Increasing H-B1 Visas

A new bill was introduced into Congress to double the number of H-B1 visas, then triple it.

Apparently much of Washington is totally oblivious to the fact that jobs in the technical sector have been decimated in recent years. Bush's insistence on "free trade" (ie, cheap labor) is draining America of technical jobs as well as technical superiority.

So now these people want to add insult to injury. In additon to decimating American jobs thru "offshoring", now they want to import all of the "offshore" workers directly into America, so that they can get even more cheap labor.

This demonstrates the need for a third House of Congress, as I mention elsewhere on this blog. Obviously, Congress no longer cares about the average American. Their only function is to sit there in Washington and do whatever the multi-billionaire corporatists tell them to do.

Thoughts on the Second Amendment

Mr. Cho has stirred up the Second Amendment debate. Here are some initial thoughts:

A new idea (new for me) is to view the Second Amendment in terms of the fact that a large number of the signers of the Constitution were slave-owners. For example, George Washington owned about 100 slaves. Some owned many more than that. In 1790, an astounding 20% of the US population were black slaves.

Given this fact, would a SLAVE OWNER approve an amendment that gave EVERY BLACK SLAVE the right to own a gun, without any regulations? Put in modern terms, would a SLAVE OWNER approve an amendment that gave EVERY BLACK SLAVE the right to own a Glock 19 semi-automatic, without any sort of regulation?

Highly dubious. But WHY is this relevant? Because we are primarily concerned with the INTENT of the original signers of the constitution. And clearly, it was NOT the intent of slave-owners that every slave in the USA should have the right to own a Glock 19 without even getting a permit, or any other form of "well regulated" license.

This gets into another "new" fact (new for me), that there are actually TWO versions of the Second Amendment. The difference between them is in which words are capitalized, and in an additional comma.

This may seem trivial, but I don't think so. It may be of ENORMOUS importance. The original version, approved by the Congress, read as follows:

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

The copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation. It read as follows:

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

Here is my opinion (probably unqualified): Note that the first version capitalizes "Militia" and "Arms", while leaving "people' in lowercase.

The second version puts "militia" and "arms" in lowercase, and puts "People" in uppercase. This totally changes the meaning.

By capitalizing Militia and Arms, the first version places more emphasis on the idea that "the people in the Militia" have the right to keep their arms at home, or on their person.

This was a more believable version coming from a group with MANY slave-owners, who would certainly be LOATH to have their slaves running around with guns! Especially MODERN guns!

In the second version, which was more populist, and approved by the individual yokels of the states, the word "People" was capitalized. This TOTALLY CHANGES THE MEANING of "people". When "People" becomes capitalized, it clearly means "The People", or ALL of the people of the USA. This revision is further intensified by the fact that "militia" has been reduced to lowercase.

So the original meaning, providing the right to keep and bear arms to State Militia members (in a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, no less), was suddenly converted into a blanket document allowing every Tom, Dick and Cho to go around carrying a gun.

Precisely where "Well regulated militia" even fits into the second definition is a mystery. Apparently the State guys could not get away with simply chopping it off, so they just ignored it.

Also, by capitalizing "Arms" in the first version, that might have been referring to a SPECIFIC TYPE of arms that one would use in a MILITIA. This differs from the more populist view of anybody carrying around any kind of weapons that they so choose.

Similarly, eliminating the second comma, changes the focus of the dependent clause. Indeed, the first version could actually be saying that the right to a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA shall not be infringed, rather than the right to bear arms.

CONCLUSION:

Was this legal? Did the STATES have the RIGHT to CHANGE the constitution as it was written and ratified by Congress? This is rather dubious.

Furthermore, how have the COURTS managed to act as if both of these versions are the same, when they are really ENORMOUSLY different?

My opinion: The Second Amendment should be either repealed or amended. I'm not sure if/how that is done.

Why should it be repealed or amended? In the past 230 years, such factors as new technology, the invention of the modern city, and the massive movement of US population from farm to city, makes it HIGHLY DUBIOUS that the Second Amendment would have been couched in its current language by the Founding Fathers.

The bullet was not even invented yet. Clearly, the Founding Fathers were referring to "arms" that existed at the time of the writing of the second amendment. This argument could also be supported by the capitalization of the word "Arms", which would refer to specific, existing arms of a certain type (while we are splitting hairs).

Were the Founding Fathers also stating that the right of the people to keep and bear a-bombs should not be infriged? The right of the people to have their own aircraft carrier? The Founding Fathers did not have a CLUE that such weaponry would ever be invented.

Almost none of the modern weapons of war were even invented yet.

The founding fathers had no idea of the lethality of modern firearms, and it is highly questionable as to whether they would have allowed civilians to own them.

Books I've Read Meme

Draft 4: 4/5/07
Draft 5: 4/19/07. Added Vonnegut, Sartre, Camus and Hesse.

This started out being a meme from Terra Shield's Blog, but now I'm going to use it as a summary of all the books I've ever read (and still remember).

COMING SOON: Over the next couple weeks I'm going to go thru this post and set up hyperlinks for all the books, plus hyperlinks to relevant criticism. Isn't that MARVELOUS?!

Black Elk Speaks (Recorded from oral conversations by Neihardt, 1932) I just remembered this one, but it is one of the most extraordinary books I've ever read. It's basically an oral history coming from Black Elk, who was of the last generation of Sioux indian warriors. It contains some extraordinary verbal pictures of Indian life.

One of the interesting lines, is that he says when they would go into battle, he would say "It is a wonderful day to die." Then he says that "of course, we fought naked", as if that would be totally obvious to anyone. That's because fighting naked affords more flexibility and allows one to be more of unity with the horse that he's riding. It should also be noted that this was a very cold climate.

But just imagine what those poor white calvary boys were up against: Confronting a wildly screaming horde of huge, naked Sioux Indians, on horseback, painted in blazing colors, who think that today is a wonderful day to die. Fortunately for the calvary, they had better weaponry.

Now that we are in the Internet age, you can read this book FOR FREE at U of Nebraska. Very cool. Plus this PDF version includes hyperlinks.

Beirut to Jerusalem (Thomas L. Friedman) Friedman presents a more realistic view of Israel and Arabia. He explores the complexity of the Middle East, without indulging in simple-minded good-guy/bad-guy stuff. He's pretty extraordinary since he's Jewish, but has spent a huge amount of time in Arabia, and speaks Arabic fluently.

I would also like to read Bernard Lewis, an historian at Princeton who has written extensively on Islam and the Middle East. He makes a strong case that the situation there as a continuation of the Crusades versus Jihad. He is an Arab who is not particularly pro-Arab. I saw him on C-Span, and he's very impressive.

The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (Tolkien)
The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (Tolkien)
The Lord of the Rings: Two Towers (Tolkien)
The Hobbit. I read all of these books 35 years ago, and it was a great read. When the movie came out, I was extremely disappointed. I thought that the characterization of Golem was overdone and overly grotesque. There was not enough substance and too many special effects. Not bad movies, but I don't really understand why people think they're so great.

Harry Potter 1-6 Yep, I've read all 6 Harry Potter novels and am waiting for number 7.

Angels and Demons (Dan Brown). Wouldn't mind reading this.

The Catcher in the Rye (J.D. Salinger) I read this in High School, and it was an important book that I related to somewhat, since I wasn't the most serious of students, to put it mildly. When my high school teachers would discover that I would be in their class, they would often contemplate suicide. I tended to be a merciless heckler, if I didn't like the teacher.

The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (C. S. Lewis) I enjoyed most of C.S. Lewis's novels. But I was surprised that he's such a major league Christian.

East of Eden (John Steinbeck) This is a great book about the Depression. I also liked Cannery Row a lot.
The Grapes of Wrath (John Steinbeck) Also great. It would be good to also read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle along with these, for some social consciousness.
Of Mice And Men (Steinbeck) Another classic.

Dune (Frank Herbert) Very good Sci-fi. I've considered reading all the sequels, but didn't get around to it.

Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand) I was an Ayn Rand fan in my sophomore year of college, but ultimately gave it up as sophomoric. But Atlas Shrugged is a good novel in its own right, if you ignore her dialectic tirades.
The Fountainhead (Ayn Rand) Also a good novel, if you ignore her ideological tirades.

1984 (Orwell) Of course one of the 2 classic visions of the future, along with Huxley's Brave New World. I think that the future will look more like Brave New World than like the Hitlerian 1984.

Bible (Old Testament) Haven't read the sequel yet.

The Great Gatsby (Fitzgerald) Didn't have much effect on me.

HG Wells had lots of good novels and short stories. He was ahead of his time. Especially, of course, War of the Worlds and the Time Machine.

The Witching Hour (Anne Rice) Pretty good in parts, but then she goes off on these long tangents that are tours of New Orleans. Not sure if she knows what she's talking about, or just making it up.

Catch-22 (Joseph Heller)

Lord of the Flies (Golding)

The Good Earth (Pearl S. Buck)

The Celestine Prophecy (James Redfield) I have this book, but never got into it.

Ulysses (James Joyce) - Partially I sometimes pick up Finnegan's Wake and read random parts, which are hilarious. His writing is like a literary Jackson Pollock. You just insert your own thoughts to fill the blanks.

Marshall McLuhan. Very important. I subscribe to his theory of history being driven by technology. Which is actually pretty scaring when you look at the world today. I think that McLuhan would say that the Internet will cause World War III. That's because every invention that has made the world smaller has caused major wars. WWII being a radio war.

Tom Sawyer (Mark Twain). I like Huck Finn even more. It amazes when people object to it as racist because Huck uses the N word. It is really a very clear and powerful picture of what black slavery was like in the old South.

Moby Dick (Herman Melville) I read this twice. I like the way Melville goes into enormously detailed explanation of every little area on board the ship.

3 of the 4 Rabbit novels (Updike) Updike wrote a Rabbit sequel every 10 years and it reflects his life.

About half of Joyce Carol Oates' novels

Spanish language (learning)

Most of the novels of Ursula Leguin, Jack London, Jack Kerouac, James Michener, Leon Uris.

Winds of War, War & Remembrance, Caine Mutiny (Herman Wouk) These three books are a great World War II read.

Additional books I just thought of, 4/19/07:
Several novels of Kurt Vonnegut, who recently died.
Player Piano was memorable, but wrong.
Slaughterhouse Five was memorable, since he was actually an American prisoner of war in Dresden and survived the fire-bombing. He was shocked by the carnage.
Cat's Cradle was also memorable, with ice 9.

Jean-Paul Sartre
No Exit was very memorable.
I also read a novel or short story of his, I don't remember the name, that was very interesting. The Germans had taken him prisoner in France during WWII (as they really HAD), and he tells how they casually lied to the troops to string them along and keep them happy.

first they told the French troops that they were taking them home, and that made them happy. Then they notice that the train they were on had crossed the German border. So then the Germans told them some more lies. Then, I think, they were in Poland.

Its a little similar to the story of the Jews, where the lies continued to the very end, where they were given the stone bars of soap for their most desired showers.

Unfortunately, this form of lying has become pretty common in the business world, when it comes to telling employees about their future and their next raise, etc.

Albert CamusI forgot the name of the novel that I read, about 40 years ago, something about man's failure of imagination. Couldn't get any hits on the Internet leading me to the name of the novel. But it was a good novel.

Hermann Hesse I was a major fan of his, about 40 years back. The Glass Bead Game was fascinating, Steppenwolf was great. The Magic Theatre, not for everyone. Narcissus and Goldmund was great. But I didn't like Siddhartha or Demian.

Gunseller shouldn't have sold a Glock

The gun dealer who sold the Virginia Tech killer a Glock 19 said that this was just an "ordinary" sale. Just what then is an "extraordinary" sale, when a guy comes in wearing a ski-mask while foaming at the mouth?

There were a few wildly-waving red flags here that should have been visible to any responsible gun-dealer:

First, the Glock 9mm is a handgun that is specifically designed for, and intended to be LIMITED TO, law enforcement and military personnel.

Why is that? Fast re-loading. The Glock 19, built with German efficiency, can use a clip of up to 30 rounds. That means that you can fire 30 shots before even reloading. And then reloading can be done in SECONDS simply by inserting another preloaded clip.

Why on earth would a college student living in a dormitory need that sort of firepower? What conceivable use was he going to put this handgun to? Did anyone even ASK him?

There is NO CONCEIVABLE REASON that a college student, living in a dormitory, would need a Glock 9mm semi-automatic. It is particularly absurd when you consider that he presented a GREEN CARD as identification to the gun dealer. Hell-oooooooooh, Mr. Gun Dealer, did you ever hear of something called the "War on Terror"? DUH.

And what would a college student living in a dorm need a semi-automatic, with 50 rounds of ammunition for?

Protection? Do you need a semi-automatic with 50 rounds of ammo to protect your bed? Even a person living in a large house would have little use for a gun that shoots more than 6 shots at a time, as a simple revolver does.

For home and personal protection, a revolver is the most practical and most reliable handgun. It never jams, whereas the Glock 19 has a significant jamming problem. The difference is that a 6-shooter is that it is difficult and time-consuming to reload.

But how often would an individual need to fire more than 6 shots at a time to protect himself? Indeed, most people go thru life without ever needing to shoot one shot.

Hunting? No, you don't go hunting with pistols, especially semi-automatics. You go hunting with rifles.

He was a resident alien. No offense against resident aliens, but that is another red flag. How many resident aliens from Korea go duck hunting with 9mm semi automatics? Try NONE. Unless maybe they went to the Dick Cheney School of Hunting Safety.

The ONLY legitimate use for a Glock 9mm is close-up, massive, lethal force in a law enforcement or military situation where you may need to fire a large number of rounds.

It is NOT a weapon that is designed for personal protection by a CIVILIAN.

Another red flag is that our friend Cho bought another automatic handgun. Did anybody even ASK why on earth a resident alien college student, living in a dorm, would go out and buy two semi-automatic handguns within a short period of time? Did anybody notice that he was not a hunter or a sportsman? That he was not a homeowner needing to protect his home? That he was not employed in a dangerous job where a concealed weapon was necessary?

A final red flag is that his teachers and fellow-students viewed him as a borderline psychopath. His plays were full of extreme violence.

All of this points to the idiocy of the current policy of selling guns to anybody who comes up with the cash.

What is it about the phrase "a well regulated militia" that the NRA bozos don't understand? Gun owners need to develop a sense of responsibility. They need to dump the NRA, which is nothing more than a trade association for weapons manufacturers.

Imus Guilty of Third-Degree Attempted Hipness

There is a double standard in America today. Black comedians and black rappers are allowed to use the N-word, and they are also allowed to use words like bitch and hole. Unfortunately, WHITE MALES, otherwise known as "honky motherf__kers", are NOT allowed to use these words.

The only exception to this rule are whites who are VERY hip. This might include negro-impersonators like M&M.

Imus, on the other hand, is a white dude. Although he is relatively hip for an old white dude, he is DEFINITELY not hip enough to call black, female, amazon, basketball players "nappy headed holes".

This was not a RACIST remark. It was a feeble attempt to be a hip negro-impersonator, like M&M. It was an embarrassing failure. Imus is far too intelligent to be a negro-impersonator. Negro-impersonators, of course, do not impersonate intelligent negroes. They only impersonate dumb/hip negroes who are high on crack.

But consider the reaction if Chris Rock had said exactly the same thing as Imus. That's right. A deafening silence. There would not have BEEN any reaction. That's because Chris Rock is a hip black comedian and can say anything he wants. Chris Rock could have called the women "a mean bunch of N-word holes" and all of the blacks in the audience would have laughed uproariously. That is because the ARE a bunch of mean N-word holes, and blacks RESPECT mean n-word holes.

So I would agree that Imus was guilty of first-degree attempted hipness, and he probably deserves a 2-week suspended sentance, with one year of probabation. This will teach him to stay IN HIS PLACE, as a honky motherf__ker, and not to go around acting as if he is some sort of hip black dude.

However, I would not agree that Imus is a racist. In fact, Imus is much LESS racist then most white TV commentators. He is one of the very, very few radio personalities in the USA who has not either been naturally or artificially lobotimized. So I will miss him. Imus is one of the very, very few commentators on radio or TV who is actually worth listening to.

If Al Sharpton is so concerned about racist remarks, why is he not disturbed at the lyrics of black rappers on the radio, who regularly use words like bitch, pimp, hole and the N-word? These same black rappers regularly encourage young blacks to even commit crimes. Why does Al Sharpton not favor a nationwide boycott of radio stations that broadcast rappers who use the N-word in their lyrics?

Don't black leaders get it? If it is OK for black rappers and black comedians to use the N-word, then why should it not be OK for HONKY comedians use the N-word? If black leaders want to stop the use of the N-word, they need to enforce this ban on black comedians and black rappers as well. Otherwise, the entire protest is not only indicative of a double standard, but it is also totally futile.

Germans owe Jews $100 trillion and 6 million souls

A certain person, who shall remain un-named, has presented the idea that the 4,000 years of Israel being the homeland of the Jews is not really all that important. Moses, Jesus, the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire? Small potatoes of no great consequence in the modern world. The only important thing are those Palestinians that came along with the Ottoman Turks and killed everything in sight. Hey! The last 200 years is most important, right?

Ok, just for the sake of argument, lets say that the last 200 years of history is the most important, and it doesn't really matter that Israel has been the physical and spiritual homeland of the Jews for the past 4,000 years.

If you are now going to be so generous in giving land back to the Palestinians, then you must also give back the land and property stolen from the JEWS during the course of the twentieth century. That's only fair, right?

By my estimation, as I will explain below, in an American court of law, it is likely that the 10 million Jews affected by World War II are owed something on the order of 100 TRILLION dollars. This is mostly owed by Germany and her allies/lackies during World War II, but it is also owed by other nations who have oppressed the Jews and stolen their land and property over the years. This includes Russia, many Eastern Europeon nations, and many Arab nations, including Iran and Iraq (where Jews have lived for hundreds of years).

The number of Jews affected by World War II is about 10 million. That includes the 6 million who were killed, and about another 4 million who were stripped of their belongings, sent to concentration camps, but survived.

So I will use 10 million as the multiplier in calculating damages and reparations.

1. LAND AND PROPERTY. Particularly during the Nazi era, virtually all Jewish land and property was stolen by the Nazis and their cohorts. Indeed, the Germans of the Nazi era were little more than a pack of theives. They had decided that it would be worthwile to steal everything that the Jews owned, and did so, to their great (short term) economic benefit.

This also includes the Jewish businesses that were seized by the Nazis. This occurred not only in Germany, but also in other places controlled by Nazi occupation, such as Vichy France, Fascist Italy, and most of Eastern Europe.

Jews had been living for HUNDREDS of years in the "Pale" that bordered Russia and Eastern Europe. These people were butchered in massive numbers by the Nazis, and sometimes by the Russians, as well as being caught in the crossfire of the Nazi-initiated war.

These Jews would have to be compensated for their lost land and property. Conceivably, this LAND should be RETURNED to the Jewish people. Is this not what many lefties are asking Israel to do for the Palestinians?

Consequently, a new Jewish "Mini-nation" needs to be created on the border of Russia and Eastern Europe. The current inhabitants of that area must be relocated to Siberia, since the Jews had been living there for the past few hundred years, just like the Palestinians in Israel, so the current residents of those areas have no right to be there. They stole that land from the Jews.

More dramatically, in Germany, the Jews should be given a new "Mini-nation" within Germany. Call it "Jewmany". This would be partial compensation for all of the land that was forcibly stolen from the Jews by the Germans during World War II.

Perhaps the Jews could be given Berlin, and an area of about 100 miles around it. The current German population in that area? Easy solution: Exterminate them! Hey! Now we're even! Kewl.

Seeing that the Germans have become such nice, reasonable people, I am sure that would not mind giving up Berlin and 6 million Germans to the newly immigrating Jews. Hey! Fair is fair!

2. COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING: If any American had suffered, at the hands of a local government, what the Jews suffered at the hands of the German government, they would doubtless by awarded a "pain and suffering" settlement of at least 100 million dollars by a typical American jury.

Consider the typical case: A brilliant Jewish college professor is suddenly prohibited from teaching or from using his hard-earned PhD for any purpose whatsoever. He has broken no laws, and has even been a model German citizen.

In addition to losing his job, he is also rounded up the Gestapo and taken to a concentration camp. All of his personal property is seized (stolen) by the German government. His wife and children are also rounded up and arrested by the Nazis. His wife might have been raped before his eyes, and his children abused.

At gunpoint, he and his family were stripped naked and shoved into a boxcar. The professor, his wife, his children, perhaps his parents, his cousins, the rest of his family. All stripped naked and shoved into a frigid boxcar with a single bucket in the corner to serve as a toilet.

Once arriving at the concentration camp, he was separated from his wife and children, and in fact, might have seen them raped, beaten or killed by sadistic German soldiers. He would then be worked to death, or near-death, as a slave laborer at the concentration camp.

OK? Now lets take all of this and bring it to an American court of law. Imagine that this person and his family were blacks living in Mississippi, and the Government of Mississippi did this to him, with no provocation or criminality at all on his part.

What do you think the settlement for "pain and suffering" would be? I think that a CONSERVATIVE estimate would be 10 million dollars per person.

Therefore, I say that the amount owed to the Jewish survivors, or their beneficiaries, for pain and suffering, would be 10 million dollars for each of the 10 million Jews. This comes to a total of 100 TRILLION dollars in damages.

But don't go away. There's more.

3. COMPENSATION FOR LOST WAGES. Another definite award would be given for "lost wages". Lets say that some Jewish businessman was making the equivalent (in 2007 money) of $500,000 per year, at age 40. Since he was then taken away to a concentration camp, there to make nothing, it is assumed that he has lost $500,000 times 25 years--the number of years until his retirement at age 65.

So in this one instance alone, lost wages comes to about 12 million dollars.

But I wouldn't want to be a greedy Jew. So let's say that we assign a measly 1 million dollars per person for lost wages. One million dollars times 10 million Jews comes to another 10 trillion dollars. Boy, those bills are sure adding up for the Germans! Maybe they can find a Jew money-lender to help them out! Or maybe they can get a juice loan from Tony Soprano. He's going to be around Sunday night, you know.

Nope, still not done.

4. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: One of the most unexcusable atrocities of the Nazis was the use of live Jews and Russians for medical experiments. For example, see
this and this .

The fact that these atrocities were carried out by medical doctors, who were highly educated, makes these crimes much worse than those committed by uneducated stormtroopers. These doctors did not have the excuse that they were "just following orders". These experiments required initiative, and certainly these doctors could have gotten out of performing them.

Doctors generally could also easily emigrate to another country. Most countries welcome doctors because they are so necessary. Especially during a war.

In an American court of law, the actions of these doctors would undoubtedly bring a HUGE financial settlement, including MASSIVE punitive damages. Consequently, another 10 trillion dollars should be added to the tab for medical malpractice.

5. PUNITIVE DAMAGES: Most certainly, in an American court of law, there would be HUGE punitive damages assessed against the Germans. Consider the multi-billion dollar punitive-damage settlement assessed against tobacco companies. And the tobacco companies are like Girl Scouts compared to the freekin Germans.

But once again, not wanting to be a greedy Jew, let's limit the punitive damages to a paltry one million dollars per person, which adds another 10 trillion dollars to the tab.

6. Compensation for lost personal property. But now let's take a look at Isreal/Palestine. Let's look at the land that is supposed to be returned to the poor sweet Palestinians.

First of all, at the birth of the modern State of Israel, there were only 750,000 Palestinians. So there was most certainly plenty of room for both Jews and Palestinians in the area. It isn't the fault of the Jews that the Palestinians have bred like bunnies in the past 60 years. It is not their responsibility to feed a ridiculous number of Palestinian babies. It is the Palestinians' responsibility to limit their birth rate to what they can afford.

Second, most of the land settled by the early Zionist was UNOCCOUPIED and UNWANTED by Palestinians. That is why the Jews settled there. They did not have the force, the money, the weaponry, or the desire to steal land from the Palestinians. They only wanted to live in peace.

Consequently, they settled largely in areas like the Negev Desert, where they reclaimed land from the desert thru hard work and scientific agricultural techniques. They also settled in Malaria infested swamps, that nobody wanted to even get near.

For example, one kibbutz that I know of was settled by Germans in the 1930's. These were German Jewish professions and white collar workers who suddenly found themselves dispossed and decided that moving to a Malaria infested swamp in Israel was perferrable to continuing to survive in Germany.

So German Jews worked very hard on draining their swamp and making it grow. And it did. And they opened little businesses, that had modest success, thru dint of hard work and intelligence. Today, that formerly Malaria-invested swamp is home to several million-dollar businesses.

You can't keep a good man down. They did not let Hitler destroy them.

But you now have an interesting problem. Are these people now supposed to just "give back" this land to the Palestinians? "Give back" the land to Palestinians who did not WANT it in the first place, and who might have even sold it to the Jews?

And what right would the Palestinians have to what has been BUILT on that land for the last 80 years? Those German Jews have been living on that piece of land for EIGHTY years! That is FOUR GENERATIONS of native-born Israelis. How is there a justification that they should "give back" this land to the Palestinians?

And even in cases where it WOULD be correct to "give back" land taken from the Palestinians. What about the property of the Jews that the Jews BUILT upon it in the past 60 years. Even if the Palestinians had a justification for taking back that piece of land, there could be no justification for taking the property that is built upon it.

A fair settlement in this case might be to give the Palestinians title to some specific pieces of land, and assign some reasonable rent to be paid. Perhaps in some years they land would be given over to them totally, if they really chose to take it over, and throw away the RENTAL revenue, which might be SUBSTANTIAL.

7. A final point is that the Jews did NOT take "Palestine" away from the Palestinians. They took Palestine away from the BRITISH. The former colony of Palestine was divided into the Jewish State of Israel, and a Palestinian state.

The Palestinians, alas, got greedy. They teemed up with 7 other Arab country to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. But it didn't work. The Palestinians lost. Tuff patooties, Palestinians. You should have been content with what you had.

So since then, because of their reckless choice to attack Israel, and their continuing non-productive terrorism, they wind up with much, much less than what they would have if they teamed up with Israel.

A million Palestinians DID become Israeli citizens, and are quite happy, thank you. But you rarely hear THEIR story. They never write stories in the papers, or on TV about happy Palestinans. No, its always about some suicidal loser who mistakes his dick for the wick of time bomb. Dumb people used as smart bombs.

So, to conclude my modest proposal, I must say that despite the fact that the Germans, and others, owe the Jews about 120 TRILLION dollars in damages, plus 6 million souls, the Jews are quite willing to forget about collecting all of that land and money if the world would simply leave Israel the fuck alone.

Yep, the Jews just want Israel to live in peace. So, think about it.

Draft 2: 4/9/07. Added Medical Malpractive claims. Removed some ineffectual insults.

TERRORISTS ARE NOTHING BUT COMMON CRIMINALS

I am very annoyed with the idea that terrorists are anything more than common criminals. Within any given nation ruled by law, terrorists are simply criminals. Frequently, they are the lowest and most extreme form of criminal: The mass-murderer.

So far as I know, there is no code of law in existence, in any nation, which excuses a mass-murderer as "innocent by reason of oppression". There are many oppressed people all over the world, of every race, religion and culture. The fact that someone has oppressed them, or is oppressing them, has never been grounds for the "oppressed" going out and murdering anybody who they feel has "oppressed" them.

Part of the reason for this, of course, is the impossibility of enforcement. Countries run under the rule of law do not have any instance where murder is a non-criminal act (except possibly for immediate self-defense or certain cases of insanity).

There are many other practical and logical difficulties with so-called "terrorism". They fall under 3 general categories: Who, what and why.

1. WHO: Assuming that a "terrorist organization" performs some mass-murder, how do you even know that a particular terrorist organization is REALLY responsible for it? Even if they allegedly take responsibility for it?

Let's say that Osama Bin Laden takes credit for blowing up the World Trade Center. How do we know that he is really responsible for it? He will not appear in person. He will not provide evidence that clearly shows that he did it.

We are dependent upon videotapes which could have been forged. Our only true evidence comes from airline videos and other intelligence showing that certain Saudis, allegedly members of something called "Al Qaeda", committed this egregious act of mass-murder and devastation.

The first serious falacy of terrorism is the impossibility of accountability. Nobody is truly ACCOUNTABLE for any terrorist act. The only cases where someone is accountable is when they blow themselves up or they get caught. The Saudis who flew the planes on 9/11 are all dead, so they are not accountable. If so-called "terrorists" blow themselves up, they are totally non-accountable, since you can't interrogate them to find out why they did it.

If they get caught, they are still un-accountable since they may lie in order to avoid prison. They might claim to be "oppressed terrorists" but may actually be simple extortionists, gangsters, or outright psychopaths.

Some Arab terrorist-sympathizers like to justify "terrorist" mass-murderers by saying that Israel is a "terrorist" nation, and that using terror against them is justifiable. However, Israel does not fit into this definition of terrorism. The Government of Israel is accountable for any act of physical force by the Israeli army. It is also subject to clearly identified and enforced law, including international law.

Terrorists are criminals who have no regard for law unless the particular law suits their interests.

2. WHY: When a terrorist organization, or an individual terrorist commits a particular act of mass-murder, it is impossible to definitively even know WHY they have committed this crime.

In the case of Palestinian suicide bombers, for example, you can not determine exactly why they have committed the crime, since you can not talk to them. Sure, they write some document about how they are blowing themselves up to protest Israel, etc. But upon more careful investigation, you discover that Sadam Hussein or an oil-cartel-financed Jihadist organization has given the suicide-bomber's family $25,000 to get the person to blow himself up.

This is not an act of idealism. It is an act of a young person in a hopelessly overpopulated state sacrificing his pathetic life to provide wealth for his impoverished family. The REAL reason behind it may have had more to do with the ambitions and vengefulness of Sadam Hussein, or of the strategy of the oil cartel or trans-arabic, empire-building, Jihadist Islam.

There is, in fact, no guarantee that Palestinian suicide-bombers represent the majority of the Palestinians. They most certainly do not represent the one million Palestinians who have become Israeli citizens.

Considering the near civil war conditions in Gaza, it is clear that terrorist organizations do not have a clear mandate even from the people of Gaza.

Hitler himself used this feature of "terrorism" to his advantage. The Nazis blew up the German parliament to further Hitler's ambitions as supreme dictator. Then they blamed it on communist "terrorists".

In the case of 9/11, the terrorist-sympathizers like to invent reasons as they go along. The Saudi leadership, who gave birth to 15 of the 19 sub-humans who perpetrated this massive crime, like to blather on about how it is all the fault of those nasty Israelis who mistreat the poor, innocent, mass-murdering Palestinians.

But to me it is highly unlikely that the 15 Saudi bombers would really have sacrificed their lives just to make some lame and unclear protest about "Israeli oppression". After all, Saudi Arabia is about 1000 miles from Israel, and Israel has virtually no influence upon Saudi Arabia, so why should Saudi suicide-bombers really gave a hoot about Israel?

Additionally, if 9/11 was about Israel, then why didn't the 9/11 suicide-bombers simply fly a plane into a building in Israel? Perhaps because these suicide-bombers were a bunch of psychopathic asswipes who would only be happy if they produced HUGE devastation, and Israel does not have any buildings any where near the scale of the World Trade Center.

Additionally, I simply do not think that the Arabs really give that much of a sh_t about Israel/Palestine. Let's face it: If the Saudi multi-billionaires loved their Palestinian "brethren" so much, they would have welcomed them into the Saudi Kingdom long ago, and they would have lavished some of their untold billions upon these poor unfortunate creatures.

But the fact is, the LAST thing that Saudi multi-billionaires want in Saudi Arabia are a bunch of dirt-poor, suicide-bombing radicals. Because guess what? The Palestinians could turn on the Saudi Royal Family with lightning rapidity. It is very convenient for the Saudis to have Israel around, so that they can blame the Jews for all the problems that they themselves cause. Apparently they are taking a page from the Nazi handbook.

3. WHAT: This is essentially the question of what country or electorate a terrorist represents. Nation-based terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah or the PLO, claim to have the support of their nation, even though they are incapable of forming a government.

In reality, this is generally based upon terror rather than popularity. Hezbollah exerts a hundred times more terrorism upon the Lebanese then it does upon Israel. People within Lebanon do not have the weaponry and organization to resist the extortion and terrorism that Hezbollah inflicts upon the Lebanese citizenry (especially Christians).

If Hezbollah were truly representative of Lebanon, they would be something called a "government". But they are not, because their power is based on extortion and gangsterism.

Hezbollah is also lavishly funded by Iran, which criminally supplied Hezbollah with 13,000 missiles to fire at Israeli civilian targets.

So we constantly see terrorist groups trying to perpetuate the big lie that they "represent" a population group, like the Palestinians, or like the Lebanese, when in fact they do not. When, in fact, they have used terrorism and extortion to quiet any sort of opposition to their brutal, gangster regimes. Indeed, they may take money and arms from a foreign country and use it against the legitimate government of their own country.

This is certainly the case in Lebanon, where the Lebanese army is less powerful, and has less money, than the Iran-funded Hezbollah. And since Hezbollah is representing the interests of IRAN rather than LEBANON, Hezbollah are actually TRAITORS to the people that they alledgedly represent.

So you can see from the above that terrorists are not "terrorists". They are simply common criminals.

Draft 2: 4/5/07