Stand Up and Speak Out

Tortured democracy by Sharon Kayne

Torturing terror suspects has even been justified by pointing out that these are people who would do the same to us. Therein lies the greatest tragedy. When we treat terrorists as they treat us, we become terrorists ourselves.

We claim to be fighting a war on terror, but what we’re really fighting is a war of fear. We have allowed the Sept. 11 hijackers to pull us down to their level. We’ve allowed ourselves to be led astray, to cast off our humanity, our lofty ideals — our very souls — by the fear that such men could attack us again. This fear allows us to rationalize treating others in ways we cannot imagine being treated ourselves. It allows us to rationalize turning our backs on the very doctrines that make this country great.

Our government has not only committed war crimes in our name and with our money, but with our tacit consent as well. Where is our outrage? Our moral indignation? Perhaps, as a country, we lost it just as Sen. Durbin did — when we lost our nerve. When we forfeit our duty to stand up and speak out, we forfeit our right to live free ourselves. This is what we should truly fear.

Let freedom howl

ABQjournal: Wolf Supporters Speak Out By Tania Soussan, Journal Staff Writer

Wolves have a place in the wild, and ranchers must find ways to live with them, supporters of the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction program said at a public meeting Saturday in Albuquerque.

“If you’re going to graze on public lands, you’re going to do it at your own risk,” said Oscar Simpson, New Mexico Wildlife Federation president.

He and Dave Foreman, an Albuquerque resident and director of The Rewilding Institute, said the government should buy out the grazing leases of ranchers who don’t want to continue running livestock on public lands where there are wolves.

“This comes down to a philosophical debate that’s not resolvable between those of us who love the wolf and those who hate the wolf,” Foreman said.

The tone of the meeting was far different from that in Reserve on Wednesday night when dozens of ranchers blasted the wolf reintroduction program. On Saturday, many in the audience were sporting wolf T-shirts and “More Wolves, Less Politics” buttons.

About 60 people turned out for the 21/2-hour meeting, the last of four held around New Mexico last week to discuss proposed new rules and a recent review of the wolf reintroduction effort.
=====

alibi . june 30 – july 6, 2005
The Joys of Wolf Music
Hearings provide great free entertainment
By Jim Scarantino

Then there’s the “true fact” that wolves kill the high number of cattle that ranchers claim at these hearings.

Defenders of Wildlife has long had a program that compensates ranchers at generous rates for any cattle lost to “depredation,” meaning wolves mixed a little hamburger into their diet of deer, elk and rabbits. It’s easy money, with one catch: The cow must actually have been killed by a wolf. Losing a cow in a million acres of wilderness to a mountain lion, poacher, broken leg, disease, starvation or dehydration doesn’t count. That little snag explains why the stories about steak-loving wolves are always impressive at the hearings, where excitement counts more than truth.

Though ranchers have set the anti-wolf agenda for Catron County and other rural areas, ranching makes only a small, perhaps even an insignificant, contribution to New Mexico’s overall economic picture. Most of the jobs in Catron County, like the rest of the state, are in the growing service sector. The county’s greatest employer is government–schools and highway workers, and the feds at the Forest Service and National Park Service.

You won’t find a beef packing plant in Catron County, but you can find enterprises producing New Age health and beauty products and increasingly more artists and retirees. You can also find new bed and breakfasts, outfitters and restaurants catering to the thousands of visitors coming to Catron County to enjoy the beauty of the federally protected Gila Wilderness. Some of those people actually come looking for–gasp–wolves.

There will probably be more wolf hearings in the future. With no disrespect to the New Mexico Legislature, it’s some of the best free entertainment in New Mexico.

So if you hanker for tall tales, manly lingo and a taste of disappearing cowboy culture, check one out. Be sure to press your jeans and wear a cowboy hat. But best leave that UNM Lobos T-shirt at home. And then sneak out at night in hopes of something far better: the hair-raising wolf music that even ranchers will admit is worth hearing at least once in a lifetime.

Merri and I had that experience of a lifetime in central Idaho on the edge of the Frank Church Wilderness. Awesome. (But I love the more common collective cacophony of coyotes, too.)

Just this week, a friend wrote to say she was lucky enough to hear the wolves in the San Mateos before they were captured. The wolves want to be there.

Let freedom howl. mjh

Napalm in Iraq

ZNet |Iraq | Covering up Napalm in Iraq by Mike Whitney

Two weeks ago the UK Independent ran an article which confirmed that the US had “lied to Britain over the use of napalm in Iraq”. (6-17-05) Since then, not one American newspaper or TV station has picked up the story even though the Pentagon has verified the claims. This is the extent to which the American “free press” is yoked to the center of power in Washington. …

“Despite persistent rumors of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm” the Pentagon insisted that “US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.” (UK Independent)

The Pentagon lied.

Defense Minister, Adam Ingram, admitted that the US had misled the British high-command about the use of napalm, but he would not comment on the extent of the cover up. The use of firebombs puts the US in breach of the 1980 Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons (CCW) and is a violation the Geneva Protocol against the use of white phosphorous, “since its use causes indiscriminate and extreme injuries especially when deployed in an urban area.”
=====

The New Napalm in Iraq (News) Barb Jacobs

On its website, the US State Department denies reports that napalm-like weapons were used in Fallujah, but confirms that “Mark-77 firebombs … were used against enemy positions in 2003,” and maintains that it has not used any illegal weapons in Iraq.

The Independent says the US has sidestepped the UN Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons, which banned the use of incendiary weapons against civilians, by claiming the firebombs were used only against military targets. Then again, the US didn’t really have to get around it, as it’s not a party to the convention anyway.
=====

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US misled UK over Iraq fire bombs

US Marines dropped 30 Mark 77 fire bombs between March 31 and April 2 2003 “against military targets away from civilian areas”. In a letter to Michael Ancram, shadow defence secretary, Mr Reid also says: “The MK77 does not have the same composition as napalm, although it has similar destructive characteristics.”

He adds the Pentagon had also told the government that “owing to the limited accuracy of the MK77, it is not generally used in urban terrain or in areas where civilians are congregated”. Mr Reid points out Britain is bound by convention not to use incendiary weapons against military targets located within concentrations of civilians.

He continues: “US policy in relation to international conventions is a matter for the US government, but all of our allies are aware of their obligations under international humanitarian law.”

Mr Ancram said the issue raised questions “about the quality of our communications with our US allies”, and has asked Mr Reid to explain. …

When reports surfaced, the Pentagon separated “napalm” from “firebombs”. According to GlobalSecurity.org, MK77s “function identical to earlier MK77 napalm weapons” using kerosene rather than benzene.

Happy Fourth of July

Counterbias: More Democratic Treason by Ted Baiamonte, R E P U B L I C A N V I E W

So why do liberals hate America? The answer is simple: America, since the Revolution, has been mostly about freedom from government and therefore about freedom from Democrats. Throughout American History the Democrats have always been for less and less freedom from government despite the hundred million or so dead bodies government has caused during that period. One has to consider that their philosophical illegitimacy is what makes their loyalty so questionable and their style so nasty and seemingly treasonous. They want to belong here but the facts always paint them as anti-American. In a way you have to feel sorry for the painful position in which they find themselves, but you also have to wonder why it is that they seem to have an absolute inability to learn to think?

Let’s think about Baiamonte’s observations. Democrats/liberals love government and yet are at the same time disloyal and treasonous (treason is a betrayal of government). Mr Baiamonte loves freedom from government, and is a Republican, the party that gave us the USA Patriot Act.

Above all, ask yourself this Fourth of July what makes liberals anti-American? That we speak freely. Welcome to 1984. mjh

PS: I look forward to responses from red-blooded Republicans denouncing the evil lies of Baiamonte — lies designed to vilify and quash any dissent. I won’t be holding my breath.

Google Search: Ted Baiamonte