failures on the insurgency, but it was the catalogue of cock-ups by Bremer and his amateurish posse of "Iraq rebuilders", coupled with the intimidating attitude of many in the military, that fuelled a very weak insurgency, one that only became an serious issue because Iraqi society collapsed. The society collapsed because those charged with rebuilding it, failed ignominiously.

It's easy to sit in a CNN studio and proclaim the war was lost due to insufficient military.

Doubling the numbers of troops in Iraq may have capped the insurgency, and turned the country into a police state, but it would have resurfaced just as soon as conditions allowed. Even America can't keep 300,000 troops in a country indefinitely.

Andrew Sullivan and Jack Cafferty may sit in their comfortable studio blithely spouting inanities, but in so doing they are simply expressing their ignorance.

Sadly, there are many Americans who will watch, hear, and sagely nod their heads in agreement.

Filed under: Cock-eyed viewpoints

George W Bush - Hoist By His Own Petar'?

2006-10-18T20:23:00.000-05:00

The Iraq president, Jalal Talabani, wants Iran and Syria involved in the peacemaking process in Iraq. In a BBC interview yesterday, he said it would "be the beginning of the end of terrorism".

James Baker, close friend of George H.W Bush, the encumbent's father, is tentatively suggesting something similar.

Meanwhile, the Syrian ambassador to the UN has stated his country would be willing to help stabilize Iraq, if American troops leave the country.

The US (with a little help from Britain) invaded Iraq in 2003 ostensibly to find Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, but in reality the political ideal was to turn Iraq into a 'little America', from whence it could influence the politics of the region to such an extent that the whole Middle East would eventually succumb to US capitalist ideals.

Sadly for this administration, and Tony Blair in Britain, that old adage "the best laid plans of mice and men........" rapidly grew in relevance, to such a degree that the 'mice' may well have managed a more efficient job of the whole thing.

Not being the world's greatest strategist, George W Bush filled the interim by insulting Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria, and threatening to nuke at least one of those nations if it didn't comply with America's demands.

Now, it seems that the parents of George, and those other boys in the Administration, have got together with their friends to curb the excesses of their offspring. Enough, it seems, is about to be enough.

The stalemate in Iraq has to be resolved somehow, and it is quite obvious George the younger has been allowed too much free reign and made a thorough mess of things. He must now go, cap in hand, to those nice Misters Ahmadinajhad and Bashar al-Asad, apologize profusely and ask them to sort out his mess.

Unfortunately, George W Bush is not renowned for admitting mistakes. He will not be keen to walk that road. Besides, withdrawal of American and British troops will undoubtedly be a prerequisite for cooperation from Iran - Syria has already stipulated it - and that means a one hundred percent failure of this administration's strategy for the region.

Iraq will almost certainly end up another theocracy in the region, and Iran's rise as the new superpower in the Middle East will be accelerated.

The alternative for Bush & Co is more of the same. More bloodshed; more American soldiers killed. It's unlikely the American people will tolerate that for very much longer.

The White House, to put it mildly, is in a quandary.

Filed under: Hamlet Act III

"And Wilt Thou Be The School Where Lust Shall Learn?"

2006-10-17T17:25:00.000-05:00

Last week, The Guardian highlighted the case of grade school teacher, Ms Sydney McGee, who was sacked after she took eighty-nine fifth-graders to the Dallas Museum of Art and exposed them to the shocking sight of abstract nude statues.

Parents complained.

Is there something in the Texas water that makes these people so irritatingly prudish?

The schoolboard claims the statues were "only part of the story", but so far have refused to give further explanation.

Could it be Ms McGee then took her students to the Dallas Zoo, and allowed them a glimpse of - Oh, Heaven forbid! - the mating ritual of the Laarge Daark Aardvark?

Remember the song?

Filed under: Prim and improper

Whatever Happened To Maturity?

2006-10-17T16:41:00.000-05:00

In a statement today to supporters, the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that he had inspirational links to God.

He also said the American President George W Bush was inspired, but insisted he was inspired by Satan.

It seems fair to assume, given remarks George W Bush has made in the past, that the American president's viewpoint on the subject would be exactly the reverse.

In a Sparrow Chat posting yesterday, entitled, "Organized Religion: A Blessing Or A Curse?" was the paragraph:

"We are left to determine our own definitions of 'good' and 'evil', with the result that what is right for one, is wrong for another. One man's evil, is another man's good. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the theatre of war where, before battle, both sides will call upon their 'God' for a blessing, each utterly convinced that right (goodness) is on their side. Of course, there is always a loser; usually the side whose 'God' has given them the most tanks, machine guns, and fighter aircraft.

Can their be any doubt that the most powerful figure in the Middle East, and the most powerful figure in the Western world, are themselves conclusive proof of that statement?

BBC News source HERE.

Filed under: Brace of idiots

Don't Fly British Airways.....

2006-10-17T12:14:00.000-05:00

Hardly hot news - the incident occurred last February - but sufficiently startling to warrant comment, is the case of the British Airways Jumbo jet with 351 passengers and 18 crew on board that took off from Los Angeles airport bound for London, with one engine on fire.

There may have been little cause for concern had the plane turned around and landed again.

It didn't.

The pilot told the tower, "We have now shut down the No 2 engine. We are going to consult our company and see what they require us to do."

Some minutes later, leaving air traffic controllers at LA stunned, the plane headed for London. According to ATC at LA, the pilot radioed, "We've just decided we want to set off on our flight-plan route and get as far as we can."

GET AS FAR AS WE CAN! Suppose that turned out to be the middle of the Atlantic Ocean?

According to a Guardian report of September 12th:

He was allowed on his way, but an air traffic controller who had seen the flames coming from the engine told a colleague: "If you would have saw what we saw out the window, you'd be amazed at that."

The plane eventually made an emergency landing in Manchester, UK, due to low fuel levels.

According to British Airways, the $175,000 bill the company would have received for delay compensation, had the plane immediately returned to Los Angeles, was not a factor in deciding to continue the flight on three engines.

The Guardian:

BA............insisted the aircraft was operating in accordance with the CAA's regulations. It said the AAIB's report concluded that the crew had "sufficient fuel and performance" to reach the UK.

Only just enough fuel and performance, if levels were so low that the plane could not risk another half hour of flying time to reach its destination at London, Heathrow.

As for BA's claim that the delay compensation bill was not a relevant factor?

Hands up, all those who believe them.

Filed under: Corporate irresponsibility

From A Puff To A Snort: One Tiny Step For Europeans, One Giant Leap For Their Wallets.....

2006-10-17T11:31:00.000-05:00

A recent report from the EU Central Narcotics Bureau, highlighted in the Guardian newspaper, shows that marijuana use is on the decline in European nations.

Cocaine use, however, has risen sharply.

Does this indicate a drastic increase in the standard of living among Europeans, one wonders?

Filed under: Expensive tastes

Hard A Starboard, Mister President?

2006-10-16T19:57:00.000-05:00

One can hardly have missed the phrase "change of course" emanating from all the media channels of late. Across the political spectrum, but particulaly from inside the Republican camp, that phrase is being trotted out by one senator after another.

To most who hear it, the only "change of course" option seems a withdrawal of troops, but that would likely be political suicide for the GOP and anyway, it would sink the vision top Republicans have for America in the 21st century.

To keep afloat, both the vision and the polls, would seem a lost cause so close to the midterms, but there are signs top administration officials are considering other options. One possibility, unlikely as it may seem considering the chasm this administration has dug for itself in the Middle East, would be for George W Bush to form an alliance with Iran and Syria.

Impossible? Not according to the brains trust presently burning their midnight oil in Washington. James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Sandra Day O'Connor, are just a few of the "Iraq Study Group" members George Bush has called together to extricate him from the political quicksand of Iraq.

There is one other option on the table so far. A sort-of withdrawal of troops, just over the border into Kuwait. Less chance of being bombed or shot up, but available to rush in and bash a few insurgents as necessary.

Let's consider these options.

Withdrawal into Kuwait has its advantages politically. The administration could claim it has bowed to the nation's wishes and withdrawn troops from Iraq, while still having a foothold in the Iraqi political system. It leaves open the opportunity to grab more influence in the country - and as a consequence, the region - once the insurgency has finally died or been defeated.

The drawback to this option is that it could take years for Iraq to return to a normal life, and meanwhile American troops are tied up in never-ending skirmishes that would achieve very little. With only another two years to the presidential elections, the situation may well be as mired then, as it seems now.

However unpalatable an alliance with Iran and Syria might be to George W Bush, both governments have huge influence in Iraq, particularly with the majority Shia population. If a framework agreement could be reached with those nations, it is likely the violence could be drastically reduced, if not stopped altogether, in a relatively short time period.

Of course, the devil is in the detail and reaching a 'framework agreement' would not be easy. This administration would need to eat a lot of humble pie - not easy for a president from Texas. Iran and Syria would be sure to drive a hard bargain. It may well toll the death knell for that vision of America as a pro-actively aggressive nation reshaping the world, but at least it would sink slowly,and almost imperceptibly, rather than blowing up in the water, as likely seems the case right now. The GOP may even live to fight another day.

And as we all know - there is always North Korea.

Filed under: Fires and frypans

Organized Religion: A Blessing, Or A Curse?

2006-10-16T10:27:00.000-05:00

Is organized religion really all its cracked up to be, or are a lot of people around the world being conned?

Whether it's Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, all are marketed as fountains of goodness spilling out into the world and spreading love, hope and charity among its peoples.

The truth of religion today, as it has been from time immemorial, is that it has nothing whatever to do with any of those concepts.

There were 109 BBC World website headlines on the Sparrow Chat RSS reader this morning. Twenty-four (nearly a quarter) directly related to religion in one way or another. Twenty-three trumpeted the deaths, agonies, or political mischiefs resulting from clashes of religious viewpoint. Only one could be classed as positive, though rather dubiously; it declared that the Pope had named four saints.

Can it then be assumed from this that organized religion is not a source of good in the world, but possibly the root of all evil?

Hardly; because although the statistics seem to verify it, by making such a statement one assumes the basic mistake organized religion, and some politicians, have been making for years; that good and evil are like two opposing armies facing each other across a narrow area of 'no-man's land'. The 'faithful' have a simple choice - join the army of goodness, which will always have 'God' on its side; or, stick with the other lot out in the cold and be defeated.

Helluva choice.

Even into the 21st century, this simple marketing philosophy works efficiently, particularly in highly ecclesiastical societies such as America or Iraq or Iran. One reason is its embedding in the framework of society over generations. That form of almost genetic indoctrination is the most efficient of all.

When the vexed question of 'good v. evil' is perused, the mind finds a gap between the ultimates, that is so wide as to be almost infinite. If, purely for the sake of demonstration, we take 'God' as the ultimate good and 'Satan' as the ultimate evil, virtually all the lesser 'goods' and lesser 'evils' converge in the middle to form a conglomeration that cannot easily be defined as either. At first glance, the 'no-man's land' talked of earlier, instead of being narrow, becomes so huge that our army of 'goodness' is totally out of touch with the 'other lot out in the cold'.

Further appraisal, however, shows this to be anything but the case. While our experimental examples, 'God' and 'Satan' are certainly poles apart, the conglomeration in the middle is all squashed together as the human race - us. We are neither 'good', nor 'evil'. Nor are we a conglomeration of both, for 'God' and 'Satan', the ultimate poles, are so far away from us as to have insignificant effect on our psyches.

We are left to determine our own definitions of 'good' and 'evil', with the result that what is right for one, is wrong for another. One man's evil, is another man's good. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the theatre of war where, before battle, both sides will call upon their 'God' for a blessing, each utterly convinced that right (goodness) is on their side. Of course, there is always a loser; usually the side whose 'God' has given them the most tanks, machine guns, and fighter aircraft.

So, where does all this leave religion, God, Satan, and perhaps most importantly, at least in our immediate future, us?

Having studied the situation and found both 'God' and 'Satan', as the ultimate poles of good and evil, to be way out beyond our sense of reason or understanding, one must conclude that religion is totally irrelevant to the human race. From what we have seen above, teaching the difference between good and evil is a useless task when both are subjective, rather than objective.

At this juncture, the argument is usually voiced by clerics that without the Bible (or the Koran, or the Torah) we could never know the difference between right and wrong, as these books provide our sole definitions.

That opinion does not stand scrutiny. It is obvious to anyone who studies primates that they have at least a primitive knowledge of right and wrong. They have never read a 'holy book'. Neither had the many African tribes, Polynesians, prior to Christian missionaries 'converting' them. They may have indulged themselves a little more freely in sexual activities pre-Christian conversion, but history tells us they had legal frameworks defining what, to them, was right or wrong long before the missionaries arrived.

If we cannot define either 'good' or 'evil', then it stands to reason neither can exist, except in our imaginations. Instead of being, as the churches would tell us, organic machines programmed by 'God' to be 'good', but sometimes interfered with by 'Satan' to make us bad - whereupon we are locked away in the hope Satan will give up and go home, or simply exterminated - we are intelligent beings who have developed our laws to fit our societies, as they have evolved. Hence, we know that to go about killing each other is not a good idea i.e. it doesn't benefit society for its members to live in constant fear of being killed.

The concepts of 'good' and 'evil' developed out of this, which was not a problem until one society decided to force its views of 'good' and 'evil' on another society, that had developed slightly differing opinions on the subject. Then all hell broke loose in the world. Societies needed some outside force to cement their views as the only 'right' ones, and so 'Gods' were created. It didn't help. "My God's stronger and better than your God" became the eternal battlecry, spurred on by the churches 0n all sides, because of course, "My church is stronger and better than your church."

There is little positive about organized religion. It is a sham founded on a sham. Throughout the ages, nothing that the churches have done could not have been performed better by other organisations, simply because every act of the church has carried a pricetag. The cost was always conversion. Expanding the 'flock' has been the motivation, ostensibly to guarantee eternal life, but that promise is no man's to make. As we have seen, 'God', however we choose to define it, is much, much too far away.

'God' has now evolved into an excuse. Rather than take responsibility for our actions, we abnegate them to 'God'. "It's in God's hands"; "If it's God's will"; "Not my will, but thine be done", are all handy little phrases allowing us to relinquish responsibility for all our actions - and their consequences, however ghastly.

To survive, let alone evolve, the human race must learn to take back responsibility for its actions. We cannot go on pretending we are puppets dangling on strings attached to God's fingers. We are not.

The decisions we take today must be our responsibility, otherwise, for example, we will allow the world to become inhabitable due to global warming, and while dying we will say, "It was God's will." If we shoulder the responsibility, we can save our species and our world, but only if we migrate our 'Gods' to where they belong - way out beyond our reason and comprehension.

In conclusion, organized religion has little positive to offer the world, but much that is negative. But man is a spiritual being constantly searching for his elusive home beyond the material world. For some, it is possible to dig deep beyond the layers of hypocrisy, corruption and falsehood, and find a spiritual presence - a pathway to that elusive home - within the confines of a great cathedral, a Greek monastery, a Baghdad mosque. Such, is a personal quest that has nothing to do with organized religion. What can be found in those places can be found also in the woods, in the cities, or on a mountaintop.

Our relationship with the spiritual is a deeply private and personal relationship, a path we may only walk alone. For that, there is no need for organized religion.

Filed under: Origins of egotism

Taking The Easy Road Out.........

2006-10-15T20:29:00.000-05:00

Yet again, America shows its traditional generosity.

The good Amish people of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania are swamped with money, following the tragedy at their schoolhouse that left five young Amish girls shot dead, and others critically injured.

This is the way America responds; digging deep into its purses and bank accounts, sending dollar donations by the ton.

Even the biker community turned up in their hundreds to offer hard earned cash to the bereaved families. It brings a lump to the throat; a tear to the eye. The warmth and sympathy of this great Capitalist society is an example to the world.

What will the Amish do with all this generosity - around a million dollars so far? Apart from paying some fairly hefty medical bills, they have no need of riches. If anything, the money may eventually become an embarrassment to them. Have these generous donors given any thought to that?

Is writing a check, or mailing a lump of cash, really symptomatic of American generosity? Or, is it just a convenient way to salve a conscience; endow the donor with some good old-fashioned self-satisfaction?

Instead of money, why don't Americans give the Amish what they really want?

Why don't they hand in their guns?

Filed under: Conscience money

It's A Simple Question..........

2006-10-15T09:22:00.000-05:00

.........would you employ a woman who insisted on keeping her face covered while teaching your child a foreign language?

The case of twenty-four year old Aishah Azmi, who teaches English as a second language at the Church of England's Headfield Junior (grade) School in West Yorkshire, UK, is well documented at the BBC's website HERE.

She faces dismissal for refusing to remove her veil while at school, even though admitting that when she initially applied for the job, and was interviewed by two male members of staff, she did not wear the veil to the interview.

Ms Azmi now says she cannot remove her veil while any male is present.

Personally, Sparrow Chat can raise little sympathy for this woman. By appearing bare-faced at her interview, she deliberately misled her employers and so they have good reason to dismiss her.

This case highlights, yet again, the vexed question of wearing religious artifacts in the workplace. It could be argued the veil is not a religious symbol, even though many Muslims insist it is, as the Koran only demands a woman 'dress modestly'. It is the interpretation of 'modesty' that provides the stumbling block.

Neither does the Bible make obligatory the wearing of a cross, yet many who call themselves Christian, insist on hanging one around their necks to display affiliation.

Hence we have the case of British Airways check-in person, Nadia Eweida, recently suspended by her employer for refusing to hide a cross and chain under her uniform, as company regulations dictate, even though they allow for turbans, hijabs, and religious bangles to be worn by Muslim and Hindu employees.

Although some news agencies are linking these two stories, there are very different circumstances. In fact, the case of Aishah Azmi, the English teacher, has little to do with religion and is more about her obtaining the job under false pretences. If she can discard the veil for her interview, how can she now insist she is unable to reveal herself in front of the male sex?

As for Nadia Eweida, this is just another of those crazy corporate rule-book attempts to exercise unnecessary control over an employee. They will, almost certainly, lose the case in court. To allow a Hindu to wear iron bangles, yet deny a tiny cross on a tight chain, is hypocritical in the extreme, and so typical of corporate management pettiness.

The argument presently raging in the British media as to whether Muslim women should wear the veil in public is likely to continue for some time. There is a degree of intransigence among Muslim communities, who tend to view any such discussion as an attack on their culture, but in this modern world the question of identity is surely an issue. The face acts as the primary source of identification for us all, and facial expression an important part of our body language. To cover the face, not only veils the features, but closets the identity. It is instinctive to fear, and consequently avoid, that which we cannot identify. For that reason alone, Muslims living in Western societies do themselves no favors by hiding their features. Britain, like America, is a country that welcomes other cultures, but when those cultures shut themselves off and refuse to be a part of the nation they have chosen as their home, the welcome rapidly wears thin.

Headfield's Junior School English teacher has no reason to feel aggrieved if she finds herself unemployed. She has only herself to blame. Her dishonesty will have been her undoing, and that has nothing whatever to do with her religion.

Ms Eweida, however, has cause to feel wronged. The exceptions her employer makes to other workers should also be applicable to her.

Neither case is about religion; both are very much concerned with the employee's ability to efficiently do their job.

Filed under: Commonsense

What The British Military Thinks Of General Sir Richard Dannatt........

2006-10-13T22:26:00.000-05:00

Sir Richard Dannatt is...

absolutely right:: 77% [ 199 ]
right only from military point of view:: 15% [ 39 ]
only partially right:: 2% [ 6 ]
he is rather wrong:: 0% [ 2 ]
he made a serious mistake:: 0% [ 2 ]
he is absolutely wrong:: 0% [ 2 ]
he had to resign first before making such a statement:: 3% [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 258

Statistics compiled by ARRSE - "The (British) ARmy Rumour SErvice."

See the poll as it's updated; read the comments.

A Sneaky And Unfair Law?

2006-10-13T10:48:00.000-05:00

Today, George W Bush will sign a bill that makes it illegal for US banks and credit card companies to make payment to foreign online gambling sites.

Sparrow Chat has never seriously indulged in gambling, preferring not to wager sums of hard-earned lolly against odds always in favor of the casino. Yet, gambling itself is not illegal in the States. We all saw the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the casinos of New Orleans, and the recent, much publicised, trial of Jack Abramoff continually highlights the prime revenues of certain American Indian tribes. In fact, figures from five years ago show spending in US land-based casinos alone reached almost $26 billion dollars.

So, why is internet gambling under attack?

Is it a political issue - a fop to the neo-conservative Christians who find gambling morally unacceptable; perhaps, a titbit thrown to those very Indian tribes who make their living from casinos?

Possibly, the bill was steered through Congress by Bill Frist, the neocon's friend, but betting on US horse racing, lotteries and fantasy sports online is not illegal and another bill was passed in September allowing states and American-Indian tribes to promote internet gaming of almost any variety so long as it is within state borders.

The crux of this matter is in the phrase, "Foreign online gambling sites."

It's another example of American protectionism, and one presently under scrutiny by the World Trade Organization.

BBC financial reporter, Tania Beckett, asked US Trade representative, Susan Schweb, about it. She responded:

"No country is going to sacrifice its ultimate sovereignity, its moral and ethical convictions, its national security. Now, we all have to be really careful about how we exercise those restraints, but they are there for any country to exercise. They're in keeping with the W.T.O."

Susan Schwab is that same person who appears from time to time and makes optimistic and ineffectual statements, pretending that progress is being made in the long-running, and probably eternally-lasting, World Trade Talks on cutting subsidies and other restrictions that prevent poor, third-world countries from trading with the big guys like America on a more level playing field. It ain't goner happen, but it's fun to string them along and let them hope death from starvation may one day not be an option.

Ms Schwab's illuminating statement does make one thing very clear: this bill is all about politics.

It means that US gambling companies can do what the hell they like. The biggest gambling market in the world is firmly closed to any outside business. This puts the US firmly in contravention of its obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS),wherein it bound itself to provide market access and national treatment to the cross-border supply of foreign services that come within the category of 'other recreational services', which includes gambling and betting services.

Despite Susan Schwab's assurances that America's actions are ".....in keeping with the W.T.O....." the small island of Antigua and Barbuda, whose gambling business interests are severely effected by the bill, are taking their case back to that organization for a ruling, which may well go against the US. Not that it's likely to sway American lawmakers, even if the WTO's decision is unfavorable to them.

It is unlikely most senators voting for this bill had any inclination that it was a trade issue with implications for the US within the WTO. During a late night session, it was tagged on, at the last minute, to the 'Safe Port Act' that was designed to stop companies from other countries (such as almost happened with a Dubai company earlier this year) having security rights at a US port. Most senators thought they were voting for that, not a protectionist gaming bill.

The efforts of Frist & Co to get this bill passed may well come back to haunt them. Already, many of those supposed to benefit from the bill's moralistic side are up in arms about it. The President of the US Poker Players Association, Michael Bolcerek, has said that "allowing the Bill to become law would run contrary to public opinion.......[and]........ "the millions of Americans who enjoy playing this great game will have the last voice in the debate come election day".

Whether that proves to be the case or not, there can be no doubt that, so long as the American people are prepared to put up with a judicial system that allows unfair and unjust laws to sneak through by tagging them onto bills of national importance, successive governments will continue to use the system to their own partisan benefit.

Filed under: American protectionism

One American With Courage............

2006-10-13T09:39:00.000-05:00

Our troops can take great pride in the work they do at Guantanamo Bay, and so can the American people." ~ George W Bush; September 2006

It was suggested in the previous post that US generals might take courage from Sir Richard Dannatt and speak out about the true state of the situation in Iraq, and the war on terror generally.

Often, it takes someone of more lowly status to start that ball rolling, and in this instance the 'lowly status' belongs to 23 year old Marine Sergeant Heather Cerveny, who went to Guantanamo Bay Detention Center three weeks ago as a legal aide to a military lawyer.

In a sworn affidavid, Sergeant Cerveny recounts a story of unchecked abuse of prisoners. Several navy prison guards, over drinks, told her how they routinely beat up detainees. In camps five and six beatings were common and went unpunished.

"That guy was annoying me so I smacked him in the head," was just one of many such statements she recorded during her time at the camp.

She also recounts in her affidavid how:

"one sailor specifically said 'I took the detainee by the head and smashed his head into the cell door.'"

Sergeant Cerveny has taken her complaints to the military's inspector general who is considering a formal enquiry.

After reading her report, Jennifer Daskall of Human Rights Watch said:

"Members of the military were cavalierly bragging about their abuse of detainees, which suggests that it's not only commonplace, but acceptable - even favored."

Meanwhile, the military and the White House say problems at Guantanamo Bay have long since been fixed. Some may find it interesting that George W Bush was speaking the words quoted at the head of this article around the time Sergeant Cerveny was actually at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center. Was he lying, or simply misinformed?

Responding to questions from the BBC, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said:

"Look, we don't want Guantanamo open forever. We don't want to be the world's jailers. We certainly would look forward to the day when Guantanamo is closed."

Mister McCormack, please don't drag the rest of the world into your sordid little schemes. You are not the world's jailers. The world looks on appalled at your actions; your inhumanity towards your fellow man. Other countries, with the possible exception of dictatorial banana republics, do not incarcerate for years without trial; do not subject those in custody to beatings, torture, spiritual and mental agonies, with no hope of justice.

Leave the rest of the world out of it, Mister McCormack.

This is America's crime - and thankfully, one 'lowly' American has had the courage to do something about it.

BBC website report HERE.

Filed under: American war crimes

How Plain Does The Speaking Have To Be?

2006-10-12T19:42:00.000-05:00

The serving head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, today called for British troops to be pulled out of Iraq. In an interview with the British Newspaper, The Daily Mail, Sir Richard said that if troops were not withdrawn from Iraq it risked catastrophic consequences for both Iraq and British society.

He stated explicitly that the presence of British troops "exacerbates the security problems."

Sir Richard also called Tony Blair's wish to form a 'liberal democracy' in Iraq a "naive failure" saying, "whatever consent we may have had in the first place [from the Iraqi people] "has largely turned to intolerance."

The general continued:

"We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren’t invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time. The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in. Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance. That is a fact. I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them." [my underline]

So, while not being specific about which "difficulties we are experiencing around the world" the general leaves little doubt he is referring to the rise of Islamic militancy that is spreading at an alarming rate, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but throughout the Arab world, areas of the African continent and down through Turkey into Europe.

He is quite specific that British troops and by default, American forces, in Iraq are exacerbating that situation.

This is wholly contrary to the public opinions of Tony Blair and George W Bush who insist that maintaining forces in Iraq is vital to the welfare of the Iraqis themselves, and the success of the mythical war on terrorism.

It has taken a courageous man, a still serving officer, to stand up and be counted in a way that could well cost him dear. Sir Richard Dannatt has the courage of his convictions.

To date, six senior, but retired American officers have dared to confront the US administration and say openly what Sir Richard is saying today. To date, no serving officer of comparable rank in the US forces has had the necessary guts to speak out openly against this administration and their unholy cock-up called the Iraq War.

Perhaps the boldness of British General Sir Richard Dannatt will set an example other US generals might care to follow?

Filed under: Turning tides

A Question Of Rights........

2006-10-12T10:56:00.000-05:00

Last Monday, fellow blogger Al Devito wrote of an impending vote in the French parliament to make denial of the alleged Armenian genocide by Turkey, illegal. He asked: "why is France debating the issue now?

The alleged genocide happened during WW1 and involved hundreds of thousands, if not a million, Armenians. Turkey has never denied the deaths, only the term 'genocide' to describe them.

It does seem rather pointless to make such a fuss nearly one hundred years after the event, but the vote was carried in the French parliament yesterday by 106 - 19. Of course, it still needs the approval of the Senate and Jacques Chirac before becoming law.

This blog has always been a supporter of the French point of view, but nothing and no-one is perfect, and in this instance of French charade it is transparently obvious that the process is designed as a vote winner. France has the largest Armenian immigrant community in the world (around 500,000) and with a presidential election looming their votes are suddenly important to many politicians.

The reason, however, is less important than the result.

Jewish Holocaust denial is a crime in France, as it is in Austria, Spain, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium and some other eastern European nations. Adding this Armenian tragedy to the list is another step in the wrong direction.

Most media outlets have totally missed the true effect of this French vote, which is a step towards further suppression of free speech in Europe.

Our beliefs are as varied as we are. Our constitutions and judicial systems are based around the sanctity of those beliefs and their importance to ourselves as individuals. Any legislation that assists in destroying the right to express our beliefs orally, or through our writing, is both undemocratic and dangerous, and will eventually effect us all, wherever we live.

Filed under: Right to speak

Thirty days Hath September, April, June And November.......

2006-10-11T17:12:00.000-05:00

"This morning my administration released the budget numbers for fiscal 2006. These budget numbers are not just estimates; these are the actual results for the fiscal year that ended February the 30th. ~ George W Bush; October 11, 2006.

Frightening!

School Massacres Are 'Upsetting To A Lot Of People'.....That's Official!

2006-10-11T11:43:00.000-05:00

George and Laura Bush are hosting a conference of 'professionals' to discuss how to prevent school shootings. Strangely, one might think, no campaigners for gun controls were invited. That issue is not part of the agenda.

George W Bush opened the meeting by stating:

"The violence we've seen.....it's upsetting to a lot of people.......it's best to be proactive.......and that's what this meeting is."

Upsetting to "a lot of people"? Does that mean he knows some who don't find it upsetting?

There will be plenty in America who don't find it upsetting. Plenty who'll get a real kick out of it - as they fondle their macho assault weapons and wish it could be them in the schoolroom, feeling the kick of the firearm; watching how efficiently it butchers innocent little children.

For once, Bush was right. It upsets lots of people - but it thrills and pleasures plenty more.

President Clinton called a similar conference after Columbine. He called for gun controls. Congress blocked them. The Republican-controlled Congress; the one controlled by the gun lobby.

So, without gun control what can be done?

Well, for a start, there's more security in schools; more technology to prevent intruders, find concealed weapons, identify possible threats.

Except....George W Bush's administration has slashed the budget for such items because, according to George W Bush:

"Those measures have proved ineffective."

OK, so no gun control, and no money for better security measures in schools, but that still leaves........?????

Still, as George W Bush rightly says:

"It's best to be proactive."

Filed under: Political hypocrisy

It's Perfectly Fine If They Do It............

2006-10-11T10:26:00.000-05:00

The politically named "war on drugs" has been waged almost as assiduously across Europe as it has in America. Politicians in most EEC nations shake their heads and manage to look incredibly stern whenever the question of recreational drug use becomes an issue. One would expect these self-righteous bastions of European morals, like their American counterparts, to be as above reproach in their own lifestyles, as they demand others are in their's.

When fifty Italian politicians from the country's Lower House of Parliament were invited onto a TV show to discuss the 2007 draft budget, all readily agreed. Unfortunately for them, they were really taking part in a show called Le Lene (the Hyenas) which is renowned for spoofing and embarassing public figures. As the politicians sat for their make-up prior to the show, swabs were surrepticiously drawn across their foreheads, and then sent to a drug testing laboratory for analysis.

According to the Italian police, the test is 100% proof - they have never known it show inaccuracy.

Sixteen of the fifty politicians returned positive tests proving drug use within the previous thirty-six hours. Twelve had used marijuana; four had taken cocaine.

All the tests were conducted anonymously. The swabs were sent in one lot to be tested. No-one knows who were the recent drug users, and who were - at least on this occasion - innocent. Nevertheless, the Italian parliament is trying to ban the screening of the program on grounds of infringement of privacy.

The situation is, of course, comical. But it also has a more serious edge. Throughout Europe and America, hundreds of people languish in prison because of strict laws imposed on them by politicians, who use their position of privilege to hold themselves above the laws they have enacted. The attitude is:

"It's alright for us, but we mustn't let the masses do it."

In this instance, Italian politicians are exposed for the self-righteous, egocentric, hypocrites we all suspected they were, but there can be no doubt the results would be similar if tests were conducted on British, American or French politicians.

This comedic exposee is yet another example of "The Powerful" screwing those they control, while they themselves ignore the rules and regulations they imperiously impose on us.

Filed under: Political hypocrisy

McCain Has A Serious Memory Problem.......

2006-10-10T19:18:00.000-05:00

Today, Senator John McCain laid the blame for North Korea's testing of a nuclear bomb on ex-president Bill Clinton, citing the actions of the Clinton administration as allowing North Korea to lay the groundwork for their nuclear ambitions:

"I would remind Senator [Hillary] Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure," he said.

Senator McCain has a memory problem.

Negotiated agreements by the Clinton administration with Pyongyang in 1994 led to what became known as the 'Agreed Framework'. It wasn't perfect, but the Oxford Research Group's report [2004], to which other articles on this issue in Sparrow Chat have referred (as being the only independent and unbiased report on the subject available) states:

"Less hawkish Bush officials argue that, although the Agreed Framework did not eliminate North Korea’s nuclear-weapon programme, it did stop North Korea producing more plutonium for nuclear weapons. This group argues for continued diplomatic methods, negotiation and economic inducements to limit North Korea’s nuclear-weapon and ballistic-missile programmes. The dilemma is that, if the US offers inducements to North Korea, such as economic benefits and perhaps a nonaggression agreement, to limit North Korea’s nuclear and missile activities, it would improve the regime’s prospects for survival and breach Bush’s principle of not rewarding North Korea in any way for complying with its commitments. [Sec 14; page 9]

In other words, right up till the end of Clinton's second term the 'Agreed Framework' was holding, preventing Pyongyang from producing more plutonium. It wasn't until 2002, as the report confirms, that as a result of Bush's aggressive stance towards North Korea - its label as part of the 'axis of evil'; reference to Kim Jong il as a 'loathesome pygmy'; obvious intentions to invade Iraq (Obvious over one year prior to the invasion) the whole agreement fell apart:

"The White House response to the reinvigoration of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme at the end of 2002, and the consequent abrogation of the Agreed Framework was surprisingly muted. At the time, Washington did not want to be distracted from its determination to take military action against Iraq. Furthermore, it did not want to be seen to be blackmailed by North Korea. The US did not want to risk a confrontation by defining ‘lines in the sand’ that it might be forced to enforce if North Korea brazenly continued with its nuclear weapons programme. [Sec 8; page 8][my bold]

George W Bush came to power in 2000. In March 2001, well before 9/11, he told South Korean president Kim Dae Jung in Washington that he had no intention of continuing talks with North Korea. Suddenly, the 'Agreed Framework' was dead in the water, not due to anything Clinton had done, but because of the arrogance and intransigence of his successor.

Throughout the whole era of the 'Agreed Framework', a Republican controlled Congress - on which Senator John McCain served - used all its powers to block attempts by the Clinton administration to make the agreement work. Shipments of oil to North Korea were delayed; completion of the light-water reactors, supposed to be online by 2003, was delayed till 2005, and consequently never completed.

To blame Bill Clinton for today's North Korean nuclear test is as blatantly foul as a boxer punching his opponent below the belt. It could as well be argued that Senator John McCain and his Republican cronies in Congress, instead of backing their president in his attempts to defuse an international crisis, plotted and schemed behind his back to sabotage any chance of its success. This for no other reason than partisanship.

We are becoming more and more used to these sorts of despicable antics from this particular senator (see examples HERE and HERE) whose ability to run with the hares while hunting with the hounds is exceptional, even on Capital Hill.

Filed under: Hypocrites

"Guns Save Lives" - 7

2006-10-10T09:12:00.000-05:00

The latest act of school gun violence occurred yesterday, when a seventh grade boy walked into Joplin Memorial Middle School, Missouri with his parent's Mac-90 - a type of AK-47 assault rifle, and terrorized staff and students.

The boy fired one shot into the ceiling before the gun, thankfully, jammed. At this point the boy ran off, but was arrested behind the school buildings.

Police Officer Curt Farmer said that "it was not uncommon for people in the area to own assault weapons."

What sort of society allows private individuals to own such weapons? What sort of people would want to own them?

As Mahatma Ghandi once said, as he walked into the British viceroy's office in India and was confronted by a row of soldiers with cocked rifles, "You must be very afraid."

Is this the glorious, freedom-loving, "American society", held out to the rest of the world as a shining model?

No wonder so many reject it.

Full story HERE.

Filed under: Guns "R" fun

North Korea - A Forgone Conclusion

2006-10-09T20:03:00.000-05:00

The sudden upsurge of outrage in the world over North Korea's long-expected and unsurprising nuclear test today, leaves one wondering why Western politicians bother with such posturing. After all, Kim Jong il has made no secret of his intentions, ever since George W Bush pulled the pin on that particular grenade by declaring North Korea part of his 'axis of evil'.

It's equally unsurprising that Iran has begun pursuing a similar course.

Stop; consider for a moment. You are the leader of a small country, and the president of the most militarily powerful nation on the globe calls you a loathsome pygmy and declares you part of an axis of evil that includes two other nations. A short time later, that same president pre-emptively invades one of those other nations and draws up plans to attack the other.

What would you do?

Yesterday's test by North Korea was inevitable, given the intransigence of the Present US administration. Kim Jong il's regime, along with Ahmadinajad's in Iran and Saddam Hussein's in Iraq, were always anathema to George W Bush who (with a little help) deluded himself into believing he was God's chosen instrument in spreading US-style democracy around the world. That delusion led to the 'axis of evil' quotation, closely followed by the Iraq invasion, and ultimately the incalculable violence that rapidly erupted in that country.

There was a hint today from certain media sources that the blame for North Korea's nuclear escalation lay at ex-president Bill Clinton's door. Such accusations are becoming habitual from an administration bogged down in its own quagmire of corruption, ineptitude, and aggression.

When confronted by FoxNews on the issue of his lack of success trapping Osama bin Laden, Bill Clinton responded: "At least I tried, that's more than certain others have done."

Sparrow Chat has commented more than once on the issue of North Korea. Back in July 2006, it abandoned the childishly partisan comments of so-called American 'experts' in favor of a report from the independent Oxford Research Group, and published an article entitled Nothing If Not Shortsighted, that lays out in detail the efforts of Bill Clinton's administration to engage the North Koreans with diplomacy. That article, as well as the Oxford Research Group report of 2004, is as relevant today as it was was then.

If Bill Clinton was to reply to those critics who are again attempting to cover their failures by blaming those who came before them, he would be justified in once more stating, with equal sincerity, "At least I tried, that's more than certain others have done."

It cannot be stated with certainty that peaceful diplomacy would have prevented yesterday's nuclear test, but George W Bush's continued refusal to engage Pyongyang in unilateral talks, his offensive and immature appraisals of the North Korean leader, and his aggressive stance towards those nations not falling into line with American interventionist foreign policy, certainly made yesterday's nuclear test by North Korea a forgone conclusion.

Filed under: Bush's bungling

Suffer The Little Children..........

2006-10-08T20:34:00.000-05:00

DATE: February 25th, 2004.

PLACE: Conference Room Three, The Baghdad Convention Center, Emerald City (otherwise known as "The Green Zone").

SETTING: A Coalition Provisional Authority press briefing.

BRIEFERS: CPA Spokesman Daniel Senor and US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt.

QUESTION (in Arabic from an Iraqi journalist): "General Kimmitt, the sound of American helicopters, which fly so low to the ground, is terrifying young children, especially at night. Why do you insist on flying so low and scaring the Iraqi people?"

GENERAL KIMMITT: "What we would tell the children of Iraq is that the noise they hear is the sound of freedom. Those helicopters are in the air to provide safety, provide security. Certainly our helicopter pilots do not fly at an altitude intentionally to distract the children of Iraq. They're there for their safety. They're there for their protection. And just as my wife, who is a schoolteacher, tells the children when they're sitting in the classroom that, when they hear the artillery rounds go off at Fort Bragg, she says, 'Children, that's the sound of freedom.' They seem quite pleased with that explanation. We would recommend that you tell the same thing to the children of Iraq, that that helicopter noise you hear above you ensures that they don't have to worry for the future."

Text selected from, "Imperial Life in the Emerald City ~ Inside Iraq's Green Zone" by Rajiv Chandrasekaran.

Filed under: Political platitudes

Is The Amish Way Disturbing?

2006-10-08T09:56:00.000-05:00

Free speech is a commodity we all prize, so when Cristina Odone airs her views in today's Observer newspaper, she is entitled to be heard.

Writing of the Amish lifestyle, presumably in relation to the recent tragedy at an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania, she asks, "Why do the Amish ignore reality?"

As a firm believer in the concept that we all create our own reality, the title of her article intrigued me sufficiently to read further.

Ms Odone states:

"The families' tragedies is unbearably moving, yet the way this community is dealing with a gunman killing five young schoolgirls (and then himself) is disturbing."

Personally, I found their ability not to shriek for revenge and wail publicly at their loss, somewhat refreshing. So what is Ms Odone suggesting?

She continues:

"The picture these gentle folk portray of religion confirms every prejudice: the faithful are antediluvian, turning their back on the world as it is. It's not just TV and iPods they reject: it is schooling beyond 14, the emancipation of women and scholarship that questions a single interpretation of the sacred texts. This ostrich position denies religion the very real and positive contribution it can make when its followers engage with their flawed world and try to transform it into a better one."

Aha! Ms Odone is beginning to show her Catholic roots. She accuses the Amish of adopting the 'ostrich position', of ignoring the huge amount of good that religion has already achieved in this 'flawed' world and how proselytizing can make it so much better.

Methinks, when Ms Odone writes about Amish rejection of "scholarship that questions a single interpretation of the sacred texts" she is referring to the 'standard' religious interpretation of Jesus' message to his disciples in Mark 16:15 that has been conveniently taken by all the major Christian sects as an excuse to force their views and opinions where they are neither wanted or needed:

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. "

The Amish take the view this command was given solely to the twelve apostles and was never intended as compelling to all Christians, yet it has been used throughout history as a forceful device to expand the power, and subsequent wealth, of the established 'Christian' church.

Reading Ms Odone, one feels compelled to ask, "Is she living in the same world we are?"

I doubt it. The world we inhabit has been devastated by the very religious practices Ms Odone accuses the Amish of ignoring. As I write, thousands are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia, Palestine and Israel, over religious "beliefs" politicised into unfair, inhumane, laws and codes of conduct.

Ms Odone continues to berate the Amish, accusing them of apartheid, potential paedophilia, and a lack of transparency:

"......when community leaders become the custodians of their own morals and are not subject to scrutiny, all kinds of wrongs can take place and all manner of fundamentalist tendencies thrive."

Are we not all the custodians of our own morals, Ms Odone, and where is the evidence for the "all kinds of wrongs" you suggest may be perpetrated?

She condemns the Amish for not demanding of the government stricter gun control following the shootings, but then freely admits that in a twisted American society where the National Rifle Association controls the government, any such demands have always proved useless.

Before moving on to other comments regarding Helen of Troy and the Spartans, from which I failed to glean any connection to the Amish, Ms Odone concluded with the following:

"......[responding] to the massacre of their innocents by repeating that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away........is a fatalism that gives pacifism a bad name: to live as if nothing you do can have any effect is to inhabit a hopeless universe where senseless massacres are accepted. Not even the charming old-fashioned horse and buggy can make up for that."

Given the state of this planet at the beginning of the 21st century; global warming about to run amok; cash-cows the only truly worshipped gods; an all-powerful, American ego-maniac declaring the onset of a never-ending third world war; millions dying in Africa from AIDs due to the evil, dogmatic philosophies of the Roman Catholic church to which Ms Odone claims membership, and other ongoing man-made disasters to numerous to mention, I'm with the Amish.

They have done what many would like to do - opt out of a world turned sour by politico/religious manipulation for the sole purposes of power and corruption and control. Whether it is the Lord that giveth and taketh away, or just man who has that dubious honor, the Amish have built for themselves a simple lifestyle that should be the envy of us all. Catastrophes, like the occurrence last week in Pennsylvania, are rare in Amish life. No police are needed to enforce their simple laws; no hooliganism disturbs their Saturday nights. They know that cries for stricter gun controls are useless in the 'outside world' of Ms Odone's 'flawed' reality. They have their own gun controls - they don't own any. The rest of America should take note of the crime statistics for the Amish community and see them as an example to be learned from. It was not an Amish gun that killed the little girls in Pennsylvania, it was the gun of an outsider, from the world we all inhabit; the world Ms Odone demands the Amish return to.

They want no part of our world. I, for one, don't blame them. They see our world for what it is, a world of which we should all be truly ashamed.

The previously quoted verse from Mark 16:15, and its interpretation, has been the excuse for most bloodshed and slaughter in the last 2000 years. Attempting to interfere, usually forcibly, in the lives of others for the purpose of imposing one's beliefs upon them in the name of 'God' or 'Allah' is a pastime of the human race that continues to this day. By opting to accept that Jesus was speaking solely to his apostles when he spoke those words, the Amish have developed a code of living the rest of the human race may never learn; interference with others, and how they choose to live their lives, results only in human misery.

Ms Odone might do well to heed that code, and leave the Amish to live the lives they have chosen.

I find her views strangely disturbing, and was glad to find a more humane and sympathetic approach from Sally Kohn at Common Dreams.

As for the "charming old-fashioned horse and buggy " Ms Odone scathingly writes of; in a world rapidly running out of oil, and heated alarmingly by the millions of motor vehicles necessary in her "real" outside world, it is highly likely the Amish may have the final laugh, as gas-guzzling monstrosities grind to a halt for lack of fuel, only to be are passed by the Amish in their "old-fashioned" buggies.

Filed under: Perverse ideals

Dangerous - Even When They're Dead.........

2006-10-06T13:57:00.000-05:00

Watch out for these guys, if you're taking to the skies:

All, bar five, of these individuals are presently on the FBI's "No Fly" list, which might make you feel less uneasy the next time you are at 30,000 feet.

Until, that is, you learn that all these individuals are dead, and have been for five years. They are the hijackers who committed the atrocities of 9/11.

Why are they on the list? You may well ask, but don't expect a sensible answer.

They're in good company, though. Saddam Hussein's on it as well. It's not likely he'll be flying anywhere, certainly not in the near future.

Do you feel safer now?

Strangely, an old saying keeps popping into my head.......something about a brewery?

BBC News report HERE.

Filed under: Another US cock-up

To Bare, Or Not To Bare.............

2006-10-06T12:41:00.000-05:00

It's not very often I agree with Jack Straw. You remember Jack, don't you? He's the one who fell for Condi Rice, shared her bed on Airforce Two, showed her the sun setting over Blackburn Rovers Football Stadium......

Yes - that's our Jack. He used to be British Foreign Secretary until his wife found out about his affair with Condi, nagged Tony Blair about it, and now he's been demoted to Leader of the House of Commons.

Today, Jack told Muslim woman it was time they bared their faces. Yes, just their faces, which doesn't seem too heinous a request, but some are up in arms about it.

Jack's point is that it can be frustrating trying to communicate with someone you can't see. Besides, with many Muslim women you can't even tell what sex they are, underneath those unrevealing burkas.

Jack insists he is making a request to Muslim women, not a demand. (He obviously learned something from Condi, then).

He said:

"What I've been struck by when I've been talking to some of the ladies concerned is that they had not, I think, been fully aware of the potential in terms of community relations. I mean, they'd thought of it just as a statement for themselves, in some cases they regard themselves as very religious - and I respect that - but as I say, I just wanted to put this issue on the table."

That's a very valid point in an interfaith community such as exists in Britain and America.

A BBC report tells us:

"Tony Blair's official spokesman said the prime minister "believes that it is right that people should be able to have a discussion and express their personal views on issues such as this".

Well, bully for Tony - who seems more concerned with blowing the burkas off Muslims altogether, rather than holding any meaningful dialogue.

Filed under: Being a burka

Cutting Out The Middle Man.........

2006-10-06T11:56:00.000-05:00

"If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses." ~ Lenny Bruce.

Popey's at it again. He's decided to abolish the state of limbo.

Well that's not strictly true - actually, he's thinking about it. The Catholic Church's international Theological Commission is considering a recommendation on the subject for Popey's consideration.

Apparently, the Catholic Church is losing out in developing countries. Muslim babies who die go straight to Heaven, but Catholic babies are stuck in limbo. It's all about good business practice really. Popey's losing custom to the Mullahs, because in the developing world lots more babies die. Opting for Islam gets your innocent offspring into Heaven more quickly.

Although the idea of being in a state of limbo for eons is unappealing to me personally, apparently, for many western Catholic mothers who have lost young babies, it has been a great source of consolation. Youngsters who die before they can get soused with the holy water aren't allowed into Heaven because they are contaminated by Adam's original sin.

So arose the vexed question of what happened to them? "Limbo", was the answer.

It's a place somewhere between Heaven and Hell; not quite as good as Heaven perhaps, but a damn sight better than the fiery lake, if you've done nothing to deserve it.

Now, Popey it seems is about to decree that God's done away with limbo, and everyone there has been welcomed inside the Pearly Gates to have a jolly good party, with Saint Peter and Gabriel serving the Jello and ice cream.

It sounds like a very good idea to me. After all, it's a bit like doing away with the middle man, which we're told is always sound business practice.

In fact, come to think of it, old Popy's a bit of a middle man between the Catholics and God, isn't he?

Hmmmm! Now, what's the telephone number for that Theological Commission.........?

Filed under: More religious poppycock

China, And The Price Of Life...........

2006-10-06T11:48:00.000-05:00

There is a saying in China: "Kill the monkey to scare the chickens."

The Chinese government takes it literally. Exact figures are hard to ascertain. Even Amnesty International cannot publish accurate numbers. The Chinese government consider them a' state secret', but conservative figures for the three months, May-July 2001, showed that China executed more people in that period than the whole of the rest of the world in the previous three years.

In the intervening five years, nothing has improved.

A BBC report screened today, highlights a deteriorating situation. Still the figures are difficult to pin down, but it seems that between 2,000 and 10,000 executions a year would not be deemed an exaggeration. Unfortunately, this video report is not available outside the UK without subscription, but viewers were shown an interview with a Chinese man, She Xianglin, who was sentenced to death after being accused of killing his wife. He confessed to the crime after ten days and eleven nights of continual beatings and sleep deprivation until, in his own words, "My mind went blank. I wanted to die. I was willing to say anything."

He was one of the lucky ones. His sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. After eleven years in solitary confinement he was released. His wife had been found, alive and well.

A dejected woman tends the simple grave of her nineteen year old son, shot through the back of the head for the alleged killing of a young woman. He was innocent, but after a week's torture and sleep deprivation he admitted to the crime. Later, too late, another man came forward and confessed he was the killer.

How many more innocent Chinese are being shot, or suffering lethal injection, because of false confessions obtained under torture? To add insult to injury, the families are expected to pay for the bullet.

In China today, anyone accused of a capital crime is 99% certain to be convicted, most by their own extracted confessions.

Murder is far from being the sole crime for which execution is the penalty: drug trafficking, rape, pimping, habitual theft (including gasolene), stealing or dealing in national treasures or cultural relics, publishing pornography, selling counterfeit money - and economic offences such as graft, speculation and profiteering, even reselling tax receipts - can all be good enough reason for the state to execute its citizens.

It is gross and distateful in the extreme; so what is the western world doing about it? The answer is: nothing.

China is a rising superpower. EU politicians have from time to time expressed their concerns over the numbers involved, but without America's voice in the argument they hold little sway over the Chinese government.

Why, then, does America remain silent?

Ever heard the one about the pot calling the kettle black? That's why.

"The U.S. is not exactly in a position to talk about the issue", said Catherine Baber, a researcher with Amnesty International, in August 2000.

And yet China is America's biggest trading partner. Walmart would cease to exist without Chinese goods on its shelves. China sits as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Next year, the Olympic Games are to be held in Beijing.

The explosive Chinese economy is reliant on the West. Why are we not boycotting Chinese goods until they resolve these human rights issues?

Once again it needs the United States to take a stand against the inhumane policies of Beijing, but Washington refuses to condemn Chinese executions for reasons of the economy and its own poor human rights policy.

A further disagreeable twist in this saga is the sale of body organs from those executed in China. The Government insists it happens only with the agreement of the donor or family. That has been proved a lie. There is a flourishing trade in body parts. Chinese Americans and Europeans are known to have travelled back to China in order to obtain a kidney or liver that was not available in their country of residence.

The vast profits from organ sales go to the corrupt officials - the judiciary, those in charge of the prisons, hospitals and doctors.

Surprisingly, crime in China is flourishing. It would seem that capital punishment is no more of a deterrent there, than it is in America. It just makes life much cheaper.

However many "monkeys" are killed, it fails to scare the chickens.

Documents used in the research for this article can be foundHERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

Filed under: Price of life

Lynching The Wrong Man............

2006-10-04T11:23:00.000-05:00

The latest excuse from the mouth of Mark Foley, that he himself was abused when he was young, may well be another attempt to foster sympathy from a nation not known for its spirit of forgiveness. Safely tucked away in his alcohol rehabilitation clinic, beyond the reach of prying reporters, he has plenty of time to conjure fresh ways to mitigate his mistakes in the eyes of American voters.

It is not for me to suggest he may be assisted in his endeavors by the "Republican Party Machine", diligently working to cover up a hole full of dung they've left lying on their doorstep for over a year.

Foley is yet another of those examples described so often in Sparrow Chat; the Ego gone crazy. Power-crazed egos end up imagining they can get away with anything. Indeed, they come to believe it's fine to do what they do - just so long as nobody else does.

Hence, Foley can happily carry out his work protecting youngsters from sexual predators, while becoming one himself. No doubt he justified his actions by convincing himself of the purest motives, and perhaps as a consequence deserves our sympathy, rather than the voicing of disgust extolled yesterday by the US President - as though he had the right to judge the sins of another.

The human being walks a fine tightrope above the crimes it is so quick to condemn in others, and excuse in itself. It is good that Foley was exposed before more youngsters fell prey to his advances but he will pay a heavy penalty, even if escaping a prison term.

The real wrongdoers in this case are those bastions of the American political system - probably on both sides of the divide - who beheld the evidence so obvious before their eyes, and turned away. They knew full well the possible consequences to youngsters, who looked to their example, and their failure to act was solely for the purpose of political gain.

When supposed leaders of great influence in the world abnegate their morality to the degree that they put children at risk of serious mental damage, it is time for decent people to stand up and say, "Enough is enough."

Sadly, this will not happen in America. As noted in the previous post, America has not yet learned forgiveness. As a consequence, the prime focus of retribution will fall on Foley for his indiscretions, and the truly corrupt will get away lightly yet again.

Filed under: Political capers

"Forgiveness - And Going On...."

2006-10-03T19:11:00.000-05:00

"Even though there's been this terrible thing happen, we don't need to think about judgement, we need to think about forgiveness and going on."

"God allowed this to happen, and what's important is our response of being forgiving and understanding - there's tremendous healing there."

Those simple words above were the response of Amish folk to the dreadful events that hit their community yesterday afternoon.

In America, it is rare to hear such sentiments. And yet, America calls itself a 'Christian country'. Over ninety percent of the population believe in one God; eighty percent call themselves Christian; around sixty-five percent attend a church regularly.

The traditional American response to a crime so horrendous as that in Pennsylvania yesterday, is one of anger, revenge, and outbursts of self-righteous grief.

Where do such responses fit into the Christian doctrine?

The straightforward answer is, of course, they don't. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus suggest the possibility of revenge, or self-righteous grief demanding blood for atonement. Quite the opposite. Yet, this doctrine is preached, in one form or another, in churches throughout America.

The truth is that such avenging blood lust comes straight out of the Old Testament. It has nothing whatever to do with Christianity.

"Turn the other cheek"; "Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone"; "Love your neighbor as yourself" (not just your American neighbor) and all those other teachings of the man who gave his name to a faith high-jacked by religious terrorists (and in America bastardized beyond belief for the purposes of power and control) have no relevance to the great American religious circus that demeans and dishonors His name and besmirches His teachings by daring to call itself the true "Christian" church.

No. The only place in America you will find the true Christian Church is in the Amish, and similar, communities that shun the decadence of "Christian America" in favor of a true and simple communion with the earth and its Maker.

"Forgiveness"; "understanding"; "healing", - and "no judgment".

Where else in "Christian America" do we ever hear those words?

Whenever there is a crime of this type, America spins on its axis with the eternal question, "Why?"

If it is ever to find an answer to that question, it might start by learning from the Amish.

America attempts to deal with such awful crimes by turning its schools into prisons. Students pass through metal-detectors before they are allowed into class. Doors are bolted, or have sophisticated automatic locking devices; full-time security officers are employed to patrol the premises; video cameras track every movement.

Such measures may be partially effective; this latest child-killer sought out a simple, Amish school with no locks, and certainly no video cameras. But three school shootings in a week isn't really a very good advertisement for all the costly security measures, is it?

The problem is much more complex than that. The root cause lies deep in the mire of American society; the way it thinks; the way it reacts; the way it brings up its children. Violence, not God, is worshipped in America. This is why violence is preached in its churches. Americans have abnegated their responsibilities for the violence of their society. Instead, they blame - the Devil! Violence is fine, the preachers say, provided it is righteous violence. If not, it is evil; the work of Satan.

Unfortunately, it is not the work of Satan; it is the work of man. If only American church-goers would attempt to understand that very simple fact, they could begin to repair their society.

Satan cannot be forgiven, for he is by definition the "ultimate evil".

When America learns to cast out its mythical Satan and shoulder its responsibility for such crimes as the Pennsylvania shootings, it will begin to find answers to the question, "Why?"

The Amish don't blame Satan when bad things happen to them. They don't blame anyone. They learn to forgive, and then they move on, because - "there's tremendous healing there."

Filed under: True Christian values

Heads Or Tails?

2006-10-03T11:36:00.000-05:00

Politicians make me sick.

Why? Because they have no interest in the people they pretend to care about. Their only interest is in maintaining power - at whatever cost.

This isn't just happening at federal level. Take a local situation here in central Illinois.

The encumbent is one Bob Flider, Democratic State Representative. I don't know him; have never met him; have no particular wish to do so. The issue locally is one of electricity rate hikes threatened for the new year.

Two leaflets landed in my mailbox the other day. The first one I opened contained the following:

"Important information about you electricity bill" was the heading. It continued:

"It's going up by 45% thanks to Bob Flider. Bob Flider, as a lobbyist for the utility industry, helped craft and lobby for the legislation allowing the electricity companies to increase your rates by over 45%.

And up until recently, Bob Flider was only part-time legislator. What was his other job? Working for the same company that is increasing your electric bill by 45%.

And to support Bob Flider, the big utility companies have given him over $12,000 in campaign contributions.

IT'S SIMPLE. Bob Flider.........he's not on our side."

There was nothing to ascertain where this leaflet had come from until I noticed, in very small type, on the back: "Paid for by the House Republican Organization."

I then turned to the second leaflet in my mailbox. It was headed:

"Sometimes a freeze is good."

Inside, their was another heading:

"An electric rate freeze is good."It continued:

"For the last several years, utilities have not raised the electric rates because of a state law to protect consumers, yet they still enjoy record profits.

Now electric companies are implementing an unfair plan that will raise electric rates by as much as 55%.

State Representative Bob Flider opposes unfair rate increases. Flider is sponsoring legislation that would prevent a 55% hike in electric bills.

Flider knows that working families, senior citizens and small businesses CAN'T afford to pay more.

Join Bob Flider's fight against electric utility price hikes."

Again, the only indication where this had come from was a small-type line at the bottom of the address page: "Paid for by the Democratic Party of Illinois."

So, what is this psychological hustling all about?

In a word: confusion. Flider is saying he will try and stop the rate hikes; his opponent says he's lying through his teeth.

Which one you believe will depend on where your political bias lies. It is useful to note that the Republican leaflet says what their opponent won't do, but doesn't mention what their candidate will achieve, which probably means - nothing.

What both leaflets tell me is that neither side cares about the rate increases, but both really want you to vote for them. Frankly, not being an American citizen, I don't have to vote for either. For that I'm very thankful.

For those who wish to vote, however, the only advice I can give is - toss a coin. Sadly, there's only two choices in America, which is a great pity. In other countries, an active third political party often does wonders for the behavior of the other two.

Filed under: Political capers

Guns Save Lives - 6.

2006-10-02T19:48:00.000-05:00

Since I started Sparrow Chat a little more than two years ago, I have written five articles either entitled, "Guns Save Lives", or with a reference to that phrase within the post. Entering those three little words into the search box at the top left of this blog will bring them up for you to read, should you wish.

I have, therefore, entitled this post "Guns Save Lives - 6".

I can envisage sitting here at my keyboard years from now typing, "Guns Save Lives -3,252", because however often it happens; however many innocent children are maimed, killed, raped and traumatized, daddy will not give up his macho, immature, imbecilic need to keep a lethal weapon, or the right to purchase and own these infernal devices.

I wonder how many daddies are out there tonight watching the news, appalled at the carnage in a tiny Amish schoolhouse, while their collection of guns sits beside them in the 'armoury'?

It won't sink in.

Their insatiable demand for the right to own these weapons is the reason those kids - and many others like them over the years - have this day suffered appalling trauma. Three are already dead, and likely more will follow.

Yes, it's you, Daddy! No, I know you would never do anything like that, but while you insist on the right to keep guns you allow others, with more nefarious intentions, to get their hands on them.

And don't tell me gun control won't work. It does; it has in many countries throughout the world. It may not happen overnight, but it will never happen at all if you don't make a start.

With strictly enforced gun control, kids will still occasionally get killed. Right now, they don't get killed occasionally, they die regularly.

Three schoolroom shootings in a week is too regular for me. How about you?

Wise up, all you daddies out there.

Grow up, all you daddies out there.

Owning guns is not a sign of maturity, it's a symptom of puerile insecurity.

After all, it could be your child next.

Filed under: Guns "R" fun

Pathetic Excuse, Or Excuse For A Pathetic? You Decide......

2006-10-02T13:53:00.000-05:00

Oh, really! Is this the latest get-out for powermongers caught in the act of making fools of themselves?

A few weeks ago it was Mel Gibson, trying to avoid responsibility for his opinions about Jews. Today, it's Mark Foley, blaming his addiction to little boys on too much booze.

Give me a break!

Filed under: Political excuses

Meanwhile, In The Fifty-First State Of The Union...........

2006-10-02T11:00:00.000-05:00

The case of Mouloud Sihali is an example of how the present American policy of ignoring or avoiding judicial legislation, spinning the war on terror to gain political points, and converting a democratic nation into a police state, is being copied by the powers that be in London, England.

Mouloud Sihali was caught up in a so-called 'terrorist plot' involving the production of ricin, back in 2002. He was an Algerian who entered Britain to avoid conscription in the Algerian army in 1997. The British government played up the 'ricin incident', alleging an al Qaeda ricin laboratory has been discovered at a flat in Wood Green, North London. The flat was not the residence of Sihali, who had been arrested earlier, on immigration charges, at another flat in Ilford, East London.

The only items discovered in the Wood Green flat were 22 castor oil beans, alleged ricin-making equipment (a pestle and mortar) and various recipes for poisons.

Another Algerian, Mohammed Meguerba, was arrested with Sihali and others on immigration charges, but released on bail after an epileptic fit. He absconded back to Algeria where he was picked up and "interrogated" by the Algerian secret police.

Probably under torture, Meguerba admitted to a plot to smear ricin on car door handles around London, and gave details of the secret laboratory in Wood Green, naming one Kamel Bourgass, the owner of the Wood Green flat, as the ringleader and implicating others, including Mouloud Sihali.

The Algerian authorities passed on this information and the British police swooped. In fact, no ricin was ever discovered at any of the premises searched, despite claims by British politicians to the contrary. Although chemical analysis had inially given a false positive result, this was later found by the experts at Britain's chemical weapons estblishment at Porton Down, to be wrong.

Nevertheless, both British and American politicians, eager to gain support for the upcoming war in Iraq, made as much political capital as they could from the story.

As a report of April 17th, 2005, in the British newspaper, The Independent, affirmed:

"........The “ricin plot” was used before the Iraq war by Tony Blair as evidence of the danger from weapons of mass destruction, and by Colin Powell, then US Secretary of State, before the UN Security Council as proof that Iraq was aiding al-Qa’ida terrorism. Linked to an equally illusory “poison gas” threat to the London Underground, it was kept alive throughout a series of genuine attacks in places such as Istanbul and Madrid as a reminder that Britain too was a target."

In fact, of course, ricin is certainly not a "weapon of mass destruction", despite political spin to the contrary. It is a highly efficient poison for assassination, but needs to be injected to be lethal. Swallowing the poison is unlikely to kill you, though it might cause a horrible bellyache.

There is no doubt that Meguerba's alleged ringleader, Kamel Bourgass, was a nasty piece of work who was out to cause as much rouble and disruption as possible. There is also no doubt he was incapable of producing ricin, or probably anything else in the poison line. As the Independent continues:

"He [Bourgass] was a bit of a loner and considered by them [the Algerian community] to be a loner. He would say inappropriate things, and was generally just a bit odd.”

In the dingy bedsits they occupied, using poison manuals downloaded from American survivalist websites, Bourgass used a pestle and mortar to try to obtain poison from castor beans, cherry stones and apple pips. But the only evidence that he produced any was a botched “nicotine poison” in a Nivea jar.

All the other claims against Bourgass – that he had military training in Afghanistan and was linked to al-Qa’ida, that he planned to smear poisons on car door handles in London’s Holloway Road – came from a fellow illegal immigrant and alleged co-conspirator, Mohammed Meguerba, arrested when he went back to Algeria. Although Britain refuses to return detainees, including Bourgass, to Algeria because of its use of torture and the death penalty, British politicians and prosecutors were happy to use evidence from there. And when British investigators went to Algeria and asked Meguerba to repeat his claims, defence lawyers point out, he withdrew most of them.

Bourgass was no real threat to anyone, but when police finally caught up with him and cornered him in a Manchester flat, he grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed a police officer who later died from his wounds.

As for the unfortunate Mouloud Sihali who was scooped up in the raids just because his name was known to Meguerba, he was aquitted of any involvement in a terror plot and released after spending over two years in custody awaiting trial.

Now, depite the case against him falling apart, the British Home Office is demanding his deportation back to Algeria on the grounds that - well, here is what they say:

"We do not believe that individuals who are not British nationals and who pose a threat to national security to the United Kingdom should be allowed to remain in this country."

Mouloud Sihali is not, and never was, a threat to national security. He entered Britain illegally, on a false passport, for which he was sentenced to fifteen months in prison. He served far longer than that while waiting for, and during, his trial on terrorist charges. He has applied for asylum.

An Independent report of February 25th, 2006 states;

" Mr Sihali told Radio 4's Today programme: "I am innocent, they showed the jury every single bit of information found in my home and they got the intelligence from the Algerian authorities. They dug into my life in its entirety and they cleared me in my trial.

"My entire life is ruined. I can never recover. My name is all over the internet, my entire life is published. Being targeted by the Government, by the police, secret services, the Home Office - what next?

"Nobody wants to speak to me. I lost [all my] friends, nobody wants to come to visit me because nobody wants to become a suspected terrorist."

Mr Sihali's solicitor, Natalia Garcia, said: "To seek to deport him to a country where he will be tortured if returned on the basis of the same material again is the height of injustice."

One juror who served in the "ricin case" said yesterday he was appalled by the treatment meted out to Mr Sihali and the other acquitted defendants.

The juror said: "From the police interviews, and the cross examination, there was very little to support that these people were terrorists or a threat to national security.

"I think it's outrageous that these people have been through the trial process, found not guilty and yet are still suspected of being terrorists and a threat to national security."

The UK's judicial system seems as irrelevant to the British government as does the judiciary in America, to the present US administration. If the rule of law is to be superceded by the rule of government, then both western nations are on the slippery slope that ends in a police state.

Terrorism is a real threat, but if we succomb to the political machinations of those who will use such scare tactics to their own ends in obtaining and holding power, then they are no better than the terrorists they purport to hunt, and Osama bin Laden will have achieved his objectives.

References: HERE; HERE; HERE and HERE.

Filed under: Political terrorism

A Somewhat Dubious Honor..........

2006-10-01T20:32:00.000-05:00

Seven British soldiers are presently on trial at a miltary courts martial accused of beating nine suspected Iraqi insurgents, one of whom later died, at a hotel in Basra. The soldiers stand accused of charges ranging from treating Iraqi civilians inhumanely to manslaughter.

What makes this trial somewhat different is that three of the defendents are charged with an offence under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, that of "inhumane treatment."

The International Court receives little good press in the United States, mainly due to George W Bush's refusal to recognise its legitimacy - for reasons that must be left to each reader's own opinion - and is more commonly regarded as the institution responsible for prosecuting big-time war criminals like Milosevic of Serbia. Is it right, then, to prosecute ordinary soldiers under laws applicable to such an establishment, rather than under the law of the land from whence they originate?

The offence of "inhumane treatment" does already exist under British military law but the 2002 Act categorises it as a war crime. It seems right that laws put in place to deal with big-time offenders should apply equally to the lowly soldier. These Iraqis were subjected to brutal, tortuous, beatings over many hours, hardly the result of a sudden heat of battle revenge thumping.

Often, soldiers in their own country are treated sympathetically - even seen as 'heroes' by the populace - and the idea they may be guilty of war crimes is an anathema to many. Isn't that something the enemy does? For war crimes to be dealt with on an international, rather than purely national basis, will not only go a long way to discourage such brutality in the future, but should result in more just punishments for those who do offend.

If these three are found guilty, they will be the first ever British soldiers found guilty of a war crime.

What some may consider a somewhat dubious honor.

BBC report HERE.

Filed under: International law

One Small Step For A Nation........

2006-09-30T21:34:00.000-05:00

"It's a very short step from yesterday's Senate decision, to the banana republic scenario so often seen in South American nations in the late 80's and 90's, when people simply disappeared off the streets." ~ Sparrow Chat, September 29th, 2006.

The above quote relates to an article entitled, " Do 64% Of US Senators Represent The American People?" and criticizes the recent Senate decision to support the 'terrorism' bill demanded by George W Bush.

It seems to be one "very short step" indeed, as people are already beginning to disappear off the streets of America, and into incarceration without trial.

Vineyard Views has highlighted the story of Bella Maryanovsky, a legal American resident for thirty years, who now finds herself imprisoned without recourse to the judicial system.

RAW STORY has the sordid details.

Filed under: Democracy downhill

President, Or "Godfather"?

2006-09-30T21:00:00.000-05:00

George W Bush's legal Rottweiler, Gonzales, yesterday told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center, that his master was a dictator.

According to a report from Forbes.com he said that -

[In wartime] (these days every time is wartime) "....the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs."

Gonzales continued:

"......The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime............Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review......"

Which is just another way of saying, "Stay out of my master's business."

Filed under: Democracy downhill

A Candid Assessment Of Beta-Blogger....

2006-09-30T19:58:00.000-05:00

After three days doing little else other than attempting to sort out the maze that is Beta Blogger, the following suggestions come to mind:

Transferring from standard Blogger to Beta is worthwhile. It allows for faster posting - no waiting for that silly icon to spin slowly around while it displays how little of your blog has published. With Beta, it is instantaneous. There are a few other minor improvements as well, that I haven't really bothered to peruse as yet.

The mistake I made was attempting to stick with the new template Blogger tries to foist on everyone. Unless one is familiar with the latest codes (ordinary HTML will not do) it is an incomprehensible maze.

Fortunately, Blogger allows one the opportunity to revert to their original template - you know, the one that handles lovely old HTML - and after welcoming mine back into the fold everything began to work normally again.

Well - almost everything!

Working in Mozilla Firefox if fine, but when I reverted to IE6 the Blogger Navbar refused to work, and I couldn't sign in even when I eventually managed to engage the Blogger Start Page. After much cursing, and sifting through Blogger Help, I discovered an almost insignificant little article stating that IE6 won't cooperate unless one opens every Blogger link in a new window. Five open windows later, I finally accessed my Blogger dashboard with IE6.

Not ideal!

It's one of those little bugs Blogger will eventually fix, when they've fixed the 10,000 others that everyone's complaining about.

So, was this journey of discovery I embarked on worthwhile?

Overall, yes. I learned a little more about patience, invented a few new swear words, and revelled in the apparent ease with which my old template responded to my delicate touches and caresses.

At least, when compared with Blogger's new one!

Filed under: Beta flogger

Guns Save Lives.........

2006-09-29T21:29:00.000-05:00

"Principal Killed in Rural Wisconsin School"

"Platte Canyon High School siege ends in bloodshed"

Filed under: Guns "R" Fun

Do 64% Of US Senators Represent The American People?

2006-09-29T20:55:00.000-05:00

In one rushed day's work, the US Senate has done more to rip the American nation from its, supposedly, beloved and cherished Constitution, than at probably any other time in history. The right of Habeus Corpus, enshrined in the common law of every 'civilized' nation in the world has been wiped from the American legal system.

And overall, Americans don't seem too bothered.

It was an easy win yesterday for the demolishers of democracy presently embedded on Capital Hill. The count was 65 - 34 in favor - that's 64% of US Senators voting for.........

.......well, let's see what they were voting for:

In a nutshell, if the government decides you may be involved in terrorism - however slight the involvement; however nebulous the evidence, you can be locked away indefinitely without trial or any recourse to the law. It makes no difference whether you're an American citizen, or not.

Let's be frank. This adminstration has proved its definition of 'terrorism' is highly flexible.

It's a very short step from yesterday's Senate decision, to the banana republic scenario so often seen in South American nations in the late 80's and 90's, when people simply disappeared off the streets.

But, that's not all the 64% of US senators were voting for.

Guantanamo Bay Detention Center was set up to handle Cuban and Haitian refugees, but has been enlarged to accommodate prisoners of a 'war' - George W Bush's "War on Terror." Bush maintains they are not "prisoners of war" as defined under the Geneva Conventions:

Article 4 of the Geneva Convention defines a POW as:

"Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

The US government justifies its opinion of the detainees at Guantanamo by stating they are not part of a regular army or militia, and they do not "conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

No nation, or militia, in the last one hundred years has obeyed the so-called "laws and customs of war", least of all the United States of America.

George W Bush himself coined the phrase "War on Terror." Webster's Dictionary definition of the noun "war" states:

1a(1)"a state of usually open or declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations."

If this is his definition than it is not a war - there being no conflict between states or nations. Hence, the 9/11 attacks become a criminal offence rather than an act of war.

There is another definition in Websters (2a):

simply "a state of hostility, conflict or antagonism."

If this is the definition George W Bush uses to define his 'war', then he could argue the War on Terror is, indeed, a war, in the true sense.

Either way, every time he uses the term 'war' he is contradicting himself. If it is a war, then enemy prisoners ,by definition, are prisoners of war and must fall under the strict codes of the Geneva Conventions. If it is not a war, then the US military should never have been utilized in more than a policing role, and 'prisoners' should be treated just like any other criminals awaiting justice.

Another question, apparently never asked by Americans, is why:

a) Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and b) secret prisons elsewhere in the world, are necessary to the pursuance of George W Bush's "War on Terror"?

Yesterday, 64% of US senators voted for the continuance of such 'facilities'. Why are they necessary?

64% of US senators voted to continue allowing secret prisons outside the US for whatever purpose the president deemed necessary.

64% of US senators voted to allow the CIA total control over detainees in these prisons without fear of prosecution under International Law.

64% of US senators voted to allow the president to decide which techniques can be used to interrogate detainees in prisons outside the US. Anything goes - provided it does not constitute a war crime.

If all detainees are kept at hidden locations outside the US, how is anyone going to know if war crimes are taking place?

If the president is not sanctioning interrogation techniques that might constitute war crimes, why are the prisons secret, and why are they outside the US?

Isn't it time the American people demanded that all prisoners of the "war on terror" be held within the legal confines of the United States?

64% of US senators think not.

Filed under: Death of democracy

Any IE6 Users Out There?

2006-09-29T13:07:00.000-05:00

Ok, this blog works fine in Firefox, but when I switch to IE6 it shows 'errors on page'. Anyone out there using IE6 might like to comment on how it functions for them, as I'm not sure why this problem is occuring.

Betamorphosis - Update 2........

2006-09-28T19:28:00.000-05:00

The Haloscan comments now seem to be up and running, and after much computer-bashing and swearing, Blogger's own 'comments' script has finally been deleted.

Now, we just need all the sidebar links to come back. Time for some more studying.

I'm definitely getting too old for this!

Betamorphosis - An Update.......

2006-09-28T11:16:00.000-05:00

The transition of 'Sparrow Chat' to 'Beta' must rank in the same area of difficulty as converting Osama bin Laden to Methodism. However, progress is being made, although it often appears to be of the 'one step forward, two steps back' variety.

Haloscan comments are now working again. I just have to figure out how to get rid of Blogger's own comment-box. Until I do, please leave "chirps", not "comments."

Little time is left for posting, so please bear with me. All will come right in the end - (he said, hopefully!)

Beta-morphosis?

2006-09-26T20:43:00.000-05:00

"Sparrow Chat" has gone "beta".

Like everything else that has anything to do with the internet, this will no doubt mean weeks of frustration and frayed nerves while I attempt to carry out all the geeky tasks required to make the new "beta" (God alone knows what it means!) work as I demand it must.

Sparrow Chat apologizes in advance for any problems to its readers during this period of "betamorphosis".

I think we've just invented a new word.

He Can Be Overly Dogmatic At Times........

2006-09-26T12:13:00.000-05:00

George Bush is to declassify those parts of the National Intelligence Estimate that have been leaked to the press.

Excuse me? Haven't we already read them in the New York Times last Sunday?

Has he not heard the one about 'the horse and and the stable door', perhaps?

We all assumed his progression from "My Little Goat" to Alfred Camus would take in the one about 'the horse and the stable door'. Obviously, it didn't.

"Some people have guessed what's in the report and concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree," Mr Bush said.

No, Mister Bush, we haven't guessed what's in it - we've read what's in it, in the New York Times last Sunday.

"I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offence against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe," Mr Bush said.

We don't believe that makes us less safe, Mister Bush. We believe going to war against people who don't want to harm the American people is a mistake that makes us less safe.

Has he heard the one about 'the voice in the wilderness', I wonder?

Full BBC report HERE.

Filed under: political dogmatism

A Basic Dishonesty.........

2006-09-25T20:16:00.000-05:00

Like his American counterpart, British Prime Minister Tony Blair still refuses to accept - at least publicly - that the war in Iraq has increased, rather than decreased, the threat of terrorism, despite a recent leaked report by the combined intelligence agencies categorically stating that to be a fact.

In a recent BBC interview, he said:

"Part of the biggest problem we have is in believing that we started this thing... 9/11 happened before Iraq or Afghanistan. The roots of this movement, founded on a warped and perverted view of Islam... go back decades, and it's going take us a long time to root it out."

He seems somewhat confused. Certainly 9/11 happened before Iraq or Afghanistan, but as Iraq had nothing whatever to do with 9/11 the first part of his statement is an irrelevance.

He almost seems to have realised that, and rapidly moved on to a murkier, less easily-proven statement concerning the roots of Islamic terrorism. In fact, terrorism has been around as long as man has been on the earth. Armed resistance groups go way back, and many used religion as the excuse to maim and kill. Islamic fundamentalism is just another excuse, a focal point for the rallying of those who feel themselves oppressed. Certainly, the Iraq war on its own is not the cause of Arab unrest. Western imperialism in the region over many decades - the lust for cheap oil - has always been the root cause. The British first - but over the last thirty years, the Americans - controlled Arab nations by force of arms and manipulated them against each other as though they were pieces in some global chessgame.

Tony Blair was right about one thing - the roots of 'this movement' go back decades.

He was wrong on two counts:

First, he implied the West didn't start it. The West undoubtedly started it. Second, he said that it will take a 'long time' to root out.

It will never be rooted out while the British and Americans continue to impose imperialist aggression in the Middle East as, between them, they have done for more than one hundred years.

Filed under: Getting our own back

Another Bad Case Of American Narcissisum........

2006-09-24T11:22:00.000-05:00

A visit by American WW2 veterans to the recently completed WW2 memorial in Washington was featured on today's edition of "Sunday Morning" on CBS. There was much talk of "heroes" by the commentator, and of the rapidly declining numbers alive after so long.

I've always taken exception to the idea of calling those forced to serve in wars, 'heroes'. As I remember, conscription played a large part in amassing the American forces to fight in WW2, and as such those unfortunates had no choice but to be cannon-fodder. To call them 'heroes' retrospectively is, in my opinion, no more than political whitewash.

However, memorials do make us think about the futility of war, and in that sense they serve a purpose.

The feature concluded by announcing that the memorial helped people remember "...how America saved the world."

Yet another example of American narcissisum springs out of at us from the media. It is becoming all too common. Only on Friday did I write of another instance, then from NBC.

Just for the record, let me remind those Americans who believe "America saved the world" that Russia, China, Great Britain, and a host of smaller nations all contributed to "saving the world" in that conflict.

Russia lost 13.77% of her population to that war (23,200,000 military and civilian deaths); Poland lost 16.09% (5,600,000 military and civilian deaths); China lost 1.89% (still 10,000,000 military and civilian deaths); the UK lost 0.94% (418,500 military and civilian deaths), and the US lost 0.32% (418,500 military and civilian).

America, alone, did not save the world, however much Hollywood and the US media have spun the idea since 1945, but American narcissisum prevents many in this country from accepting that fact.

Filed under: Nationalism

The Wrong God - Addendum.

2006-09-22T21:38:00.000-05:00

Anyone who read my recent post "The Wrong God", and thought it overly pessimistic might consider perusing "An 87% Cut by 2030" by George Monbiot (September 21st, 2006).

I believe it mirrors my own views.

Monbiot has a website devoted to global warming. The link can be found in the sidebar of "Sparrow Chat".

A Bad Case Of American Narcissism......

2006-09-22T18:49:00.000-05:00

I'm usually fairly tolerant of Brian Williams, the anchor at NBC Nightly News. In fact, I have been known to heap praise. Tonight, however, he blotted his copybook rather alarmingly, while in conversation with "Meet the Press" moderator, Tim Russert, with this pearl of egocentric American wisdom:

"Now, [Tim] what a great country we have; we allow people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad to come into the UN, under our protection, and slag our president and our country..."

I wonder how many Americans consider that statement to be absolutely ok?

For those who do, let me clarify the fundamental arrogance of the quote.

First, any attempt to keep a representative of the United Nations from addressing that body would be highly dubious under international law.

Second, the United Nations is an international organization that just happens to have its headquarters in America. It could function just as readily in Australia, the UK, or any other member nation. As such, the UN building should not be considered as on American soil, anymore than the American Embassy building in Iran is considered Iranian territory. It is the sovereign duty of the US to protect visiting dignitories to the United Nations, just as the US would expect embassy protection from any other member country.

Third, as a national TV news presenter of some standing, Brian Williams is showing extraordinary disrespect to the heads of two UN member nations by referring to them in such an offhand and discourteous manner.

This is just one more example of America's arrogant and egocentric approach to the rest of the world.

Slagging the current American president is common practice of late among leading politicians worldwide, but in the privacy of parliamentary buildings and official government headquarters. Presidents Chavez and Ahmadinejad have at least enough courage to speak openly, which is more than can be said for most fawning, Western politicians.

Filed under: Nationalism

The Wrong God?

2006-09-22T12:44:00.000-05:00

There is presently some consternation around the blogosphere concerning James Lovelock's theory that catastrophic climate change is both unstoppable and imminent.

Lovelock is not the only scientific researcher to expound the idea that Planet Earth is a living, breathing, organism in its own right - and many so-called 'heretics' have believed it since time immemorial.

Personally, I have always accepted Mother Earth, or Gaia as Lovelock calls her, as something more than just a huge lump of rock with a fiery core. In many ways she behaves like any other living thing, with the one obvious exception - reproduction.

Bentov, another great thinker, not only regarded the earth, but all the stars and planets, as living, conscious organisms in their own right (see: "Stalking the Wild Pendulum: On the Mechanics of Consciousness." Ignore the first 'Customer Review', it was written by a fundamentalist neo-con!).

But we don't have to take the word of high-brow, scientific researchers or philosophers to comprehend man's relationship with this blue planet. No Einstein brain is required to make us aware that we owe our Earth everything. It, and its star, are the crucibles of our existence. Without them, nothing could exist - and certainly we would not be around to experience the wonder of physical life.

Our early ancestors must have understood this concept fully. They surely knew nothing of the science, but they observed enough to realise how utterly dependent they were on the water, soil, sunlight and seasons provided by their bounteous home, with its warm, golden-orbed partner in regular attendance.

Early man was content to till his land, tend his crops and raise his offspring, while always paying homage to the sun and earth that provided for his needs. He would not have been obsessed by competition, or greed. There was plenty for all. Mother Earth was populated with diverse creatures to satisy his appetite, and assist with farming his land.

It is unlikely early man had problems with ego - his 'conscious self'. Self-awareness was a developing characteristic and early Homo sapien probably regarded existence not much differently from any other animal. It was sufficient to ensure he had all the necessary means to sustain life - food, warmth and shelter, and the ability to store feed for through the winter, is a basic instinctive requirement whether human or squirrel.

Unlike the squirrel, however, our ancester continued to develop self-awareness, and with it a fermenting belief in his own self-importance.

The ego eventually began to factor into Homo sapien's view of the world and himself in it.

Much has been written about the ego by psychiatrists and psychologists the world over. Freud was obsessed with it, and some psycho-analysts have gone to great lengths to subdue, or even repress it. In fact, the ego is vital to our natural functioning and acts as a sort of middle manager in the corporate body called "I". It is an excellant middle manager but can be somewhat over-enthusiastic, and unless held in check may try to take over the running of the company. It was exactly such a situation that began to lead man into difficuties many eons ago.

As his self-awareness grew more intense, Homo sapien stopped regarding himself as just another animal - an integral part of the whole biosphere of Planet Earth. He began to view himself as rather more important than the lowly squirrels or cattle. He began to imagine he was not just the most advanced animal on the planet, but the very pinnacle of creation. At some point along the line of evolution, beginning when man climbed down from the trees and stood upright and ending at the present day, man's ego began to take over. The notion that he owes his existence to a Universal Creator has bugged mankind ever since.

Eventually, Homo sapien could no longer correlate his self-importance with the idea of just being a part of the planet and the sun. No, his Creator had to be something special. It seemed only natural that man's Creator would look like man himself. The idea of a "god" was born - a human-like creature that over millenia took on many names and many faces, but they were almost all human faces.

Man was all-powerful on earth, so it was inconceivable that gods would inhabit the same planet, and various mystical domains were conjured - mostly in other spheres somewhere "out there."

As man's sophistication evolved, so did his gods. He gave them names, designated their functions, and used the bodies of his enemies to feed and placate them. By this time, the ego was in total control and man no longer listened to the whisperings of his Planet. He didn't need them. After all, wasn't he all powerful, perfected? Anything he couldn't handle, like bad harvests, floods or sickness, was simply passed on to his gods - along with a suitable sacrifice - for them to hopefully sort out.

And so man prospered on this planet until he had created so many reproductions of himself that other animals began disappearing into extinction. He split into different groups, each initially worshipping its own god, until sophistication led even those groups that hated each other, to accept that basically it was all one god they worshipped. But they could still wage war against each other over which was the right way to worship.

Greed dominated man's life to such an extent that he developed ways to mass produce machines specifically for making his life easier, even though they destroyed the habitats of animals and fishes, and slowly began to poison the very planet that had created and supported him.

Man had past the point of caring. His ego was so inflated by its own self-importance, he believed he could control the Earth. If the atmosphere was polluted, he would invent another machine to cleanse it. If that failed, his God would either intervene and save him, or carry man off to live with Him forever in God's Heaven, in which case he wouldn't need the Earth anymore, so it didn't matter. Animals were only for man's use. Their deaths would be insignificant.

Lovelock argues that the onset of global warming over the last two centuries results from man's activities and their effects on the Earth. Gaia is sick, and like all advanced organisms is taking steps to cure herself. To do that, she must rid herself of the invading organisms transmitting disease.

It is common knowledge among parasitologists that any organism living on or in the body of its host must maintain a balance between rapid reproduction, and the ability of its host to maintain that expanding population. If a parasite reproduces too quickly it will kill its host, and thus itself. Even the mangiest cur can support a few fleas, but when there are many the risk of further disease is drastically heightened, and the animal becomes too weak to survive.

Man has become a parasite on his own planet. Eons ago, he worked the land and replaced the nutrients he used to grow his crops. Today, he is taking too much and replacing it with environmental poisons. Our planet is not able to cope and is reacting accordingly.

Man is truly unconcerned by this, assuming his technological genius will counteract any measures that may eventually become too inconvenient.

He has failed to heed the early warnings - the beginnings of an unstoppable reaction. His lack of humility towards the Earth, his Creator; his defection to mythical, extra-terrestrial, gods that are nothing more than reflections of his own self-importance and vanity, while treating his true Creator with contempt, has reaped man's comeuppance in a manner that may prove dreadful and final.

Can we prevent this global catastrophe for mankind?

Yes, it is possible. Unfortunately, it will not happen.

Were we to cut our carbon emissions very, very drastically almost overnight, which would entail the banning of all motor cars, trucks, railroad engines, airplanes, ships and anything else using an internal combustion engine; were we to close those factories that pump tons of carbon and other pollutents into the atmosphere every day throughout the globe; were we to strictly control the birth rates to shrink our species to a size that this planet can continue to support - then, and only then, would we stand a chance of reversing Gaia's sickness and saving ourselves from probable extinction.

If you, reader, can envisage those drastic actions being taken within, say, the next five-ten years - then you may be optimistic that we have a future.

If you can't, then it maybe because you are a realist - or, you may just be as arrogant and self-important as Jack Kemp, former U.S. House Representative from western New York and former Chairman of the House Republican Leadership Conference, who recently stated,

"Al Gore said the other day he wants to eliminate the internal combustion engine. Now let me ask you-we've got 162 million internal combustion engines on the earth. Do we want 162 million horse-drawn carriages?"

Ask me if we, as a species, are doomed?

Yes - because of Jack Kemp - and the millions like him who are too ego-arrogant to believe the Earth would ever dare do anything against him, or his mythical, extra-terrestrial, god.

Filed under: Global warming

Gone To Pot.......

2006-09-20T19:17:00.000-05:00

Monday must have been a quiet day for the police of Lafayette, Louisiana. To find someone worth charging with a crime they hauled in Willie Nelson's tour bus at a "routine police stop", and confiscated his stash of weed and magic mushrooms.

Hell, Willie's been openly smoking dope for donkey's years. They could've busted him anytime they liked. Why did they choose now?

Was he in a fight; trying to shoot someone; exposing himself in the street?

No, he was enjoying a quiet smoke with a few old mates ('old' is right - Willie's 73, and those with him were 59, 75, 54 and 50 years respectively) doing no harm to anyone.

A big "Well Done!" to the assholes of Lafayette Police Dept, who know how to put the feel on vicious, dangerous, criminals.

What the hell is this country about?

Filed under: Reefer madness

Iran And Her Neighbors - A BBC Report.

2006-09-20T12:33:00.000-05:00

The BBC's World Affairs Editor, John Simpson, is a leading expert on Iran and the Middle East. He first began reporting from there for the BBC nearly forty years ago.

The BBC's Radio Four has recently broadcast a series of thirty minute programs entitled: "Uncovering Iran", and in one of those programs, "Iran and Her Neighbours" John Simpson looks at Iran and its relationship with the rest of the world.

For an unbiased, in-depth analysis of Iran, and its future relationships with Iraq, Israel, and the West, it is well worth a listen.

The link is HERE.

Filed under: Middle east

Gawd Bless America - II

2006-09-19T19:02:00.000-05:00

“Jesus Camp,” from documakers Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady..... may shock many viewers, especially political liberals, when it shows children speaking in tongues, their faces glowing with ecstasy and tears running down their cheeks. Liberals might also be alarmed by images of 7-year-olds in camouflage face-paint performing spiritual war dances at summer camp and little hands reaching out to bless a cardboard cut-out of President George W. Bush in the hope of cinching a pro-life Supreme Court appointment. ~ Variety.com - Review.

Frankly - no. None of the above would shock me in the least.

Four years in this country - a country that reflects about as much true Christianity as Joseph Kony's heart cradles benevolence - has left me totally indifferent to anything the sewerage-laden ditch that passes for American religious society can disgorge.

After all, only in America - or possibly some downtrodden, African mud-hut, banana republic - could an alcoholic, religious psychopath achieve the presidency. So why should I be shocked by child abuse in North Dakota?

And let's not mince words - that's exactly what is happening.

Child abuse doesn't stop at physical molestation. Mental abuse - instilling in a kid's mind ideas not in the child's best interests for the gratification of adults - is a crime in civilized countries that could lead self-styled High Priestess Becky Fischer into jail.

The Nazis tried similar tactics in Germany pre-WW2. They called it the Hitler Youth.

Filed under: Crimes against children

Gawd Bless America!

2006-09-19T11:32:00.000-05:00

Yesterday celebrated my fourth anniverary as a resident of the United States. I suppose I now regard it as home, rather than the country - Britain - that housed me for my first 56 years.

I was born a British citizen. I will remain one, having no desire whatever to pledge allegiance to a nation still needing to learn so much about manners and mature behavior, as a member of the family of nations that exists on this planet.

In fact, for many in this country the rest of that family are simply 'poor relations', ignored whenever possible, put down when deemed to be getting above themselves and appearing to challenge the power and supremacy of their superior American cousins.

America, and many Americans, view themselves in control of the world and everyone else on it, but the real truth is far from that.

Certainly, America has the most powerful weapons, but it takes more than military might to subjugate human beings, as evidenced in Iraq.

My strongest sense on arriving in this country, was how much closer to Middle Eastern nations was the American way of life, than to Europe. It was a surprise I had not expected. American propaganda extolling the virtues of 'freedom' and 'democracy' in this country had led me to believe it was true. The real truth is that Europeans have far more freedom than those living in the "Land of the Free".

That statement may shock some Americans. Probably, some won't believe it. But, I can assure you it's true.

You see, freedom is fine in theory, but without some restrictions to protect the underdogs and the weak, freedom runs riot giving free rein to the greedy and despicable, allowing them to prey on all and sundry. Such was the basis of the 'American Dream'. It's perfectly feasible to make your fortune in America, but where does it come from? Not from the rich, that's for sure.

America has become a nation of lying, cheating, confidence tricksters all trying to weedle money out of those least able to afford it. Just check out the media on a Sunday morning. Those channels not showing infomercials for crap products no-one really wants, are broadcasting those top-of-the-line swindlers, the religiots, offering their latest faith videos or DVD's at specially reduced rates.

Americans are at war with themselves, each trying desperately to swindle the other out of hard earned cash. It's rather reminiscent of an Arab bazaar in Casablanca.

Europe has regulations governing such matters, so its citizens aren't subjected to the constant indoctrinal pressures of advertizing. They allow the media to broadcast actual programs without the constant interruptions of sales advertizing. Until you experience it, you have no idea how 'freeing' that is. I gave up watching CNN a long time ago. The strain of being subjected to more advertizing than news was just too much.

Yes, Americans have their freedoms: freedom to own arsenals of lethal weapons; freedom to fill their yard full of rusty scrap metal and upset their neighbors. Their corporations have the freedom to pollute American air at will (some European companies actually moved their operations to America in the nineties to avoid costly European environmental legislation), and yes - they even have the freedom to ignore minor issues like global warming and insist on driving their own personal Humvees to work each day.

Freedom is a wonderful thing.

Or, is it?

Oh, and to anyone about to suggest I go live in Iraq, to see how I prefer that, I will respond that it was the British, closely followed by the Americans, who originally created the Iraq of Saddam Hussein - which was somewhat better than the Iraq of today, after three further years of American meddling.

Meanwhile, America is training its own Christian Jihadists

Filed under: Good moaning

The Egotistical Logos Of Benedict XVI .....

2006-09-18T19:01:00.000-05:00

The Pope began his recent controversial speech thus:

"Your Eminences, Your Magnificences, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen..."

Question: Who the hell do these people think they are?

Eminences? Magnificences? Excellencies?

To these beings "God" is just part of their vast egotistical bubble.

And what was he thinking about? He's been likened to "God's Rottweiler" and seems determined to live up to that dubious reputation.

Anyone who bothered to read the full transcript of Popey's recent sleep-inducing monologue to the German Regensburg University could hardly fail to notice one thing. The inclusion of an anti-Islamic quote from some long-dead and forgotten Catholic Emperor was largely irrelevant to the point he was tediously, and erroneously, attempting to make - that the way to understand God was through logos, not mythos.

As none of the hierarchical religions has ever come near to understanding itself, let alone the God it purports to represent, and reason never gets a look-in when the Bible-thumpers are about town, his argument was doomed before it began. There is no doubt this particular quote was inserted for a purpose - to tell Islamic Jihadists what he thought of them.

Only last May, at Auschwitz, he upset Jews by failing to apologise for the Catholic church's behavior during WW2, and the Vatican had already stated Popey's view that meaningful dialogue with the Muslim world isn't likely while Christians are denied religious freedom in Muslim states.

In a nutshell, the guy is a menace.

Isn't it bad enough having George W Bush and Tony Blair swanning around creating mayhem throughout the Middle East, without His Pompousness shouting about the shortcomings of Islam?

Personally, I couldn't give a tinker's cuss what he thinks of Islam or the Jews - it's probably the only common ground he and I might share - but while I can shout my mouth off about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, or the petty-mindedness of the poison dwarf currently running Iran, I am sufficiently insignificant not to start an international situation.

HE ISN'T!

As such, we are entitled to expect a little more diplomacy from "God's Rottweiler."

Perhaps someone should buy him a muzzle.

Filed under: More religious pratts

The Vexed Question Of Being.......

2006-09-13T19:35:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, an anonymous emailer wrote querying (I think, rather sarcastically) "what I am." From my writing (he or she said) it's obvious I'm neither a Christian, nor a Muslim; a Buddhist or a Hindu, and I'd previously stated I was no atheist - so where did this leave me?

It would be easy to say I was 'this', or I was 'that', but unfortunately my life is never so simple. I don't believe anyone else's is either, if the truth be known.

Pigeon-holing has never appealed to me in any facet of life. I've shied away from fashion; deliberately neglected to visit cinemas screening the most popular films. I find much television a waste of precious time; hate the very idea of golf, or any other sport that involves competition, and am decidedly anti-social, refusing all invitations to barbecues, parties, or similar collectives of the human species.

I do believe my brief jaunt through this particular lifetime is part of a longer journey home, and that the road I've chosen is one of an infinite number, all leading to the same place by various tortuous, or otherwise, paths.

To call that path Christian or Buddhist or Wiccan is simplistic, and evades the truth. We probably all, at some stage of our spiritual journey, take shelter among one, or all, of the so-called 'traditional religions', - maybe for most of one lifetime, or perhaps for just a part - but to proclaim ourselves 'Christian' or 'Muslim' or 'Hindu' is to self-deceive, and when we do that - try to kid ourselves - we just tend to go around in circles until our Higher Self decides it is necessary to prod us out of our self-created maze and back onto a path that actually leads somewhere.

Organized religion is like a care home for battered souls, a great place to rest and recuperate, but not to linger in too long. It is because of this that so many emotionally strained individuals are sucked into the religious net. Unfortunately, the hierarchy of clerics, who claim they have the power to speak for their deity, will do their damnedest to dissuade rested souls from leaving again.

Of course, like everything physical and spiritual, religion evolves, too. The "non-hierarchical" - Wicca or Paganism, Buddhism, Taoism - are more evolved forms of traditional religion than Christianity, Islam or Judaism.

My own spiritual journey has touched on many such traditions and I, just like everyone else, have learnt much from them.

But none of this really answers the question of what I am.

In one room of my house I have a small altar. It serves no deity and was never made for worship, but is utilized as a focus for meditation and spiritual contemplation. Apart from an oddly-matched pair of brass candlesticks and an incense holder, there are five other objects displayed there. Perhaps, if I explain what they are and why they are there, it may help to at least partially reveal what I am about.

The first object is a piece of sculpture by a little-known British artist, Neil J. Rose. It is of a mountain lion metamorphosing from a dead tree trunk, and to me at least, symbolizes the evolution of consciousness.

The second object is a small statuette of a goddess. She is one of the many goddesses of Spring and is anonymous, so I call her, Mia - for no other reason than because I thought it suited her. For me, Mia symbolizes Mother Earth who gives me physical life; whose rhythms strengthen me, and whose bewildering array of beauty has always tantalized and enchanted me.

The other three items on my altar form a more personal relationship with me.

The first is a simple, short, prayer ornately decorated and printed on a piece of paper sealed in a transparent plastic cover. It is attributed to Saint Francis of Assisi and is the prayer that ends every meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous (at least, in Britain) and its partner organization, Al-Anon. It reminds me of the drunks I knew and grew to love during my years at Al-Anon, an organization for the families and friends of alcoholics. Some of those drunks are not around today. This prayer helps me remember them, and the suffering they and their families endured. Alcoholism is, indeed, "The Family Disease."

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

The second of my 'personal' objects is actually a group of four white stones, moulded smooth by four million years beneath the ocean. I took them from a beach at Barmouth, in the region of mid-Wales, UK, when I knew that I would be leaving to live in the United States. That part of Wales was my spiritual resting-place, and the Barmouth Estuary one of the most beautiful places on Earth. As well as reminding me of where I came from, these stones symbolize the deep places on our planet where man can never go, and which hold mysteries we may never discover. In the intense heat of an Illinois summer, the stones are always ice-cold to the touch, and remain so however long they are held in the hand.

The last object on my altar is the most precious of all, and yet nothing more than a humble pigeon feather. I had lived for some years in an old stone cottage, originally built in 1812 as a chapel for the Welsh hamlet of Melin-y-Ddol, but closed and later converted when a larger church was built in the nearby town. I lived there alone, and at night as I lay in bed I would hear an occasional, muffled cough; the quiet scuffle of shoes against a wooden pew; a child's stifled giggle before shushed by authoritarian parents. The old chapel had never truly closed, it's presence - and that of its congregation - was very much alive in the stillness of a Welsh night. It was a place of peace and serenity. Nowhere, before or since, have I known such spiritual love and support as at Capel-y-Ddol, the 'Chapel in the Meadow'.

But, however comfortable the road, before long life presents a junction - and for me the crossroads was America. Should I stay at my chapel in the meadow, or should I fly across the ocean?

A narrow, twisty lane led up to a stile and into Goat's Field Woods that rose from the rapid, turbulent Banwy river in the valley down below. It was a walk I took often and knew well. The path led down to a clearing of standing stones - good friends - and on to the river, before winding back in a steep climb through pine trees to the lane, and then back home. About three miles, and great exercise with those gradients. I began the walk in turmoil that day. My mind tortured with the decision I desperately needed to make. Unable to decide, I consulted my friends the standing stones, then turned the whole matter over to my Higher Self. Confident I would receive help I asked for an indication before I left the woods that day, and continued my walk. It was a wonderful afternoon, still and quiet in the woods. No wind stirred the mighty firtrees. My walk was almost over and I was returning to the stile feeling slightly foolish that I had expected such assistance, when I was disturbed by a sudden rustling high above. Squinting against the sun, I peered up at the topmost branches of a hundred foot pine. "It's just a pigeon," I thought, watching the bird wing out into clear air. I stood a moment till it was gone from sight, and was about to walk on, when out the corner of one eye I spotted a movement in the stillness. It was a good twenty feet above the ground, falling slowly perhaps six feet away from me, and spinning slightly as it did so. Mesmerized, I could only watch as the pigeon's feather changed direction, veered in towards me, and landed - right between my boots. A flight feather! My decision had been made. I booked my ticket the very next day.

The feather still rests on my altar - four years after it landed at my feet. It is my most cherished possession.

I am not Christian or Muslim, Jew or Hindu. I am not Wiccan or even Huna. Yet all of those are a part of RJ Adams, just as are the standing stones in the Goat Field Woods, the chapel of Capel-y-Ddol, and the Welsh pigeon that kindly left its feather at my feet.

You see, I cannot answer the question "What am I?" in one word, or even a few sentences.

Ask me if I believe in God and I would have to respond, "First, tell me what God is, and then I will tell you if I believe in it."

Filed under: Spiritual things

"The Decisive Ideological Struggle Of The 21st Century......."

2006-09-13T11:27:00.000-05:00

Problems in Iraq?

Nah! It's all working out just as George planned it.

"The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power." ~ George W Bush, September 11th, 2006

Filed under: Mindbogglingly superlarge Bush-ups

Museum's Big Weapon Killing Christian Faith.....

2006-09-13T10:00:00.000-05:00

Nairobi's National Museum of Kenya is "....creating a big weapon against Christians that's killing our faith...." according to Bishop Boniface Adoyo, chairman of the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, which claims to represent churches of 35 denominations with nine million members.

Why, you ask, is a museum killing the Christian faith?

Bishop Boniface Adoyo explains thus: "When children go to museums they'll start believing we evolved from these apes."

Well, didn't we?

Apparently not, according to the Bish who finds the museums unique collection - that includes the remains of a 4 million-year-old apeman, Australopithecus anamensis; the 1.5 million-year-old remains of the Nariokotome boy, the most complete skeleton of an ancient human ever found, and many other bones emphasizing crucial phases of our evolutionary past - somewhat disturbing.

"When museums put it out there that man evolved from apes, theologically they are affecting many people who are Christians, who believe God created us," says Bishop Adoyo.

One can only hope that some kids survive the indoctrinal brainwashing of Bishop Boniface Adoyo and his team from the "Christ is the Answer Ministries" long enough to visit the Nairobi National Museum and see for themselves those priceless exhibits the church wants hidden from view. It may just serve to pry them free from the grip of such eccliastical monsters.

The continent of Africa has long been a preying ground for religious vultures intent on scooping more souls into their demented net of dogma. It's a fertile plain for these creatures. Human beings, often bereft of everything we take for granted due to famine, flood, war, or the ravages of so-called "civilized" nations, are easy God-fodder for those just waiting to pounce. Promises of heavenly happiness may be all the hope there is for those with nothing - often, stripped of even their dignity.

So, what's the problem, if the church offers promises of divine mercy and forgiveness to these people? Are the Bish and his clan not doing a worthwhile job?

No, they're not. Human beings, however poor, however desperate, deserve the dignity of truth. There is not one shred of evidence on this whole planet to support any form of Christian belief, least of all one that defies scientific fact. If Bishop Boniface Adoyo and his clan of clerical clots consider themselves too "elevated" to have evolved from apes, that is simply their natural arrogance surfacing, and has nothing to do with God or Christianity. Having worked for years with different species, including apes and monkeys, I am proud to consider them my brothers. Many of them display far greater intellect than Bishop Boniface Adoyo.

Given the sludge that passes for coherent thought in Bishop Boniface Adoyo's brain, he is unlikely to be correct in any assumption, but we can only hope that for once he is - and "this big weapon" eventually despatches his distorted, dogmatic, religion where it should have gone centuries ago - to the bonfire of history.

Filed under: religious rubbish

We Are A Poor Excuse For A Species........

2006-09-12T12:19:00.000-05:00

Following the sad and untimely death of animal expert and conservationist, Steve Irwin, from a stingray barb eight days ago, it appears some Australians have been taking revenge on the stingray population by catching them and cutting their tails off.

Such disgraceful behavior is totally in opposition to everything Irwin stood for. How anyone could even begin to justify it is incomprehensible.

The unhappy fact, of course, is that as a species we exhibit such behavior constantly. All Japanese were considered subhuman monsters after WW2 and treated abominably; Arabs today live in fear of reprisals for the individual acts of Islamic militants.

Whenever we feel threatened, we seem to have an inbuilt inability to separate individuals from societal groups, and will retaliate against innocents without compunction.

Perhaps, instead of considering ourselves the pinnacle of evolution, we should contemplate another option: that at sometime way back among our ancestors, something genetic went horribly wrong?

Filed under: Subhuman behavior

Is Her Ego About To Go "BANG!"?

2006-09-11T10:36:00.000-05:00

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support." ~ US Senate Report, September 8th, 2006.

"There were ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda," ~ Condoleeza Rice, September 10th, 2006.

Has she been away on vacation, perhaps?

Does she have her own private holiday island with no communications?

Or, does she just assume the American public are so stupid they'll believe what she says, even when three days ago a Senate Report confirmed Iraq had no ties to al Qaeda before 9/11 - confirmation that was beamed around the world - not just America - by just about every media outlet in existence.

Has this woman any credibility left?

Filed under: Inane or insane

What A Difference A Day Makes......

2006-09-11T10:21:00.000-05:00

None at all, apparently........

Did anyone stop to wonder why George and Laura Bush laid wreaths on the water at Ground Zero yesterday, the tenth of September?

No, it wasn't that they were so filled with emotion they simply couldn't wait another twenty-four hours for the right day to come around.

It was a carefully planned and staged photo-op, to ensure that those countries six or eight hours ahead of America had the footage in time to show George and Laura paying tribute to the fallen of 9/11 - on 9/11.

BBC World aired it this morning at 5.00 am CST (11.00 am BST) but just forgot to point out it actually took place yesterday.

Politics Reigns - OK!

Filed under: Doubledealing twofacedness

The Long And Winding Road.........

2006-09-10T14:07:00.000-05:00

The fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks leaves this writer with mixed feelings and emotions. It was around 2.45 in the afternoon when I went indoors, after hanging washing on the clothes line in the back garden of my little stone cottage high in the hills of mid-Wales. It was so isolated that TV pictures had to be beamed by satellite. Terrestrial signals petered out a mile further down the valley.

Satellite broadcasting meant I had access to more than the standard five channels of British TV, and living alone I tended to leave the set turned on most of the day, for company when I was at home.

My fiancee lived in America. US news channels helped me feel more in touch with her, so consequently at 2.45 pm on September 11th, 2001, CNN was broadcasting into my living room.

It was sounds that drew me from the kitchen; unfamiliar exclamations unassociated with the measured tones of newscasters. Alarm bells were ringing, but only in my brain. Something big was occurring; something that instantly broke the code of newscasting ethics, turning reporters into startled, frightened, bystanders.

The image on the screen was of a skyscraper with smoke billowing from its upper floors. I relaxed - it was just Americans waxing hysterical over a fire in a tall building. Almost immediately the scenario metamorphosed into an aircraft impacting the tower - my God, a tragic accident that would dominate headlines for weeks to come - but, as I stood in the center of that living room, my brain reactively computing the information from the TV screen, another airliner flashed into view and disappeared behind the second building, before that too, erupted into smoke and flames. It happened fast. If I'd blinked at that moment I would have missed it.

In an instant, 'accident' became 'intention' and it was appallingly obvious the worst terrorist attack in living memory was occurring before my eyes.

The aftermath of these catastrophic events left the world in tears. Capturing the acts on video perhaps had more to do with the immediate outpourings of international grief than the hijackings themselves. Certainly, the attack by the third plane on the Pentagon seemed almost an after-shock by comparison, as was the fourth aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania - provided, of course, you weren't one of those who had just kissed their loved one goodbye as they boarded one of those unfortunate flights.

In the days following, two factors dominated my thoughts and emotions. First, the incredible collapse of the twin towers. Why had they fallen like two houses of cards caught in a sudden wind-draught, particularly as the impacts had both been near the top of the buildings? That question has never been adequately addressed, in my opinion.

The second, and at the time, more relevant factor was the world coagulation of mourning and distress for America as a nation. Whether this was ever fully covered by the US media is beyond my knowledge of the time, but in Britain both the BBC and Independents effectively demonstrated the feelings of virtually all other nations to these dastardly acts, and it was obvious that - with very few exceptions - not just the politicians, but the people of this planet were fully with America in its darkest hours.

For me, at that time, resulting from these appalling acts of violence and hatred I forsaw the possibility of more peace and love in the world than has ever been before. A uniting of all peoples in all nations for one purpose - ensuring such deeds would never be able to happen again.

The seeds of world peace germinated on 9/11/2001 even as the towers were falling and the Pentagon blazed. All that was needed was for those seeds to be tended and nourished. Had America accepted what the rest of the world had to offer at the time; had it reached out in love and brotherhood to the millions who were willing to embrace it, the future of this planet may have been very different.

As it turned out, America rejected that love and brotherhood. The presidential cry, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists..." (meaning in this context that anyone who failed to support agressive American retribution was a terrorist sympathizer) saw to that. Instead, the US fortified its isolationism and lashed out, like some wounded wild animal, at the first "enemy" it found an excuse to attack. That enemy was an innocent, peaceful, non-threatening Arab nation that just happened to have a fairly obnoxious dictator at its head - and absolutely no involvement whatever in the events of 9/11/2001.

My perspective altered drastically almost exactly one year after 9/11/2001, when I moved to the US to marry my American fiancee. I experienced post-9/11 America first-hand, and was disgusted by a culture riddled with hypocrisy and corruption. Whatever America may once have been was gone, eaten away. Nothing remained, it seemed, but a rotting carcass slowly being devoured by a horde of fat, greedy maggots.

My eyes opened to what, perhaps, bin Laden was fighting. A nation obsessed of itself; narcissistic; impervious and uncaring of the world around it; a huge volcanic chasm of violated pride and patriotism boiling with indignation, self-righteousness, and fear.

Five years after 9/11, there is little to suggest America has changed. Its political machine continues on the same course it set in the aftermath of the attacks, despite the obvious fact its policies are not working, and have alienated most of the civilised world. Those nations who, five years ago, shed tears of sadness for the suffering of 9/11; who held forth their arms in comfort and shared grief, have learned to fear, despise, and even hate the nation they once reached out to assist. The germinating seeds of world peace were trampled underfoot by those who might have tended them.

Where do we go from here?

The future created out of 9/11 looks bleak, indeed. American politicians talk of World War III; the global war on terrorism. Unrest in the Middle East and among Islamic fundamentalists has been fanned by Western actions since 9/11 - particularly those of America and its satellite puppy, Britain. Another attack on the US seems only a matter of time, despite assurances from those who only manage to repeatedly prove their inability to see further than the next election.

Yet, in the Stygian political gloom pervading this nation there glows a sliver of luminence. Barely noticeable, its light sometimes seems extinguished, before reappearing just slightly brighter than before.

That light glows from the American people themselves. Not all, by any means, but some who refuse to accept the course their political masters have chosen; who seek a better way - a way that replaces hate with love, war with peace, religious dogma with true spirituality.

It may prove a long and winding road, but history unfailing informs us it is the only road that ever leads to where we wish to be.

Filed under: Long road home

Your Suspenders Really Are God..........

2006-09-08T19:15:00.000-05:00

A recent inventive church slogan from one of our trillion or so local churches here in central Illinois:

"ATHEISTS HAVE NO INVISIBLE MEANS OF SUPPORT."

This one is oh, so clever; it takes one's breath away. Imagine Mister and Missus Christian American Nuclear Family driving past and gasping with admiration at an inventiveness that just has to be Divinely inspired.

Clearly God spends all His time devising Heavenly crossword puzzles to decorate His churches' florescent advertisement hoardings.

I have remarked before on Sparrow Chat how this type of mediocre attempt to convert the unbeliever, or rally the flock, demonstrates how desperately thin the icy crust of faith really is, but it is so common in this country that one doesn't have to spend too long here to realize these churches are competing with each other for "souls", the way big corporations compete for customers.

I don't consider myself an atheist, though I may just as well be so far as these churches are concerned. To them, not believing in the "One True God" means atheism, or some form of paganism such as Islam, Buddhism or Wicca. Either way, we of the "other" belief are ripe for conversion, racking up for the successful recruiters another potential thousand Frequent-Flyer Angel points for when they are finally called to that Great Celestial Boeing Factory to have their wings fitted.

I can't speak for atheists - not being one - but I don't need the "invisible support" of some mythical being up there beyond the clouds. I have enough support of my own.

I call them 'legs'.

Now, that may sound a little trite on first examination, but let me elucidate: you see, I believe I am God. All of me is God, including the legs that support me.

Now, that may seem a trifle arrogant on initial inspection, so allow me to explain: I don't just believe I am God. I believe you are, too. Now, that makes you feel better, doesn't it?

Don't get too carried away, though, because it's not just you and me - it's everything. Everything is God. Yes, even the nasty things. Cow pats in the fields are God; mosquitoes with West Nile Virus are God, and yes - even George W Bush and Osama bin Laden are God, too.

It's all part of the great order of things. No 'good' or 'bad'; no 'black' or 'white'; no Allah or Jehovah; just - everything!

Ah, I hear you say smugly, but if George W Bush is God, how come you spend half your life criticising him?

Elementary, my dear Watson, I answer. You see, "criticism" is God, too.

Filed under: Elastic stockings

Be Sure Your Sins Will Find You Out - 2.

2006-09-08T19:01:00.000-05:00

Sparrow Chat - March 21st, 2006.

Filed under: Fibs and fibbers

The Bush/Blair Way.........

2006-09-08T11:55:00.000-05:00

President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, military dictator, denier of democracy, staunch ally of the US in the war on terror, has signed a peace agreement with the Taliban, harborers of al Qaeda, to end fighting along his border with Afghanistan.

Two days ago Musharraf paid a visit to Afghanistan's leader, Hamid Karzai. It is highly likely he recommended Karzai do a similar deal.

It is likely Karzai will agree with Musharraf.

NATO presently has around 20,000 troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Russians failed to defeat them with 120,000.

With the coalition's two major allies in the region - Musharraf and Karzai - doing an about-turn, is there any point in more soldiers dying for nothing?

It's hard to blame Karzai, if he does accept a degree of Taliban rule in his country. The West has totally let him down with its promises of assistance that never materialized.

The Afghan economy is in a terrible state, only held together by opium production that the West demands is terminated. Without it, the country could not survive.

It's a grim prospect facing the coalition in Afghanistan, as bad - if not worse - than in Iraq.

The end result in both countries will almost certainly be the eventual pull out of Western forces, and fresh dictatorships taking root.

In other words, it'll be back to 'square one' - and all the fighting, all the deaths, all the suffering will have been for nothing.

But then - that's war the Bush-Blair way.

Filed under: Political clowns

Oy Vey, Mister Maher..........

2006-09-08T11:16:00.000-05:00

I love Bill Maher. For me, he is far and away the best American comedian on television. He and I are in total accord; so much that when he recently appeared on "Larry King Live", and King asked him a question, I could virtually quote the first line out of his mouth before he opened it to respond.

Bill Maher and I agree on every subject - bar one!

ISRAEL!

Bill Maher is completely pro-Israel. He accuses the whole world of anti-semitism, but then categorically states he is not a Jew.

Sorry, Bill, but you are a Jew. Your mother was a Jew. You may not be a practising Jew, but it is in your genes.

Bill Maher detests George W Bush, but says, "George W Bush is the best president we've ever had on Israel."

Bill, if that isn't your genes talking I don't know what is.

Asked about the recent conflict in Lebanon, he cited the similarity between Hezbollah/Israel, and any terrorist organization shelling the northern US from Canada, pointing out the latter would be rapidly dealt with. Then he complained that the rest of the world insisted Israel show restraint in shelling Lebanon. He forgets that Hezbollah only kidnapped two Israeli soldiers. They didn't shell anyone until Israel began pulverizing Lebanon in its usual bully-boy, over-reactive fashion.

He also suggested the Arab countries bordering Israel make peace agreements with Israel, citing Jordan and Egypt as examples of Arab nations who had done just that.

Neither of those nations lost territory to Israel in the 1967 war. Other Arab nations would happily make peace - have suggested a very acceptable peace deal. Israel and the US refuse to be party to it because it involves returning what Israel stole in 1967.

Bill Maher remains my favorite American comedian - despite the fact he is in self-denial - about his Jewishness.

Filed under: No-one's perfect

Spot The Christian........

2006-09-05T11:58:00.000-05:00

You may find this hard to believe, but -

- two of these three images -

- are fakes.

Can you spot the real Christian?

It's very easy. But if you're having problems with this little brainteaser - don't worry. You just need some help.

And help is available, so please, do make use of it. Its free, and just a CLICK away.

ADDENDUM: If you really need a clue - compare the degree of serenity in each face.

Filed under: False prophets

The Debate Continues.........

2006-09-04T15:50:00.000-05:00

Freshly returned from his vacation in Alaska, fellow blogger Al Devito, over at Vineyard Views, posts a thought provoking piece, "Crying Wolf" based around an article in "Foreign Affairs" by John Mueller, Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University, and entitled "Is There Still A Terrorist Threat?"

Mueller's article, like Al Devito's, is worthy of perusal in its entirety, but basically he suggests that al Quaeda is far less powerful than we have been led to believe and it is likely no Islamic terror cells exist in the US. He cites as evidence the lack of attacks, not just in the five years since 9/11, but also the years preceding, and states:

"Intelligence estimates in 2002 held that there were as many as 5,000 al Qaeda terrorists and supporters in the United States. However, a secret FBI report in 2005 wistfully noted that although the bureau had managed to arrest a few bad guys here and there after more than three years of intense and well-funded hunting, it had been unable to identify a single true al Qaeda sleeper cell anywhere in the country. Thousands of people in the United States have had their overseas communications monitored under a controversial warrantless surveillance program. Of these, fewer than ten U.S. citizens or residents per year have aroused enough suspicion to impel the agencies spying on them to seek warrants authorizing surveillance of their domestic communications as well; none of this activity, it appears, has led to an indictment on any charge whatever.

In addition to massive eavesdropping and detention programs, every year some 30,000 "national security letters" are issued without judicial review, forcing businesses and other institutions to disclose confidential information about their customers without telling anyone they have done so. That process has generated thousands of leads that, when pursued, have led nowhere. Some 80,000 Arab and Muslim immigrants have been subjected to fingerprinting and registration, another 8,000 have been called in for interviews with the FBI, and over 5,000 foreign nationals have been imprisoned in initiatives designed to prevent terrorism. This activity, notes the Georgetown University law professor David Cole, has not resulted in a single conviction for a terrorist crime. In fact, only a small number of people picked up on terrorism charges -- always to great official fanfare -- have been convicted at all, and almost all of these convictions have been for other infractions, particularly immigration violations. Some of those convicted have clearly been mental cases or simply flaunting jihadist bravado -- rattling on about taking down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch, blowing up the Sears Tower if only they could get to Chicago, beheading the prime minister of Canada, or flooding lower Manhattan by somehow doing something terrible to one of those tunnels."

Vineyard View's opinion differs from Mueller's on two points: the probability of another terrorist attack on US soil (Mueller considers it a possibility; Al Devito a certainty) and the lack, or otherwise, of terrorists resident in the US.

Al cites the Timothy McVeigh bombing in Oklahoma as evidence of terrorists present in the US, but here there is a need to differentiate between an ever-present threat of domestic terrorism and the the more specific Islamic-extremist variety. There is a veiled line between the sniper John Allen Muhammad's killing of ten innocent bystanders in 2002, and McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma which slaughtered 168. Both were domestic "grudge" attacks (conspiracy theorists tried to create a link between McVeigh and Islamic terrorism, but it was tenuous, to say the least) by Americans on Americans, but does that make them both "terrorists"? By definition, it does. Based on that premise there are, and always will be, terrorists on American soil.

The true object of Mueller's article is, I believe, specifically the Islamic-extremist of the type affiliated to al Quaeda and responsible for the attacks of 9/11.

He focuses on the porosity of America's borders and how easily terrorists could cross those frontiers with little likelihood of apprehension. That they have not done so, he suggests, is evidenced by the lack of attacks.

Why has there been no attack on US soil since 9/11/2001? On the surface the question seems perplexing, but the answer maybe just a simple matter of ego.

I think Mueller makes some valid points, but he perhaps misses the simplest explanation of all. The psychological enormity of the 9/11 attacks tended to overshadow a relatively simple modus operandi. Aircraft hijackings have been a staple technique of terrorist groups for years. The idea of escalating to multiple planes and using them as flying bombs, was a fairly logical step.

Personally, I have never believed al Qaeda to be as robustly dangerous as the British and American Administrations have continually suggested. On 9/11/2001 they just got very lucky three times over. The results were frighteningly spectactular.

Possibly, the very effectiveness of those attacks is the reason America has not been hit since. Massive increases in international transport security now make it almost impossible to recreate an attack on the scale and magnitude of 9/11. There may well have been an attempt recently from the UK, but it failed long before reaching fruition. You can slip into the sleeping dragon's lair and cut off his tail once, but trying to pull the same stunt again will surely get you eaten.

Al Qaeda needs to maintain credibility among its peers in the Islamic world. Having used up its brightest and most spectacular firework on 9/11/2001, the organization is unlikely to bare it belly to the US dragon for a bus bombing or train wreck that would appear to the proud egos of Islamo-extremism as a fizzled damp squib compared to 9/11.

The Madrid train bombings and those on the London Underground were almost certainly not planned by the top brass of Al Qaeda, but were more "homegrown". Such mediocre techniques may be fine for the young immigrant firebrands of European nations, but the next attack on America has to be at least as spectacular as 9/11, if not more so.

Whether such an attack is an unlikely possibility, or as certain as snow in Antarctica, is not easy to ascertain accurately but the present foreign policies of Britain and America undoubtedly increase the odds.

Let no politician persuade you otherwise, 9/11/2001 was a one-off, throw-everything-into-the-pot-and-hope-it-works, event that surpassed the wildest dreams of its instigators. There is probably only one way al Qaeda, or any other extremist group, could surpass 9/11, and that is by detonating a nuclear device in the heart of a US city. Not a "dirty bomb", which is relatively harmless, but a full-blown, sophisticated, nuclear device.

Logically, it is the only direction al Qaeda could take and I would be amazed if it is not on bin Laden's agenda.

The present pre-emptive policies of the Anglo-American alliance increase the risk a hundred fold. While George W Bush short-sightedly rants about Iran's nuclear ambitions leading to the possible nuclear arming of terrorists, he denies the more obvious market for such a device - Pakistan.

Musharraf uses the US to his own ends, while the 70% Sunni Muslim population seethes at his alliance with the West. Pakistan already has nuclear bombs, and while Musharraf might baulk at them falling into al Qaeda's hands, there are plenty in that country who would happily scheme with al Qaeda to obtain them. Musharraf's days are likely numbered. He has already survived two serious assassination attempts in eleven days, back in late 2003.

Iran's Shia leadership has shown no interest in al Qaeda and almost certainly considers them beneath contempt. If they used a nuclear bomb at all, which is very unlikely, it would be against Israel. Iran conspiring with al Qaeda is almost inconceivable.

Such a nuclear attack against an American city, were it to transpire, is unlikely to happen in the near future, and while this country may not be totally safe from homegrown cells manufacturing unsophisticated devices for suicide attacks, such as occurred in London and Madrid, the real threat - the ever-present danger - lurks somewhere out there waiting for the right moment when al Qaeda gets very lucky for a second time.

Like Al Devito of Vineyard Views, I believe that attack will eventually happen, unless American foreign policy is drastically redirected.

Under the present administration, there seems little likelihood that will ever happen.

Filed under: Waiting game

"Not tho' the soldier knew......"

2006-09-03T21:38:00.000-05:00

Quote from Lt Col Thomas Graves, originally based in Ramadi, Iraq, but now commander US Task Force 1-36 in the town of Hit, some 30 miles north-east of Ramadi, as reported in today's New York Times:

"“Given where I was in Ramadi, I see progress,” he said. “In January 2005 we could not get anybody in Ramadi to participate in the political process. Now you have the citizens of Hit who at least understand that process even if they don’t necessarily agree with it.”

I suppose, in Iraq, that might count as progress.

Filed under: Definitions

Gettin' A Edication........

2006-09-02T22:08:00.000-05:00

You have to admire George W Bush.

In five years he's progressed from -

- "My Little Goat"

- to Alfred Camus.

Living proof that "No Child Left Behind" really works.

Filed under: Grade school heroes

"None So Blind........."

2006-09-02T11:39:00.000-05:00

George W Bush has frequently declared that history will decide whether his presidency was a success. He refuses to make judgements on his own actions, even when evidence of failure stares him in the face.

This may well be a product of his belief that he is "doing God's will" and, as a consequence, what appears a disaster in the short term will metamorphose to triumph "in God's good time."

Making such assumptions, based solely on his own egotistical belief, is a dangerous game - not least for the thousands of victims resulting from those judgements, most notably in Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq is not one of those decisions that requires "God's good time" to evaluate. It was undeniably wrong - unless, of course, you happen to be an Administration stalwart who shuts your eyes to the obvious and believes what the "Party" tells you.

Firstly, it was wrong on the grounds of morality.

George W Bush has often stated that by taking the war to the terrorists he prevented fighting it on American soil. The obvious truth is that he did not take the war to the terrorists. There were no terrorists in Iraq - no al Qaeda - pre-March 2003.

Instead of taking his war to the terrorists, George W Bush took it to the innocent civilians of Iraq where he has since exacted a bloody and unjust revenge for the acts of nineteen Saudi hijackers on 9/11/2001.

Secondly, it was wrong militarily.

History does indeed decide the rights and wrongs of political decisions, but history has already decreed the sheer stupidity of splitting one's military muscle by fighting two wars at once.

"Divide and conquer" is a maxim from history.

The war against the Taliban in Afghanistan has already proved this maxim, not just by the resurgence of Taliban strength in the region, but by the failure of coalition resources to combat the opium trade in that country, which threatens all attempts to promote democracy.

Helmand province is the largest opium producing region in Afghanistan. In December 2005, Andrew North, a BBC reporter based in Helmand wrote:

".....after a small drop in Helmand's opium cultivation this year - according to UN figures - many fear a sharp increase next year. If that happens, the British and US governments will take much of the flak. Together they have been leading international efforts to tackle the problem.
Hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of British and US taxpayers' money have been spent. But it's mostly been water off a duck's back to a business that is deeply rooted and underpins the still war-ravaged Afghan economy - especially in remote places like Helmand.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair recently admitted that his government had little to show for four years of effort since the fall of the Taleban."

Today, a UN report into opium production in Afghanistan states:

"Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan is expected to soar by 59% this year, providing 92% of the world's supply of opium."

According to today's BBC News website:

" The UN Office on Drugs and Crime predicted a 6,100-tonne harvest of opium, with much of the rise coming in Taleban strongholds in the south."[Helmand province]

The report states:

"The Vienna-based Office on Drugs and Crime said in its report that poppy cultivation in Helmand province alone, which has seen a sharp rise in Taleban-led attacks on international troops, had risen by 162% since last year." [my bold]

Back in June of this year, Paul Danahar, the BBC's South Asia bureau editor, wrote:

"Five years after being kicked out of Kabul, the fact that the Taleban aren't consigned to the dustbin of history is, critics say, an indictment of the failures of the international community. Afghans believe the war in Iraq is the biggest reason. The American resources that could have transformed Afghanistan and secured the whole country from a Taleban resurgence were instead diverted into toppling Saddam Hussein and then trying to deal with the terrible mess that followed. Only a couple of hundred US troops were left in places like Helmand and they were focused on catching one man, Osama Bin Laden.
Special forces are trained to kill, and that's about it. In the south, what one Afghan described to me as their 'Shoot first and don't bother with the questions' approach alienated the local population.
British officials acknowledge privately that the Americans did little more than carry out raiding parties against the Taleban and al-Qaeda." [my bold]

The inescapable conclusion is that George W Bush's decision to invade Iraq has resulted in:

a) Thousands of innocent civilian deaths in that country.

b) The unnecessary loss of around 2,000 coalition troops, with tens of thousands more suffering permanent injuries.

c) A serious dilution of effort in the real war on terror - against the trainers of those responsible for, and planners of, 9/11 - namely the Taliban in Afghanistan.

d) The resultant escalation in recruitment for Islamic terrorist organizations that has resulted from:

1) the oppression of an innocent nation for the crimes of another, and

2) the continuing and unflinching support of the West for Israel in its oppression of Arabs both in Palestine and Lebanon.

In spite of which, George W Bush still insists God and history will judge his presidency a success.

Filed under: Dogmatism

Day Of Protest........

2006-08-31T19:02:00.000-05:00

September 1st is "Impeach Day" when thousands of bloggers are expected to replace their home page with THIS.

All Americans citizens have the right to display their feelings towards their President in this way, if they choose to do so.

While "Sparrow Chat" is a US-based blog, the writer is not an American citizen, nor ever intends to be. Because of this he feels unable to join other Americans in demanding the impeachment of George W Bush on charges of war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

"Sparrow Chat" will, however, be taking part in the day of protest, but in a manner the writer feels is in keeping with his conscience.

Filed under: Impeachment

It's Getting Better.......

2006-08-30T10:40:00.000-05:00

The "official" US and UK version of events in Iraq states, "It's getting better."

"Operation Together Forward", the latest attempt to control sectarian violence in Baghdad is working, according to "official sources".

The latest figures show........

Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths

May 2006 - 1119
June - 870
July - 1280
August - 1046

US Military Fatalities

May 2006 - 69
June - 61
July - 43
August - 61*

......that it isn't.

*Figures provided by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count

Filed under: Iraq war dead

Head In The Sand - Or Ready To Kick Butt?

2006-08-29T19:47:00.000-05:00

Paul Cruzten won the 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. He is a brilliant scientist with a first rate knowledge of atmospherics. He is proposing that one way to combat global warming is to inject into the atmosphere at regular intervals, large quantities of sulphur.

But as George Monbiot suggests in today's Guardian (reproduced here in his own blog) this may not be a very good idea.

Now both George Monbiot and Paul Crutzen know a great deal more about this subject than yours truly, but frankly....well, I'm with Monbiot on this one. Sorry, Mister Crutzen, it was man who got this planet into the mess it's in - by pumping our waste products into the sky - and to meddle even more with that minutely thin layer that gives us all life seems like a darned bad idea to me.

Paul Crutzen says that asking politicians to fix the problem, by taking steps to reduce those waste products, hasn't been terribly productive and so an alternative should be considered. George Monbiot details why that is flawed thinking.

No, quite simply, what has to be done must be done by us. You and me, the "ordinary man and woman in the street."

But what can we do as individuals, I hear you cry plaintively?

I'm not suggesting you turn off the air conditioning all summer, or the furnace through the winter; nor am I telling you to stop driving your car and walk the forty miles to work.

No, if we are going to save our planet - and as a side issue of that, ourselves - we need to kick the butts of the politicians, and keep kicking them harder and harder until they do something about it.

Is global warming an election issue in your household? It damn well should be. If it isn't the most pressing subject on your agenda when you go to the voting booth in November, then you should be ashamed of yourself. Likely, it won't be you that gets washed away in future floods. It may not be you who dies of thirst when the water runs out, or gets killed in the plethora of predicted earthquakes. No - it will be those little kids of yours that you lovingly wave off to school each morning, or if they are fortunate enough to survive, it may well be their kids - your grandkids - that are the victims.

This is not a matter that may go away if you ignore it for long enough. Ostrichs with their heads in the sand will suffer the same fate as your children and grandchildren.

The politicians you regularly elect are ostriches with their chubby little heads buried up to their necks in political sand. They hope it will go away.

It won't.

Only you can make a difference. Only you can tell your politician:

"Do something about global warming. Do more than you're doing."

(Which is NOTHING, despite what they will claim.) "Oh, yes, Missus Jones, well you know we're......"

Stop him there! Right there. Tell him its not enough; you want MORE!

Get the message across - for your kids sake!

Filed under: People power