|
|
Looking for a place that can host an audio file for a friend.
I don't know yet how large the file will be. It's a family history interview from 30 years ago, and I haven't gotten the actual tape or file yet.
The site has to support password protection. Preferably the site should not require vistors to register. My friend will e-mail all 60 or so of his relatives with the password, but he'd rather they not have to sign up.
I know we have a bunch of photo types here.
I have a number of image files for my family history research, ranging from scanned photos to downloaded document images.
I know that JPG is lossy and thus losses data. TIF is really big it seems and PNG doesn't apparently allow tags to be added to the file.
How bad is the data loss with JPG? Clarity of some documents is poor to start with.
I also have to fit lot of these files on a single CD for sharing of family history, so JPG is nice in that regard.
Got this from Tracing the Tribe blog, http://dnashoah.org/The DNA Shoah Project is building a database of genetic material from Holocaust survivors and their immediate descendants in hopes of reuniting families disrupted by the Shoah (“Holocaust” in Hebrew). The Project aims to match displaced relatives, provide Shoah orphans and lost children with information about their biological families and, eventually, assist in the forensic identification of Holocaust-era remains.
This is part 1 of 3 or 4. Helps to know some of the in jokes. Sun, Jun. 15th, 2008, 03:58 pm
More books
Just finished the Axis of Time trilogy by John Birminghan. Weapons of Choice, Designated Targets and Final Impact. Quick and intersting reading.
Thu, Jun. 5th, 2008, 11:11 pm
books
Finished up "The Tale of Krisopos" by Harry Turtledove a few days ago. It's part of his Vidoss universe. It was originially three books, Krispos Rising, Krispos of Videoss and Krispos the Emperour. I had read the first one years ago in paperback, but couldn't find books 2 and 3 in the used book store or the library. this omnibus recently came out.
Just about finished with "Weapons of Choice" by Birmingham. Interesting alternative history where an early 21st century navy battle group gets dropped in WWII Pacific.
Saw an ad for "Hancock" movie just now. Quick google search found this on youtube
Looks like a neat idea for a super hero character in the comedy style. A true hero who saves the day, but the side effects leave a lot to be desired.
I ran across this article about how our suburbs are going to turn into slums. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/03/14/carollloyd.DTL That got back into reading some stuff about urban design & development. I picked up "Celebration, USA: Living In Disney's Brave New World" by Frantz and Collins. I'm about 3/4 of the way thru and doubt I'l finish. It was written in 1999, a couple years after the town opened. It's an easy read, but I found it relatively uninformative about how such a community works or doesn't work. It's written by some people who claim to be reporters, but they make both mistakes and fill the book with stories. Not much analyis of the town. Their book also pushed how Disney was try to sell small town America. (for some values of small). Projected population was 20,000. As of 2007 population stands at 3,500 or so. Between that book and "How Cities Work" by Alex Marshall I don't see a future for Celebration or similar ideas aimed at redesigning our metro landscape. I have to agree with Marshall that transporation is much more a key issue than the architure that Disney's developers seem to be pushing. They city has a small downtown within "walking distance" of the houses. The stores seem to be limited to upscale establishments and boutiques. If you want to actually shop it's standard suburbs solution of get in the car and get on the highway. Most of the people use cars to cummute alone to work, with apparently few if any jobs actually in the brave new town. From a few websites, and the two books, Celebration seems to be a standard gated exurban community. A look at Google Maps seems to show that it's isolated by high speed roads from the rest of the county. Even at full build out, I somehow suspect that they'll never get the businesses inside the development. The road network is poor to the point that the only people who could shop there would be the residents. The density, even at full build out looks to be to low to support stores that have to compete with the big boxes and malls on the highway. Add in that most people commute to work, they'll stop at places outside the development.
We were having a discussion over at Baen's web forum. (Baen Bar) about beer and conventions. topic drift came up with this.
A super hero who gains powers from drinking Bad beer. Good beer does nothing. Other forms of alcohol do nothing. Nothing really new there, it's Popeye with a different activation agent.
Now, as the hero drinks more beer, the greater his powers. Flip side is that the more he drinks, the more higher brain functions drift away on a cloud of beer. Sat, Aug. 25th, 2007, 03:02 pm
4ed D&D
Finally getting back to reading LiveJournal. Found I could read at least my friends public posts via Google Reader. Also hit the Wizards of the Coast discussion forums again, just in time for the 4th edition announcement. Read over a lot of the pages, looks like it could be interesting. Not that I have to time to run a game, or even play regularly. From the message boards descriptions ... I hope they make characters simpler and faster to make. Fewer choices for individual classes, although likely a lot more classes. It took about 5 minutes to create any class in AD&D. Choose the class, and all the skills came with it. 3rd ed took over an hour with having to balance feats, skills, etc. If I'm going to have a cookie cutter character, let me make it quickly. In other words, I want to see 4td ed less like GURPS and more like AD&D. They are ditching Greyhawk as a default setting. Now it's going to be more dark ages with no great empires and more isolated towns. That sounds interesting. Hopefully the rules will support that bent. Reduce the magic tech availiable that Should have created worlds that are more modern looking. They are also supposedly trying to make race more important at higher levels. There will be more difference between a 15th level dwarf fighter and a 15th level elf fighter. Races will get advantages based upon level / class rather than having race really only be important at 1st level. I doubt they'll do it, but I'd like to see better multiclass or just more classes. The 3.0 apprenctice rules I liked. Regular 3.x multiclass was weak, while AD&D was in some ways to powerful.
Feel free to spread the below article far and wide.
Afterword:
Both John and Tom have served in the Republic of
Panama, John for some weeks while attending the
Jungle School at Fort Sherman, Tom for four and a
half years with Fourth Battalion, Tenth Infantry
(as a sergeant) and Third Battalion, Fifth
Infantry (as a lieutenant). Tom says, “If the place
where you were happiest in life is home, then my
home is Fort William D. Davis, Panama Canal Zone,
with the 4th of the 10th Infantry, from 1977 to
1978.”
It’s a magic place, Panama, and we highly
encourage our readers, or anyone, to visit it. (Did we
play some games with the terrain in support of
the story? You betcha. But Panama is still a
great, wonderful and very beautiful place.)
Can they fight, though? Is the portrayal of the
defense in the book realistic? After all, the
United States took them down in a bit over
twenty-four hours back in 1989. How good could they be?
And that is an interesting question. In 1989, in
Operation Just Cause, the United States launched
a sudden and surprise attack on the then existing
Panama Defense Forces and did crush those forces
in about a day, picking off holdouts over the
next 3-4 days. This would not appear to be a great
recommendation.
That is, it doesn’t appear to be until you look
at the particulars. We hit them in the night,
where we have an overwhelming technological
advantage. We hit them with little or no tactical warning.
We hit them with greater, and in places
overwhelming, numbers and overwhelming firepower, even
though the use of that firepower was somewhat
restrained. Further, we hit them with complete air
supremacy and used that air supremacy to deliver,
over and above the rather large forces we had in
Panama already, three of the best trained, most
lethal infantry battalions in the world, the three
battalions of the 75th Infantry (Ranger)
(Airborne). More forces followed on, later, as well.
The wonder is not that we took them down in a
day, but that they were able to hang on that long.
Indeed, if there’s any wonder in the story it’s
that, even when abandoned by some (one remarkably
loathsome and cowardly wretch, in particular…West
Point…Class of 1980) of their US trained
officers, the others held on and fought.
The wonder is that at their Comandancia, parts of
a couple of Panamanian infantry companies fought
against hopeless odds, nearly to the last man.
There were only five prisoners taken there; and all
of those were wounded. The rest, true to their
duty, died in place. Moreover, they drove us out
of the compound more than once before they were
finally subdued. There were more Texan prisoners
taken at the Alamo.
The wonder is that, despite all those
disadvantages, the PDF managed to inflict about three
casualties on us for every four they took.
Did we mention that some young Panamanian kids
with almost no time in uniform kicked the bejesus
out of a US Navy SEAL team?
So, yes, they’re a tough and a brave people, well
within the western military tradition, and –
properly armed and trained – they can fight.
Of course, the western military tradition,
outside of the US and UK, isn’t what it used to be. Oh,
the formations are still there, some of them.
The weapons are, if anything, better than ever.
Even the men – and women, too, of course – still
have much of what made the West great inside them.
Unfortunately, the West itself has largely fallen
under the control of civilization Dr. Kevorkians.
Some call them “Tranzis.”
“Tranzi” is short for “Transnational Progressive”
or “Transnational Progressivism”. For a more
complete account of their program, look up John
O’Sullivan’s Gulliver’s Travails or some of what
Stephen den Beste has written on the subject. You
might, dear Reader, also look at John Fonte’s The
Ideological War within the West. Lastly, for
purposes of this little essay, look up Lee Harris’ The
Intellectual Origins of America Bashing. These
should give you a good grounding in Tranzism: its
motives, goals and operating techniques. All can
be found on line.
For now, suffice to say that Tranzism is the
successor ideology to failed and discredited
Marxist-Leninism. Many of the most prominent Tranzis are,
in fact, “former” members of various communist
parties, especially European communist parties.
These have taken the failure of the Soviet Union
personally and hard, and, brother, are they bitter
about it.
Nonetheless, our purpose here is not to write up
“Tranzism 101”. It is to illustrate the Tranzi
approach to the laws of war.
That’s right, boys and girls. Pull up a chair.
Grab a stool. Cop a squat. Light ‘em if you’ve
got ‘em. (If not, bum ‘em off Ringo; Kratman’s
fresh out.)
It’s lecture time.
One of the difficult things about analyzing
Tranzis and their works is that they are not a
conspiracy. What they are is a consensus. Don’t be
contemptuous; civilization is nothing more than a
consensus. So is barbarism. Moreover, the Tranzis
are a fairly cohesive consensus, especially on
certain ultimate core issues. Nonetheless, if you
are looking for absolute logical consistency on
the part of Tranzis you will search in vain.
On the other hand, at the highest level, the
ultimate Tranzi goal, there is complete agreement.
They want an end to national sovereignty and they
want global governance by an unelected,
self-chosen “elite”. Much of what they say and do will
make no sense, even in Tranzi terms, unless that is
borne in mind.
Below that ultimate level one cannot expect
tactical logical consistency. Things are neither good
nor bad, true nor false, except insofar as they
support the ultimate Tranzi goal.
For example, if one were to ask a Tranzi, and
especially a female and feminist Tranzi, about the
propriety of men having any say over a woman’s
right to an abortion the Tranzi would probably be
scandalized. After all, men don’t even have
babies. They know nothing about the subject from the
inside, so to speak. Why should they have any
say?
Nonetheless, that same Tranzi, if asked whether
international lawyers and judges, and humanitarian
activist non-governmental organizations, or NGOs,
should have the final say in the laws of war,
would certainly approve. This is true despite the
fact that the next lawyer, judge or NGO that
understands as much about war as a man understands
about childbirth will likely be the first.
Why do we say they know nothing about the
subject? By their works shall you know them.
The International Criminal Court is, after the UN
and European Union, the next most significant
Tranzi project (Kyoto being dead on arrival) and
arguably the most significant with regard to the
laws of war. A majority, if a bare one, of the
world’s sovereign states have signed onto it while
about half have ratified it.
The ICC claims jurisdiction over all the crimes
mentioned in its founding statute, irrespective of
who committed them, where they were committed, or
whether the “crimes” are actually criminal under
the traditional and customary law of war. This
is called, “Universal Jurisdiction.”
Universal Jurisdiction, as a concept, has a
number of flaws. Among these are that it has zero
valid legal precedence behind it.
Zero precedence? Tranzis will cite at least two
precedents. One of these is the jurisdiction
exercised from times immemorial by any sovereign
power over pirates at sea, when any were caught.
The other is Nuremberg. These are flawed. In the
case of Nuremberg, the jurisdiction exercised was
not “Universal” but national jurisdiction of the
coalition of the victors over a Germany whose
sovereignty had been temporarily extinguished by
crushing defeat in war.
The piracy precedent as applied to modern notions
of universal jurisdiction doesn’t stand close
scrutiny any better. The Tranzis claim that
universal jurisdiction was exercised over piracy because
piracy was, in its conduct and effect, so
ghastly. This is wrong on both counts. In the first
place, pirates were not necessarily subject to
universal jurisdiction except insofar as they were
caught where national jurisdiction did not run;
typically at sea, in other words. Moreover,
alongside piracy there existed privateering. In their
conduct the two were often enough
indistinguishable. In other words, however “’ghastly”
privateering may have been – and the former residents of
Portobello and Panama City could have told one it
could be ghastly, indeed – it was still not
subject to universal jurisdiction. No matter that
piracy was no worse than privateering, it was so
subject. The difference was that sovereign powers,
nation-states in other words, exercised sovereign
jurisdiction over privateers, were responsible
for their actions, and punished them at need, while
they did not and could not with pirates. It was
the lack of sovereign jurisdiction, both as to
their persons and as to the locus of their crimes,
that left pirates open to universal jurisdiction
and not any supposed “ghastliness” of those
crimes.
Along with the lack of valid legal precedence,
the ICC and universal jurisdiction suffer other
flaws. Recall, dear reader, the lack of Tranzi
logical consistency on the questions posed above
about abortion and the laws of war.
Anti-imperialism is yet another Tranzi tactical
cause. But what is imperialism beyond one or
several states or people using force or color of law
to make rules for another or other state or
people? And what is the ICC, using all the staggering
moral and military power of…oh….Fiji… France…
West Fuckistan…but the attempt at enforcing rules
made by one group of states upon others? It’s
Imperialism, in other words.
Of course, imperialism in the service of a higher
cause – the raising of unelected, self-styled,
global elites to power, for example – is
praiseworthy, in Tranzi terms.
Nothing deterred, the Tranzis claim that Tranzi
courts, to include notionally national Tranzi
courts like those of Spain, have universal
jurisdiction. Why?
Tranzis hate national sovereignty. It cramps
their style. It interferes with their program.
It’s aesthetically unappealing.
Their goal is the destruction of national
sovereignty. The right of a people to democratically
make their own laws, to govern themselves, is
anathema to Tranzi goals and dreams. When they say
“Global Governance,” boys and girls, they mean it.
They really intend that unelected bureaucrats and
judges, and self-selected elites ought be able to
tell you what to do, how to live, what to pay in
taxes, what rights you are not entitled to.
Sovereignty stands in the way. The ultimate
expression of sovereignty is a nation’s and people’s
armed forces. No army; no ability to defend
one’s own laws and way of life; no sovereignty.
But how to do away with sovereign control of
national armed forces? It’s a toughie. They’ve got
all these guns and shit, while the poor Tranzis
have none.
“Aha! We know,” say the Tranzis. “We can
control a nation’s armed forces if we can punish the
soldiers and especially the officers and a nation
refuses to stand up and defend them. No nation
which permits a foreign court to exercise
jurisdiction over its military can any longer be said to
own that military. Instead, that military will
be owned by the courts able to punish the leaders.
Onward, into the future, Comrade’s!”
Let them punish your soldiers and the soldiers
can no longer be counted upon to defend the nation.
Nor would you deserve being defended by your
soldiers. Let them punish the soldiers and there is
no principled distinction to prevent them
punishing the president, the legislature, even the
Supreme Court. For who would defend the president,
legislature and courts once the same have let down
their soldiers? Let them punish your soldiers
and you deserve what you get…and to lose what you
will lose.
It would be one thing if the ICC were something
more than a misguided exercise in legalistic
Tranzi mutual masturbation; if it could, in other
words, be effective in limiting the horrors of war.
It cannot be effective. Ever.
This is because of the very nature of war itself.
There is nothing a court can do that, in terms of
punishment that deters, even begins to approach
the horror men inflict on each other in war,
routinely, in the course of normal and legal
operations. There is nothing any court can do that can
even hope to catch the interest of tired men,
hungry men, men fighting for victory and their lives.
No sensible court would even try.
There is some conduct which cannot be deterred.
When life is at stake, the law recognizes no “no
trespassing” signs. When the choice is between
picking pockets at a mass hanging of pickpockets,
and risking the noose, or facing slow
starvation…well…at least the rope is fairly quick.
Similarly, when the choice on the battlefield is
life or death, what power has some uncertain
court distant in both time and space to deter
anything? The simple answer is; it has none. What
trivial power has the law with its trivial possible
punishments to deter conduct that might save
soldiers’ lives, their comrades’ and their country’s
in the here and now?
Yet we can see that, however imperfectly, the
customary law of war has often worked – even without
any such body as the ICC and without Spain’s
recent disgusting, illegal, morally putrescent
attempt at exercising sovereignty over American
soldiers. It has worked imperfectly, to be sure. Yet
it has worked often enough…indeed, within western
war it has worked more often than not.
Where the laws of war have worked to mitigate the
horror and protect innocent life they have, by
and large, done so when the combatants were of the
same culture, shared the same values, and had
what we might like to think of as a basic decency.
That’s rarely been quite enough. It needed a
little something else, some other reason to follow
the rules.
The other reason was the threat and fear of
reprisals.
Tranzis hate reprisals, which are war crimes in
themselves but war crimes which become legal in
order to punish an enemy who violates the law of
war, deter him from violating it, and remove the
advantages which accrue from such violations. The
Tranzis don’t hate reprisals merely because
they’re ugly, cause suffering of innocents, etc.,
though they hate them for those reasons, too. No,
Tranzis hate reprisals because reprisals work to
enforce the laws of war and their own silly courts
fail.
Reprisals work? You’re kidding us, right?
Wrong. Why wasn’t poisonous gas used in the
Second World War? The threat of reprisal. What
happened when, in 1944, the Germans threatened to
execute some numbers of French resistance fighters
and the French Resistance, which was holding many
German prisoners, answered, “We will kill one for
one”? The French prisoners held by the Germans
were left unharmed. Why didn’t the Southern
Confederacy during the American Civil War execute the
white officers of black regiments as they had
passed a law to do? Because the Union credibly
threatened to hang a white southern officer for every
man of theirs so mistreated. Why didn’t the
United States or South Vietnam execute, generally,
Viet Cong guerillas who had gravely violated the
laws of war in the course of the insurgency there?
Because the North Vietnamese had prisoners
against whom they would have reprised had we or the
South Vietnamese done so.
Reprisals work; courts and statutes do not. The
law of war, because of the nature of war, must be
self enforcing, through reprisals. Nothing else
can work and any attempt to do away with reprisal
is an indirect attack on and undermining of the
law of war.
But then, the law of war and mitigating its
horrors are not really what the Tranzis are about.
Undermining national sovereignty? Replacing
sovereign nations with themselves? That’s what they’re
about.
The Tranzis aren’t about eliminating war’s
horrors? Oh, John, Oh, Tom…say it isn’t so.
(Interject dual sigh at the vast iniquity of
mankind here.)
It’s so.
Recall that we mentioned that Tranzism is the
successor philosophy to Marxist-Leninism. It should
come as no great surprise, then, that one of the
key pieces of Tranzi legislation on the law of
war should have been sponsored and forced into
existence by…wait for it….wait for it….THE SOVIET
UNION.
This key piece of Tranzi legislating on the law
of war was Additional Protocol I to Geneva
Convention IV. The Protocol itself was shoved through
by the Soviets at a time when it looked like
Peoples Revolutionary War (guerilla war…communist
insurgency) would continue to be a powerful weapon to
advance the cause of communism. The United
States has never ratified it and, pray God, it never
shall. The Russians, who forced it through, have
never payed it the slsightest attention as
witnessed by their conduct in Afghanistan from 1979 to
1989 and, more recently, in Chechnya.
The Protocol is interesting for three reasons:
what it purports to do, what it actually does, and
for the admittedly slick way in which it tries to
do it.
The slickness is in the way the Protocol is
structured. It begins with a pious preamble,
typically enough. That isn’t the slick part. What is
clever is that it repeats much of what was already
in Geneva Convention IV (GC IV), which is
concerned with the protection of civilians caught up in
war (as is the Protocol), and then interweaves
some very new things. The new things include major
advantages, given gratis, to guerillas and
especially communist guerillas, a broad ban on the use
of what it calls “mercenaries,” one rather
unreasonable restriction on the use of food as a weapon
and a subtle way of saying “It’s okay to push the
Zionist beasts into the sea.”
Then, when a nation refuses to ratify the
Additional Protocol for any of the at least five really
good reasons not to do so, it stands accused of
anything from being in favor of mass rape to
forced medical experiments a la Josef Mengele. Never
mind that all that is prohibited by the original
GC IV and that the Additional Protocol adds
nothing of importance. “You refuse to ratify the
Additional Protocol? You Nazi bastards!”
Are these guys slick or what?
As to what the Protocol is supposed to do,
protect civilians, one has to wonder. It is part of
the traditional law of war that, in case of a
siege, a city may have its food cut off and civilians
attempting to escape may be fired upon, even
killed, to drive them back to eat up the food. This
is cruel to be sure, an “extreme measure” as the
USArmy’s manual on the subject admits. Cruel or
not, this was upheld in the late 40s in the case
of United States v. Ritter von Leeb and is still
– up to a point – good law, outside of Tranzidom.
Geneva Convention IV ameliorated this harsh rule,
and reasonably so, by requiring that some
evacuations for particular reasons (maternity, infancy,
infirmity, for example) be allowed.
The Protocol, however, does not allow food to be
cut off or civilians to be driven back into a
besieged town to eat up whatever food is there.
Naturally, one cannot permit food to enter without
at the same time feeding the garrison, which will
ensure for itself that it eats first. Therefore,
the besieger has a choice, sit there forever –
which is generally impractical – or take the place
by assault. Now imagine what will happen to the
civilians if the town is stormed, when every room
receives its donation of grenade and bullet. And
this is supposed to protect them? Starvation,
at least, while unpleasant, offered a good chance
for a besieged town to fall after a few lean days
without the massacre intendant on an assault.
What then is the purpose of the Additional
Protocol? It is to disadvantage the west, to reduce
its military power, thus to reduce its sovereignty.
Since being forced into existence by the Soviets
the Protocol has had no other purpose.
The law of war nowhere mentions the phrase
“illegal combatants.” Tranzis will tell you that,
therefore, there is no such thing. This is false.
There is a legal principal, a Latin expression,
“Expresio unius exclusio alterius est,” the
inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other. While
the law of war does not mention “illegal
combatants,” it goes to some length to explain what is
required to be a legal combatant. If there is such
a concept as legal combatancy, and rules which
must be followed to attain that status, then
failure to follow those rules places one in the
implicit status of illegal combatant.
Those rules are four. To be a legal combatant
under the original Geneva Convention, which is
quite different from the Additional Protocol to which
the United States is not a party, one must a)
wear a fixed insignia recognizable at a distance, b)
carry arms openly, c) be under the command of a
person or chain of command responsible for your
actions (much like a privateer was under a
sovereign and a pirate, again, was not), and d) conduct
operations in accordance with the customs and laws
of war. Failure to meet any of these conditions
makes one an illegal combatant.
Note, here, that individuals do not “conduct
operations.” Organizations conduct operations. This
implies that one is responsible for the actions
of one’s organization as well as for one’s own.
Can you hear the sound of Tranzi heads exploding
over that last?
They might seem to have a point. Civil law
normally doesn’t permit people to held responsible for
the actions of others, right? Wrong. Look up
“conspiracy.” Once someone becomes part of a
conspiracy they become responsible for everything
their co-conspirators do.
Moreover, within the law of war’s concept of
reprisal perfect innocents may be effectively
responsible for what their side does. After all, what
happens when a side violates the law by using a
hospital, say, for an ammunition dump? The
perfectly innocent and otherwise protected wounded are
blasted from this world to the next in reprisal.
Equally so, within an armed force, both by “d)”,
above, and under the practical effect of the
doctrine of reprisal a combatant is responsible for
both his own actions and those of his
organization.
It works the other way, too, by the way. Note
that General Yamashita was hanged not for anything
he ordered or could have prevented but for things
subelements only notionally under his command
did.
What does this mean for the current war? It
means that every Saudi kid, inspired to go to Iraq to
fight by watching some truck driver’s head sawed
of on Al Jazeera, has – in civil law terms -
voluntarily joined a conspiracy to fight illegally
and is thus an illegal combatant and that – in law
of war terms – he is an illegal combatant even if
he personally follows the rules completely.
Those who would grant him legal combatant status,
the Tranzis in other words, thus are trying to
improve and enhance the effectiveness of those who
would and do violate the law of war.
This is something you would expect from an enemy,
right?
So what can we do? What would John and Tom like
to see done?
Number One: Never forget that the Tranzi purpose
is inimical to our own, that they are the enemy
as much as Hitler was or al Qaeda is. They want
us, as a distinct nation and people, to cease to
exist. They want our constitution overthrown or
made subordinate to their law, which amounts to
the same thing. They want our military made
subordinate to their judges, so that it can be
undermined and made unable or unwilling to defend us.
They want us to lose our wars.
Number Two: Remembering that the Tranzis are the
enemy, give them no aid, no money, no support.
Do not give them a foothold into the armed forces
and if such foothold exists (say, in the form of
an institute devoted to peacekeeping and
humanitarian assistance) close it down. Audit the
Tranzis' books; they’re as corrupt as imaginable and
could not well stand auditing. They tend to lie,
especially to raise money. Require that their
charitable activities advertise truthfully and
punish them when they do not. Jail a few of the
bastards. On second thought jail a lot of the
bastards. Remove their tax exempt status on the first
whiff of impropriety. When the ultimate Tranzi
organization, the UN, cheats the Iraqi people and
hides the details of the thefts withhold the funds
otherwise due to the UN and pay it to the Iraqis
instead…with no chance of ever making good to the
UN any such amounts withheld and given.
Number Three: Did you know that the United States
has what amounts to a conditional declaration of
war in place should anyone have the gall to grab
one of our soldiers to turn over to the ICC or
some other Tranzi court? It’s called the American
Servicemembers Protection Act and it passed
unanimously in the Senate. (Sometimes your country
just makes you proud.) We should look for an
opportunity to exercise that law…and sometime soon.
Spain might be a good place to start.
Number Four: Even when we have them on the ropes
do not let up. Finish them off. Make the Tranzi
organizations extinct and the parasites who live
off of them spend the remainder of their days
poor and hungry. Do not weep for the Tranzis.
Number Five: Don’t, don’t, DON’T give up hope.
The Tranzis are not going to win. Their center
of gravity, Europe, is dying to demographics.
Within the United States and with our own Tranzis
much the same thing is happening regionally and
sub-culturally. The prize Tranzi projects, the UN
and EU, are staggering under a burden of
incompetence, ineffectuality and corruption. Moreover,
say what you will about Muslim extremists, they’re
still damned good at demonstrating to the world
outside of Europe what happens when you let the
Tranzis take over.
By the way, Tom and John intend to fight the
bastards all the way. |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
sailor_tech's journal
confused