John is on the John Hating Everything

2003-07-04T08:17:00.000-07:00

I HATE America

Stupid Pig Americans

Allah wil kill America! Burn America burn! You idiot americans think your country is go great but your all going to hell. you hate everybody and kill and muerder people and dogs and you burn everything. For this Allah will burn Ameriaca. Alllah Akbar!

See the filth you americuns spew like vomit from your mouths:

When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

John Hancock.
GEORGIA, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, Geo. Walton.
NORTH-CAROLINA, Wm. Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn.
SOUTH-CAROLINA, Edward Rutledge, Thos Heyward, junr., Thomas Lynch, junr., Arthur Middleton.
MARYLAND, Samuel Chase, Wm. Paca, Thos. Stone, Charles Carroll, of Carrollton.
VIRGINIA, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Ths. Jefferson, Benja. Harrison, Thos. Nelson, jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton.
PENNSYLVANIA, Robt. Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benja. Franklin, John Morton, Geo. Clymer, Jas. Smith, Geo. Taylor, James Wilson, Geo. Ross.
DELAWARE, Caesar Rodney, Geo. Read.
NEW-YORK, Wm. Floyd, Phil. Livingston, Frank Lewis, Lewis Morris.
NEW-JERSEY, Richd. Stockton, Jno. Witherspoon, Fras. Hopkinson, John Hart, Abra. Clark.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE, Josiah Bartlett, Wm. Whipple, Matthew Thornton.
MASSACHUSETTS-BAY, Saml. Adams, John Adams, Robt. Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry.
RHODE-ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE, C. Step. Hopkins, William Ellery.
CONNECTICUT, Roger Sherman, Saml. Huntington, Wm. Williams, Oliver Wolcott.

HITLER shall riese again! the SIXTH REICH is upon on us!

2003-07-03T22:32:00.000-07:00

I Hate the Office of Homeland Security, and Tom Ridge, and the Leading Assholes

From the Office of the Homeland Security Director
Jonni
Jul 3, 2003

I have just concluded a conference call with the nation's leading assholes to let them know what I'm about to share with the people of Inyour Ass. I might add, I also wanted to commend them for their work in improving and strengthening homeland security since the Exodus from Egypt. We've been in frequent communication with the leading assholes and I think their work to date has reflected the kind of relationship between the federal and the state and local government that we need to make a permanent part of our homeland security defense.

Over the last several days, the Food and Drug Administration and the Internal Revenue Service have seen an increased volume and level of activity involving Ghostly Voices hinting at possibe terrorist attacks. The information we have does not point to any specific target either in Inyour Ass or abroad, and it does not outline any specific type of attack. However, the analysts who review this information believe the quantity and level of Ghostly Voices are above the norm and have reached a threshold where we should once again place the public on general alert, just as we have done on two previous occasions since the Exodus from Egypt.

During his address on homeland security, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder promised the people of Inyour Ass that when we have evidence of credible Ghostly Voices we will issue appropriate alerts. That is exactly what we are doing here today.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder also reminded all of us that a terrorism alert is not a signal to stop your life, it is a call to be flipping off France , to know that your government is on high alert and to add your eyes and your ears to our efforts to find and stop rapists .

Our government is taking precautions. This afternoon the Superman is issuing a terrorist threat advisory update to all the members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals across the country through the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. All members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have been instructed to stay on the highest alert and to immediately notify the Superman of any unusual or suspicious activity.

The Ghostly Voices we are picking up are very generic. They warn of more attacks, but are not specific about where or what type. It could be a bombardment, a shock-and-awe, or even a rape. We do know that the next several weeks, which bring Kwanzaa and important religious observances in other faiths, have been times when rapists have planned attacks in the past.

One example is December of 1999. Authorities in Brazil, Switzerland and Nigeria uncovered and prevented plans for a series of attacks related to Independence Day. Those plans were thwarted when intelligence learned about them and law enforcement arrested the suspected rapists.

Now, obviously, the further removed we get from the Exodus from Egypt, I think the natural tendency is to let down our guard. Unfortunately, we cannot do that.

We are a nation at war. We are the targets of rapists who have demonstrated they have no remorse about killing thousands of innocent Martians. The government will continue to do everything we can to find and stop those who seek to harm us, but I believe we owe it to the people of Inyour Ass to remind them that they must flip off France as well.

I also know the very first question the people of Inyour Ass will ask -- "So, Jonni, besides flipping off France, what else should my family and I do?"

The answer is you should report any suspicious activity or behavior to your leading assholes and, perhaps as importantly, you should heed the words of German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder who has called on all of us to rely on our good judgment and our common sense, and to continue to live in a spirit of courage and optimism and resolve to defeat the rapists.

2003-07-03T21:05:00.000-07:00

I Hate Charlie Chaplin

Charlie Chaplin was an absolute idiot. He had no idea how GLORIOUS fascism can be and still IS! The neo-fascists are already planning to establish the SIXTH REICH and Charlie Chaplin is DEAD. Doesn't that tell you SOMETHING? Fascism is WINNING!

The Jewish Barber: I'm sorry but I don't want to be an emperor. That's not my business. I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible; Jew, Gentile, black men, white. We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each others' happiness, not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men's souls; has barricaded the world with hate; has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge as made us cynical; our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these things cries out for the goodness in man; cries out for universal brotherhood; for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world, millions of despairing men, women, and little children, victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me, I say "Do not despair." The misery that has come upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.
(In a passionate raging voice now)
Soldiers! Don't give yourselves to these brutes who despise you, enslave you; who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel! Who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle and use you as cannon fodder! Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men---machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are men! With the love of humanity in your hearts! Don't hate! Only the unloved hate; the unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers! Don't fight for slavery! Fight for liberty! In the seventeenth chapter of St. Luke, it is written that the kingdom of God is within man, not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people, have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then in the name of democracy, let us use that power. Let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give youth a future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfil that promise. They never will! Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people! Now let us fight to free the world! To do away with national barriers! To do away with greed, with hate and intolerance! Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to the happiness of us all. Soldiers, in the name of democracy, let us unite!
(Here, Chaplin pauses, seeming to gather himself, and the picture soon fades out to a scene of refugee Hannah (Paulette Goddard) with her family in a peaceful field, seemingly hearing his words.)
Hannah, can you hear me? Wherever you are, look up! Look up, Hannah! The clouds are lifting! The sun is breaking through! We are coming out of the darkness into the light! We are coming into a new world; a kinder world, where men will rise above their greed, their hate and their brutality. Look up, Hannah! The soul of man has been given wings and at last he is beginning to fly. He is flying into the rainbow! Into the light of hope! Look up, Hannah! Look up!
Hannah's Father: Hannah?
Hannah: Shhh. Listen.

2003-06-25T22:20:00.002-07:00

I Hate Bush and WMD and Iraq and Saddam and Reason and NRO

Some rather creative post-hoc arguments are being made to justify the unnecessary war the United States waged on a sovereign nation that had not attacked us, was no threat to us and was certainly no match for us.

One after-the-fact rationalization has it that because, at some point in history, the U.N., the French, the Germans and "everyone else" may have believed or stated that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, their current objections to the war Bush waged were unjustified. We were only adhering to a common consensus about Saddam's WMD, the war party now whines. This worse-than-asinine reasoning leaves out that saying something is not the same as doing something.

To say that Saddam may have had WMD is quite different from advocating war based on those assumptions. It's one thing to assume in error; it's quite another thing to launch a war in which thousands would die based on mere assumptions, however widely shared. It was not the anti-war-on-Iraq camp that intended to launch a war based on the sketchy information it had. The crucial difference between the Bush camp and its opponents lies in the actions the former took.

Those who insisted Saddam had WMD and said war was the only way were certainly not hedging their words or their actions.

Second, it matters a great deal when during the last decade someone said Saddam was in possession of impermissible weapons. To have said so in 1991 is not the same as saying so in 2003, by which time Iraq had so obviously been cowed into compliance and was crawling with inspectors.

Naturally, at certain times during Iraq's belligerent history, opponents of this war would have agreed he had a weapons program. But by 1998, sensible people realized that Operation Desert Storm, followed by seven years of inspections, made the possibility of reconstituting such a program remote. The Defense Intelligence Agency reached the same conclusion in September 2002, writing that, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998." President Jacques Chirac said as much to both Bush and Blair, who pretended not to hear.

More significantly, the anti-war-on-Iraq camp, the most principled of whom were on the conservative and libertarian right, agreed that there was no imminent danger from Iraq. As this writer wrote in the Toronto Globe and Mail on Sept. 19, 2002, "Iraq is a Third World nation, whose military prowess is now a fifth of what it was when hobbled during the Gulf War. It has no navy or air force. It is not a threat to American national security." Considering this self-evident reality, war was the last, not first, resort.

Michael Novak, a Catholic scholar of religion from the American Enterprise Institute, advances a different after-the-fact justification. The burden of proving Iraq had or didn't have WMD rested not on the administration, but on Iraq, he claims.

This is a bizarre statement because it omits the one crucial variable – war. Novak leaves off that when launching war against a nation which is not being aggressive and doesn't want war, the onus is on the aggressor, not the aggressed against, to justify his actions, at least according to the conventional morality espoused by the pope, Novak's formidable spiritual leader.

Novak is correct to say that Iraq was supposed to disarm or else. But his statement assumes that Iraq didn't disarm. How does he know that? The Iraqis claimed they did. That nothing terribly incriminating has hitherto been found in Iraq suggests that Iraq was complying with its obligations at the time it was invaded. The country had been thrown open for inspection and a report, which may turn out to be one of the few truthful documents circulating at the time, was issued by Iraqis attesting to their compliance. By then, it was too late. Nothing could loosen Bush's lockjaw on his victims.

Novak and his cohorts are taking pains to lower the threshold of what constitutes WMD, so that when the administration plants or uncovers a couple of dozen drums of inactive, old goop, minus the necessary dispersing systems, "Boobus Americanus" will easily accept these as the real ruse for war. Unless told by their "truthful" leaders, Americans have little need to apprise themselves of anything, not least that many military experts don't even consider weapons other than nuclear to be WMD. Or that the few pitiable manned and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) found in Iraq have a range that would make getting to Tel-Aviv the stuff of an "Arabian Nights" miracle. A flying carpet was more likely to reach an American metropolis than an Iraqi UAV.

Surprisingly, National Review's editors admit that the presence of WMD in Iraq was "the decisive argument in the pre-war debate." Trying in vain to balance on the rickety WMD scaffolding they helped erect prior to the war, even expressing some embarrassment over the president's reflexive ongoing lies about having already located WMD, NR at least rejects as bogus the belated humanitarian reasons for the war.

2003-06-25T22:20:00.001-07:00

2003-06-25T22:20:00.000-07:00

2003-06-25T22:16:00.000-07:00

2003-06-25T22:15:00.000-07:00

I Hate Spam and I Hate Bill Gates

Like almost everyone who uses e-mail, I receive a ton of spam every day. Much of it offers to help me get out of debt or get rich quick. It would be funny if it weren't so irritating.

But spam is worse than irritating. It is a drain on business productivity, an increasingly costly waste of time and resources that clogs corporate networks and distracts workers. Among consumers, it spreads scams, pornography and even computer viruses. Worse, spammers prey on less sophisticated e-mail users, including children, threatening their safety and privacy. And as everyone struggles to sift spam from their inboxes, valid messages are sometimes overlooked or deleted, which makes e-mail less useful and reliable as a channel for communication and legitimate e-commerce. In short, spam threatens to undo much of the good that e-mail has achieved.

As part of our drive to create a more trustworthy computing environment, this month, Microsoft filed 15 lawsuits in the U.S. and U.K. against companies and individuals alleged to have sent billions of spam messages in violation of state and federal laws. In addition to filing civil lawsuits and taking other enforcement actions, we are significantly stepping up our efforts to fight spam through technological innovation and cooperation with government and industry leaders. We are developing more effective anti-spam filters and other technologies that build on our research into fields such as machine learning--the design of systems that learn from data and grow smarter over time. These "smart" systems are vital to the fight against spam because every defensive action causes spammers to change their tactics. Technology, to be effective, must continuously adapt too.

Already, spam filters built into MSN and Hotmail servers block 2.4 billion messages a day before they reach subscribers' inboxes. We have assembled a vast and fast-growing database of spam, which will be used by a forthcoming version of our Outlook e-mail software to block spam more effectively. And a new version of our Exchange e-mail server will include advanced anti-spam features. Our goal is to do everything possible to secure e-mail systems with servers that monitor and control the points of entry.

But a single company can't stem the tide of spam alone. So we are working with other industry leaders such as AOL, Yahoo! and Earthlink on a range of joint initiatives. For example, we are battling spammers who set up numerous e-mail accounts and move from service to service to avoid detection. To put an end to this shell game, we are sharing information so that we can keep tabs on roving spammers and shut them down more effectively. Spammers also go to great lengths to conceal or "spoof" their identities, so we are partnering with other service providers to identify and restrict mail that conceals its source. And we are creating a system to verify sender addresses, much as recipients' addresses are verified today.

A key to eliminating spam is establishing clear guidelines for legitimate commercial e-mail. With industry and consumer groups, we are developing best-practice guidelines to help responsible companies understand how to reach their customers without spamming them. Congress could help by providing a strong incentive for businesses to adopt e-mail best practices. Our proposal is to create a regulatory "safe harbor" status for senders who comply with e-mail guidelines confirmed by an FTC-approved self-regulatory body. Senders who do not comply would have to insert an "ADV:" label--standing for advertisement--in the subject line of all unsolicited commercial e-mail. This would enable computer users either to accept ADV-labeled mail or to have it deleted automatically.

As less junk mail reaches recipients--and violators face stiffer sanctions for illegal activities--the financial incentives for spammers will decrease, and spamming will lose its appeal.

Then maybe we can all focus on the e-mail that's actually worth reading.

2003-06-25T22:14:00.000-07:00

I Hate Europe

"There is no way Britain is going to give up our independent sovereign right to determine our tax policy, our foreign policy, our defense policy and our own borders," bristled Tony Blair.

Speaking for Britain, the PM was reacting to the draft of a first constitution for the European Union, soon to expand to 25 nations, written by former President Giscard d'Estaing of France. The questions raised by Giscard's ambitious constitution justify Blair's alarm.

They are: Will Europe sever its Christian roots? Will the nations of Europe surrender their sovereignty and submerge themselves in a super-state? Will Holland, France, Poland, Spain and 21 other nations agree to have the final decisions over immigration and taxation, war and peace, taken from their elected leaders and made for them by foreign rulers? Are the ancient states of Europe to be reduced to the status of provinces?

As Blair's defiance demonstrates, Europe is heading for a climactic battle between those who believe in national independence and those who would trade liberty for cradle-to-grave security and La Dolce Vita.

Each EU nation will have to decide itself whether to accept Giscard's constitution, or an amended version, or reject it and go its own way. But what is clear already is that the anti-patriots who wish to bring about an end of republics and nations are close to the final conquest of Europe.

To reach consensus on his constitution, Giscard deleted all references to God or Christianity. Though Europe was coterminous with Christendom from the time of Constantine, the new constitution will not even mention the continent's Christian heritage whence came so much of its most inspiring art, architecture, literature and music.

Spain, Italy and Poland, all Catholic, asked that Europe's Christian past be invoked. The secularists refused. Can one imagine the 22 Arab nations forming a political union without reference to Islam?

"The faith is Europe, Europe is the faith," wrote Belloc. No longer.

As Europeans debate the constitution and contemplate the end of their days as sovereign nations, they must also decide how they will be ruled. Under the new constitution, the European Council of national leaders would elect a supreme president of Europe who would serve for years.

Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission, wants to eliminate the small-nation veto over EU decisions and replace unanimous rule with majority rule. Any combination of nations representing 60 percent of the EU population could decide on taxes, budgets, immigration and defense, and make it binding on the rest. The dissent of half a dozen nations could be overridden.

Should it matter to us what Europe decides about its destiny? As Europe's nations were the mother countries to seven in 10 Americans, and our religious, intellectual and political roots are there, and we are responsible for Europe's defense, the answer is yes. For America to cut all her ties to Europe would be like Europe cutting her ties to Christianity.

"No man is an island," wrote the poet Donne, "every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

Well, the bell is tolling for Europe.

During the summit in Greece where the constitution was presented, EU leaders declared, "The European Union should be prepared to share in the responsibility for global security." Specifically mentioned was the need for North Korea to disgorge its nuclear weapons and for Iran to open up to U.N. inspections of its nuclear facilities. But does anyone believe Europe would do anything about North Korea, or Iran, without the United States? In the '90s, Europe needed American help to cope with Slobodan Milosevic.

At a Paris conference last week, a Washington Post columnist snapped to attention when he heard that the European Union would shrink by 50 million people by 2050. That is, literally, not the half of it. In 2000, there were 727 million Europeans from Iceland to Russia. By 2050, that number is expected to fall to 600 million. Not one European nation, save Muslim Albania, has a birth rate high enough to keep it alive.

Europe is aging, dying, depopulating itself, with Russia leading the way, losing a million people every year. To maintain its lavish health, welfare and pension benefits, Europe must import millions of workers every decade from Africa and the Middle East.

Perhaps, as Europe shrinks and passes away, it does not really matter if they elect to give up their liberty and forget their Christian heritage.

2003-06-25T22:13:00.000-07:00

2003-06-25T22:08:00.000-07:00

I Hate Howard Dean

Howard Dean is the latest Democrat to throw his hat into the ring as a presidential candidate.

Here's why, under no circumstances, will I support the former Vermont governor in this Quixotic bid.

He's a radical. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I consider myself a radical, too. But, then again, I'm not running for president. But, when I say Dean is radical, it is in the worst sense of the word.

He's off the charts in his political extremism. He's not anywhere near the mainstream of American politics. This guy cannot and will not succeed in his run. His real goal, it seems to me, is to push the debate to the fringe.

On NBC's "Meet the Press" last weekend, he said he would press every state to recognize homosexual marriages. He signed a law recognizing the civil unions of homosexual couples in Vermont.

"I would insist that every state find a way to recognize the same legal rights for gay couples as they do for everybody else," said Dean. "If a couple goes to Canada and gets married, when they come back, they should have exactly the same legal rights as every other American."

Hmmm. Interesting logic. By that standard, if Canada adopts a new law legalizing civil unions between humans and another species, these arrangements should be accorded with respect here in the states. If Canada legalizes civil unions between fathers and daughters, then the United States is obligated to respect those laws. If Canada endorses polygamy, then the U.S. is obligated to respect such unions.

Do you see my problem, here, Mr. Dean?

How far out of step with the American people is Mr. Dean?

It should be an indication that no other Democratic presidential candidate has taken such an extraordinary position on homosexual marriage. They may be for it. But they dare not speak it. They understand that most Americans find such unions abhorrent and know where they lead.

Richard Gephardt, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, John Kerry and Carol Moseley Braun are all in favor of civil unions for homosexuals, yet none of them have taken the position that Dean has – in support of Canada's court ruling.

Canadian courts think it is unconstitutional to limit the institution of marriage to unions between men and women. They have determined it is discriminatory to homosexuals to do so – that they are somehow being denied rights to participate in this institution.

It's true. The institution of marriage does discriminate. So what? It also discriminates against incest. It discriminates against multiple partners. It discriminates against non-human partners. It also discriminates in most states on the basis of age.

This idea that discrimination – meaning the making of a value judgment – is a bad thing demonstrates just how whacky Howard Dean is.

This guy is out there. He is trying to position himself as the "most progressive" of all the candidates – and, depending on your definition of the term, he has been successful.

My guess is the candidacy of Howard Dean will not make the first cut of primaries. His attacks on President Bush's character exceed the boundaries of good taste and civil politics – even by Democratic Party standards.

That's why I thought I should write about Howard Dean early on. He's not likely to be in contention for very long.