Little Wolf's World

Labels: Commentary

Labels: Personal

I have debated how I wanted to post this.  Did I want to discuss some of the points in the article or just post it and let it stand with out comment as I have discussed some of the issues in previous posts.

I have decided to post it without further comment at this time.  Though I probably will make some comments next week on the issues I find it necessary to comment on.

The following is the text of an article that appears on CNN.com and is an interview of President Ahmadinejad.  The following link is to the original article for any who wish to see the original. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/21/cnna.ahmedinejad/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he is surprised American politicians are so pro-Israel, and he again expressed doubt that the Holocaust is a historically established fact.
The Iranian leader also insisted his country is cooperating on nuclear inspections. In an exclusive interview, he spoke Wednesday with CNN's Anderson Cooper via a translator.
COOPER: At the U.N., you spoke with great passion of -- of brotherhood, of peace and respect for all nations.
Yet, in Tehran last year, you spoke about wiping Israel ... off the face of the map. That doesn't sound to many people in the United States ... like great respect for other nations.
Do you want to wipe Israel off the face of the map?
AHMADINEJAD: I'm surprised why American politicians are so sensitive and biased with regard to Israel. ... Is there a relationship, to speak with such prejudice? (Watch Iran's president question U.S. sensitivity on Israel -- 14:28)
Everyone is prevented about questioning the regime. Whenever a question is raised, some American politicians react very strongly to it, whereas we know there's a lot being said about many countries around the world.
Lebanon was bombarded. In Ghana, people were killed with laser bombs. But it doesn't seem to have created concern among American politicians as much. But when somebody questions or criticizes the Zionist regime, there's so much reaction. Could you tell me why this is the case?
I would think it would be a good question to ask from American politicians, the extent of the prejudice we see with them about Israel, given the massacres committed by Israel, killing people in their own homes. Should they not be subject to criticism? Should nobody complain and raise objections about the violations of rights and the murders that they commit? Are they free to do such acts?
Should they not act within the framework of any law?
COOPER: To some in America, though, that is going to sound like you're not answering the question. ... The question really is, do you believe Israel has a right to exist?
AHMADINEJAD: I say that it is an occupying regime.
We say we must -- you must allow the Palestinian nation to decide for itself what its fate should be. There are 5 million displaced Palestinians, 4 million who live under the threat of bombardments, or actual bombardments and attacks.
So, let Palestinian people decide for themselves. We support the vote of the people. And whatever the result is, we must all accept. Why should there be objection to this proposal, or ... with the vote of the people to indicate their will? Don't the people in Palestine have the right to live? Are they not human beings? They live in their own homeland. In their own homeland, they are under attack.
COOPER: The same statement could be said of Jewish people in Israel, that they're living in what they say is their homeland. Don't they have a right to exist?
AHMADINEJAD: Yes, in Palestine, there were a group of Jews that live. But where did they come afterward, the larger groups that came to Palestine?
We know what the trend was. A group of people came from other places to that land. Where does the father of Mr. [Ehud] Olmert come from, for example? Some of the ministers in Israel are in fact of Iranian origin, with no background, historical background, in Palestine. But they're there, ruling.
COOPER: So, you're saying, really, they don't belong there; they should go somewhere else?
AHMADINEJAD: I am saying, let the Palestinian people decide. The Palestinian people should decide what to do.
And among Palestinians, there are Jews, Muslims and Christians. Our question is, what about the rights of the Palestinian people? They lived there, and they were displaced and forced to leave their own homeland, under the threat of a gun, and, regretfully, with the support of the American government.
What is happening to the Palestinians? Do they not have the right? Shouldn't we be thinking about that? Their young people are being killed on the streets. Homes are being destroyed over their heads, even in Gaza, even in the West Bank.
After all, they are human beings, too. They have ... the right to life and to live in their own homeland. Others have come from far and beyond, and are now there ruling there and governing that land.
Why did they go there? They should return to where they came from. Or, even if they don't, they should at least allow the Palestinian nation to decide about that and the future.
So what I'm saying is quite clear. We want peace to be established there. We care for the Jews who live under pressure there as well, because they too are living outside their own homes, from where they belong, their homeland, actually. That is not their homeland.
COOPER: You have repeatedly implied that the Holocaust never happened. And ... implied that more research needs to be done on whether or not it did happen.
... The argument could be made that the genocide was perhaps the most well-documented genocide of the 20th century. Do you really believe that the Holocaust never happened?
AHMADINEJAD: If this event happened, where did it happen? The where is the main question. And it was not in Palestine. Why is the Holocaust used as a pretext to occupy the Palestinian lands?
COOPER: But do you understand why it's deeply offensive to people. ...
AHMADINEJAD: That subject, how is it connected to the occupying regime in Jerusalem?
COOPER: You do realize though why it would be deeply offensive to so many people that ... you even say "if it ever happened"?
AHMADINEJAD: Well, you don't speak here for all Americans. In the past two or three days, I have met with many members of the media and the press here, some who are even related to the U.S. government. But the questions are the same across the board.
COOPER: Why can't you believe there was a Holocaust and support Palestinians?
AHMADINEJAD: No, that's not a reason at all.
The subject of the Holocaust is a different subject. I raised two or three questions that were very clear about it. I said that, in World War II, 60 million people lost their lives. They were killed. Two million of them were noncivilians, so to say, military. The rest were civilian populations.
And they all lost their lives. Their lives were all cared for and respected. But why is it that we concentrate so much on the lives of a group among the 60 million?
The second question is, assuming that this happened, why don't they allow more research and studies to be done about it? If it is a truth that happened, then we will need more clarity about it. And they ... must be impartial groups, or whoever who is interested should be able to do the research. Why is that prevented?
COOPER: President Bush, at the U.N. ... tried to speak directly to the Iranian people yesterday. And he said ...
AHMADINEJAD: Did you get the answer you wanted about the Holocaust?
COOPER: No, I didn't, but I know my time is limited.
It is a fascinating subject. ...
AHMADINEJAD: Are you asking the questions that are on your mind or questions that are given to you by others?
COOPER: Actually, in America, we have a free press, unlike in parts of Iran.
But I'm asking the questions that I'm interested in. But I know your time is short. ... Frankly, I would love to talk to you for two hours. But ...
AHMADINEJAD: Well, given that all the questions are very similar, it speaks for itself.
It seems to me that Mr. Bush fails to understand the reality of the world today, the conditions that beset the world today. This is not the kind of language you speak talking with a great nation. It's an insult to a great nation. I don't know what he is actually thinking, when he makes remarks like that. I invite him to speak for half an hour with our nation every day. And everyone will listen to what he has to say, but nothing will be resolved. (Watch how Ahmadinejad, Bush engage in a war of words -- 2:33)
COOPER: He gave his message to the Iranian people. What is your message to the American people? What do you want them to know about Iran, about you?
AHMADINEJAD: Our message is a message of peace and brotherhood with all nations, with all people. And we like all nations and people. We are against oppression and injustice. And we love the American people, as we love our own. We respect everyone. And to clarify issues, I called Mr. Bush to debate. I propose that we sit and have a debate to talk about our positions, to discuss issues and allow everyone around the world to hear the debate. ... It was a great suggestion, I think, because I believe that, after all, it is the public opinion, the world public opinion, that must have information and decide.
COOPER: Your ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, today, speaking at the [U.N.] General Assembly, called President Bush a devil and said that he smelled sulfur.
I'm wondering what you think of his comments and whether you smelled any sulfur when you were speaking at the General Assembly.
AHMADINEJAD: Do you want to interview me or Mr. Chavez, perhaps?
COOPER: You have no thoughts on his comments?
AHMADINEJAD: I think that the United Nations offers a podium for everyone. And everybody can speak of what they think. So let's keep it open.
COOPER: You said at the U.N. yesterday that your nuclear program is, quote, "transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors." That's not what [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors have said. In a recent report they have said that they frankly cannot verify the peaceful nature of your program and that it is not transparent.
Why not just open up the program and fulfill all the requirements that the IAEA would like?
AHMADINEJAD: They said that they did not find any evidence or sign, although they must continue inspections. And they're welcome to continue inspections at all times.
COOPER: The report that ...
AHMADINEJAD: The IAEA has declared that on numerous occasions in fact. And we know that that is not the first time they've stated that.
COOPER: The report that I read in August said Iran has not addressed the long outstanding verification issues or provided the necessary transparency to remove uncertainties associated with some of its activities. [IAEA chief] Mohamed ElBaradei was quoted as saying that he can't give you a clean bill of health yet.
AHMADINEJAD: Perhaps the report that you had and saw is incomplete. The IAEA has indicated that it has found no evidence that would show that Iran is developing a nuclear energy for other purposes that are other than peaceful.
So I like to ask ... are you positive that the United States of America in fact has not diverted from its own nuclear programs to develop, perhaps nuclear devices, that are not for peaceful purposes? The United States, are you telling me, is not building a nuclear bomb? Are you not concerned about that?
... There has been no evidence saying that we are doing any such activities. Then why should there be a furor of concern among people, among groups? But please, go on.
COOPER: But well, you say that, without a doubt, your program is for peaceful purposes. ... The IAEA report I read said that they've not had all the interviews they would like to have. They've not had all the documentation they would like to have.
Are you willing to provide them everything that they say they would like? Or do you feel it's inappropriate that they are pushing too much?
AHMADINEJAD: We're working within the framework of international laws. They might, for example, choose to interview me personally. But that would be stepping beyond the framework of international law.
So they have to tell us exactly what provisions of the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] they're speaking of which they believe we have not abided by. There's no such case. They are interested in getting more information. And we're ready to cooperate with them and provide them with all information within the framework of international law.

Labels: Commentary

I had been thinking about addressing the comments of Hugo Chavez at the UN earlier today. And since someone, sarcastically based on the ‘tone’ of the comment, asked for the comment here are my initial thoughts.

I am really rather blasé about President Chavez’s comments. I don’t think they were particularly appropriate to the forum that they were made in, but on the other hand you have to look at the source of the comments as well. Hugo was playing to his ‘constituency’ in the Third World. He was trying, and probably succeeded, in gaining points at Junior’s expense.

In truth I don’t feel what he was attempting to accomplish was really all that different from what President Bush, or other speakers for that matter, are attempting to do in a forum like this. They are trying to communicate with a real constituency at home or a perceived constituency around the world. (And probably both.) President Bush communicated about the ‘War on Terror’ and about ‘democracies in the Middle East.’ (In Iraq and Afghanistan) This was aimed at the 35% to 40% of the US population that makes up the basic constituency of the President, and it was also an attempt to demoralize the ‘terrorist elements’ in the Muslim countries.

I wonder if anyone would have really taken any notice of the ‘Bush as the devil’ comments if say a less vocal ruler of a small ‘Unaligned Nation’ were the one to say it. Probably they would, but the question would then be, would anybody really care?

Labels: Commentary

Yesterday on my way to my review class from work, I heard Ed Shultz talking about the documentary Jesus Camp that is coming out this weekend in New York and LA.  Some of the things that were being reported in the article he was reading from were . . .  not the most encouraging things I have ever heard on a religious front.

I had a discussion with my wife about the situation and for a class she is taking we decided I would do a bit more research on the story.  The information I found was less troublesome to me than the article that I had heard yesterday.   The one thing I did read that I found rather frightening was that the leader of the organization that runs the camp that Jesus Camp was filmed at, Pastor Becky Fischer, brags that she could walk on to any playground full of children and begin to talk to them and have the entire playground of children following her ideas in a very short period of time.  If this is true it concerns me on several levels:

1. This shows an incredible lack of religious education in our children.  After all if a stranger can convince them that they are missing something spiritual from their lives, what could people who know these children and work with them regularly do for them.


2. Another is that it opens up a wide range of possibilities for charismatic people who have less divinely inspired goals in mind. (Child molesters and ‘hate merchants’ come to mind immediately.)  


3. The third is that there is the very real possibility that Pastor Fischer could be ‘manipulated’ by someone as well.

Today on my way home from work Ed was interviewing Pastor Fischer.  She was very well spoken and dispelled some of my earlier fears of the situation from things that I had read.  The only problem was that she gave me the creeps listening to her talk about her mission.  It was nothing particular that she said that caused the feeling just sort of made me feel uncomfortable.

Labels: Commentary

Perhaps one of you could explain this to me.

I am simply expressing my view of events, but a number of you feel the need to insult me.  Why?  If you disagree with something I have said, respond to the point.  Insulting me does nothing but make me laugh at the childishness. (I must say that I do get a good kick out of it, but I don’t understand the reasoning.)

As the tag-line says – this is MY optic view of a myopic world.  I am open minded and willing to discuss the issues, but all I am getting is moronic comments.  Maybe the problem is you are just over whelmed by my brilliance.  (Okay I doubt that, but I would much rather you express your own opinions and give me something to think about rather than insult me.

Labels: Commentary

When the story about the tainted spinach broke the other day, I jokingly said to my wife that I thought this was Al-Qa'eda's next terror attack. That they had watched to many Popeye cartoons and thought that by making people sick with E. Coli on Spinach that it would weaken us and they would be over to defeat us like Brutus always beats Popeye before he has the spinach.

Now I am off.

Labels: Commentary

His Highness made several speeches this past week, and my basic thought was "AND?"

He has yet to really say anything new, he just runs around like a dog chasing his tail. My wife's reaction was that he is beginning to sound like a dictator. My favorite comment was his discussion the other day about Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions when he said to a reporter something to the effect of 'You can come with whatever hypothetical senario's you want, we need this clarified or the program will stop.' Does he really believe that if we define Article 3 to include sometypes of physical abuses to a prisoner that other countries won't do the same?

I am also not sure I understand what his problem with Article 3 is, while I haven't read the text, I have heard it read in the media and it seems pretty clear cut. It really comes down to not violating the human rights of other people. Or perhaps - do onto others as you have them do unto you (or yours.)

It appears that this Administration may truly be one of the shortest sighted Administrations in the history of the country. It also appears that the people who were in the Nixon Administration who are now holding positions learned all the wrong lessons from the Nixon Administration.

One final question to anyone who supports all of this expansion of Presidential powers: Do you support Jr. having these powers because you trust him, or because you truly believe that the Office of the President should have these powers? Or put another way, will you still want the Office of the President to have these powers in 2 years IF Hillary Clinton were to be elected President? (And if not Hillary, pick someone that YOU would not want to be President.)

As a complete aside, does anyone look at a product that says "New and Improved" or "Now Tastes Better" and wonder how they possible could have sold such a crappy product before. (One product, the Hershey's S'mores bar, I think tasted better before they improved it.) Well I am off, I do have something else to do today.

Labels: Commentary

Some wonderful individual continually 'attacks' me about my spending time blogging while at work. Frankly I find this rather amusing as I have not done much blogging since the beginning of the year, and if I have posted anything during the work day, it would have been during lunchtime while I was eating.

Having said all of that I had a visitor on Wednesday who spent almost 3 hours here, and apears to have had a long senseless conversation with themselves. Talk about a hugh waste of time and effort. Although the person was moderately entertaining, and I had great fun this morning reading through the posts. I hope whom ever you are that you had fun doing it, it seems like you probably got great entertainment out of it.

Labels: Personal

This is something I have wanted to do for a while. The following quote is from the movie 'The American President.' I have presented the quoted in its entirety, but the bold faced portions are what I really wanted to 'get out of my system.' (The following quote was copied from imdb.com.) (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0112346/quotes)


The following is stated by President Andrew Shepard near the end of the movie at a press conference: "For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was, to a certain extent, about character, and although I have not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I've been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character. For the record: yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. But the more important question is why aren't you, Bob? Now, this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question: Why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the Constitution? If you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter than I am, because I didn't understand it until a couple of minutes ago. America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free". I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it. (Nobody has ever won an election by talking about what I was just talking about. This is a country made up of people with hard jobs that they're terrified of losing. The roots of freedom are of little or no interest to them at the moment. We are a nation afraid to go out at night. We're a society that has assigned low priority to education and has looked the other way while our public schools have been decimated.) We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious men to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, friend, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and personal character. And you hold up an old photo of the President's girlfriend. You scream about patriotism and you tell them she's to blame for their lot in life, and you go on television and you call her a whore. Sydney Ellen Wade has done nothing to you, Bob. She has done nothing but put herself through law school, prosecute criminals for five years, represent the interests of public school teachers for two years, and lobby for the safety of our natural resources. You want a character debate, Bob? You better stick with me, 'cause Sydney Ellen Wade is way out of your league. I've loved two women in my life. I lost one to cancer, and I lost the other 'cause I was so busy keeping my job I forgot to do my job. Well, that ends right now. Tomorrow morning, the White House is sending a bill to Congress for its consideration. It's White House Resolution 455, an energy bill requiring a 20 percent reduction of the emission of fossil fuels over the next ten years. It is by far the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of global warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out. I'm throwing it out. I'm throwing it out and I'm writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and handguns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns. We've got serious problems, and we need serious men to solve them, and if you want to talk about character, Bob, you'd better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American values, fine. Just tell me where and when, and I'll show up. This is a time for serious men, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up. My name is Andrew Shepherd, and I am the President. "

First a not the portion of the text that is underlined and in parenthesis is not, to my knowledge, in the final cut of the movie, I have left it intact so that anyone checking this against the imdb site will see that the text is presented in its entirety.

The first point that is made that I believe is important to any political discussion is that character is important to any office. That being said we shall move to the next sentence.

The second section deals with the upholding of the Constitution. I, and numerous others, have continually discussed the idea of the current administration upholding the Constitution. I have bolded this portion because I think the question is important to think about in a general sense. Why does anyone in this country who has run for elected office not want to uphold the Constitution? I am not really sure.

The next segment that I have bolded is a discussion of the 'citizenship requirements' of the United States. Oddly, we have many people in this country who have no desire to be involved in the political process, even as far as voting. Our freedoms are protected by being involved in the process. (And by the military, but that is another discussion altogether.) Prior to the last election I was involved in an email group that was discussing a wide variety of politically charged topics. It was actually quite interesting. I did lose interest in the discussion group though, partially because several people who were expressing their opinions were not voters. While you have the right to have an opinion and to not vote, I personally find it frustrating to discuss issues with people who are not even taking the time to express their opinion in the most important way in this country.

The final segment I think is important because it is the way the Bush Administration has been proceeding with electioneering since it was elected. The more they scare the population, the more they believe the population will vote Republican. Will see if they can get it to work one more time. I tend to think they will not be successful, but that is just my opinion.

Have a good evening all. I will be back sometime this week.

Labels: Commentary

1. I am sorry about not posting much recently. I have been running around (it feels like in circles) taking care of a number of things. In addition I had problems with my dial-up access, that has been resolved by getting a cable modem. I now have the ability to actually work on the internet at home.

2. I am tired of listening to the Unitary Executive (UE) mispronounce words. It isn't folksy, and it isn't genuine, it is just annoying. I am also tired of hearing him say the phrase " The War on Terror" in such a way as to make me think we are attacking the plantation home from Gone with the Wind.

3. Hasn't the UE gotten tired of promoting the 'War in Iraq' and watching his poll numbers go down further. I am beginning to think that he wants to lose at least one of the Houses of Congress. (Doesn't make sense to me, but then I am not Karl 'The Brain' Rove.) And I wish to state for the record, again, that I was not, and still am not, opposed to the idea of going/having gone, in to Iraq. The problem I have is that this Administration couldn't plan a way off a flat piece of cardboard without something they couldn't have forseen happening.

4. I am glad that the 'War in Lebanon' is over, but I really wish that the Israeli Administration would have either commited to destroying Hezbu-Allah, or not gone in at all. It seems they are taking war planning from the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld team.

5. I really think that the President of Iran ( I didn't attempt his name because it would be misspelled) is rather amusing. Frightening, but amusing. I will give him credit for a couple of things though. He is more adept at making allies around the world than our 'Great and Glorious Leader.' He seems to get a better response from his own citizens, though this may be more fear of being arrested and executed than that he is actually connecting. And finally, he seems to be able to actually get a point across when giving a speach. (I wonder if he mispronounces words.)

6. The UE is as much a cowboy as I am. This putz is a Connecticut Yankee through and through. And like much of 'his' Administration, as big a chicken hawk as they come. I guess it would be pretty easy to say, "Under my watch, we will not give up territory to the terrorists," and " Stay the course." After all, he has next to nothing on the line. He has a terrible reputation, he has no future elections to loose, and finally looks like a complete idiot. What worse could happen to him.

7. I was asked for my opinion, a short time ago, on the 'Portly PM' and his situation. I feel bad for his family, and I am not sure exactly what is expect by trying to keep his body going. He died when he had the massive stroke months ago, now they are just prolonging the agony for the family.

8. I read somewhere today that Tony Blair is planning to step down with in 1 year. It's a shame really, he seems like a pretty likable guy. He just can't seem to look at the UE and see him as the putz he is.

9. Two quick 'aniversaries' I want to mention. 1st about 5 weeks ago we reached our first birthday here at Little Wolf's World. I am kind of proud of that. 2nd, it was just over a year ago that I had to put MY cat (or perhaps I was his human, whatever) to sleep. While I am not 'upset' about it any more, I do miss him and his unique character. Our little Lynx Point Siamese is nice and cute, but not quite the same. (Our other cat is, for lack of a nice way to say it, pretty much a fur lump. She is beautiful, but all she does is lie around and sleep.

10. Final thought for the day. I was very sorry to hear about Steve 'The Crocodile Hunter' Irwin's death. I was not really a big fan of his, frankly I found a bit on the annoying side. (Sort of like the puppy that won't leave you alone.) But I still respected him for what he did. I don't think I would want to be in the range of any number of the animals that he dealt with regularly. I have seem several reports of people (Germaine Greer, I believe that is the correct spelling, in particular today) bashing him for what he did. My response, I didn't have to like him to respect him, and I feel very bad for both of his children. (Not to mention father, wife and other family.) I was young when my father died, and it was always hard on me. (Even now at times.)

Well I am off to dinner. Have a good one and I will be back soon.

Labels: Personal