Renaming channels

I now call the Discovery channel "The Discredit the Bible channel." There were so many shows in just the past few weeks that questioned the legitimacy of the Biblical record and only explained the Bible through the naturalistic perspective. It's bad enough they have shows that present Darwinian evolution as a given "scientific" basis which all other sciences spring from. Worse when they present the Bible's events through that perspective. Darwinian evolution is incredibly limiting and scientifically nonsensical when used to explain the present physical world.

Also, I've renamed the History channel "The Revisionist History channel" and the Learning channel "The Leery of What I'm Learning channel."

Complainers

Five years ago today, I was living in Cincinnati, OH, and working for GE Capital. It was raining on and off that day and it cleared by the time I left to go home. I turned on the TV and all the news channels were reporting that US and Coalition Forces were beginning their first phase in invading and freeing Iraq.

The war was controversial in its outset. Why Iraq? Why not keep it in Afghanistan? There were no reports of Bin Laden being in Iraq. Why waste time, money, and lives going after Hussein, who didn't even plan the 9/11 attacks? Back then, most people relied on Bush's promise to find WMDs. After five years, there doesn't seem to be much to show for all the energy put into the war. And Bush even considered it a mistake. Why keep going? We should pull out now and find the real terrorists! And then impeach Bush.

Arguments like these only show an uninformed and narrow view of the war. Many have already forgotten why we went to war in the first place. What didn't help was the mainstream media constantly focusing on the failures of the war. And many people don't make the time to do a little research to find the truth. The mainstream media already had a built-in antipathy towards Bush, so they try to find anything that would discredit him, even going so far as suppressing the truth.

Here's a reminder from the article "Why We Went to War in Iraq" by David Horowitz (emphases mine):

"...The first – and last – rationale presented for the war by the Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war was not the destruction of WMDs but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or regime change.

"This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control agreements it embodied, including UN resolutions 687 and 689, and the 15 subsequent UN resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of these, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum to Saddam giving him “one final opportunity” to disarm – or else. The ultimatum expired on December 7, 2002, and America went to war three months later...

"Al Gore and Bill Clinton had themselves called for the removal of Saddam by force when he expelled the UN weapons inspectors in 1998, a clear violation of the Gulf truce. This was the reason Clinton and Gore sent an “Iraqi Liberation Act” to Congress that year; it is why the congressional Democrats voted in October 2002 to authorize the president to use force to remove him; and it is the reason the entire Clinton-Gore national security team, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence, supported Bush when he sent American troops into Iraq in March 2003.

"The Authorization for the Use of Force bill – passed by majorities of both parties in both Houses – is the legal basis for the president’s war, which Democrats have since betrayed along with the troops they sent to the battlefield. The Authorization bill begins with 23 “whereas” clauses justifying the war. Contrary to Gore and the Democratic critics of the Bush administration, only two of these clauses refer to stockpiles of WMDs. On the other hand, twelve of the reasons for going to war refer to UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein...

"On March 17, two days before the invasion, Bush issued an eleventh-hour ultimatum to Saddam: leave the country or face war. In other words, if Saddam had agreed to leave Iraq, there would have been no American invasion. It is one of the most revealing features of the Democrats’ crusade against George Bush that they blame the war on him instead of Saddam.

"If its offer had been accepted, the Bush administration would have left in place a regime run by the Ba’athist Party and headed by Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz or some comparable figure from the old regime. The idea was, that without Saddam, even such a bad regime would honor the truce accords of 1991 and UN Resolution 1441. This would have led to Iraq’s cooperation with the UN inspectors and the destruction of any WMDs or WMD programs that Saddam may have had – without necessitating a war...

"Since war was not the president’s preference – first, last or otherwise – the United States did not immediately attack. Instead, the White House spent three months after the December 7th deadline trying by diplomatic means to persuade the French and Russians and Chinese to back the UN resolution they had voted for and to force Saddam to open his country to full inspections. In other words, to honor the terms of the Gulf War truce that they – as Security Council members – had ratified and promised to enforce."

In addition, there have been a significant amount of evidence showing that WMDs have been found. Hussein had enough yellowcake uranium that, if refined, would have been able to make nearly 150 nuclear bombs, besides all the other chemical weapons he had. All he would have needed was a little time and a whole lot of distraction to set up the factories to manufacture the weapons. And there should be no surprise that Hussein and Al-qaeda are connected in some way. They have been involved with each other for over a decade up until '02.

Anyone who misunderstands the reasons for the war are victims of their own forgetfulness or heavily influenced by media bias against Bush.

PMABM Newsletter #6

To continue our discussion on different martial arts I've experienced, here is a nice demonstration of silat, one of many Southeast Asian martial arts. This first video is a demonstration of both Filipino kali and silat, influenced by Dan Inosanto. He teaches the blended Maphilindo style of silat, but it's not too different from the purely Indonesian style I learned. You don't have to understand the commentators to appreciate this demonstration. If you understand Italian, then great!



This second video is more of what I trained in called pencak silat mande muda. This is part of a seminar taught by Pendekar Suwanda (pendekar means instructor). It was incredibly fun to learn since I was able to tie up my partner into a pretzel in myriad ways. This style helped catapult me to a greater understanding of contact flow and combative movement. No, it doesn't have any superficial connection to contact flow, but we'll go over some of the moves in class to help you see the shared principles.



And one more video: once again, look for the similarities in combative movement. Can you see hubud movement in there? Are you able to pick out what's effective and what's just dance-like? Do you think this can work in high speed? Do you think this can work with a sociopath coming after you?

I Heart Huckabee

Darn...

Huckabee dropped out of the race. And he was so good too! An incredibly gifted speaker, a natural comedian, and an overall fun-loving guy, which is not typical for a presidential candidate. I don't agree with his immigration stance, which is too much like Bush's, but for most everything else, he was closest to representing me. Oh, well, maybe I'll see him run again in 2012 or 2016 (whoa, those years seem sci-fi strange to me).

Just saw live coverage of Bush endorsing McCain. Ugh, that's too bad. I mean, both Bush and McCain are moderate anyway, so it only makes sense that they would team up. And I understand Huckabee throwing his support over to McCain, also. Strategically speaking, it would make sense to back one candidate especially if you want your party to win. I may be Republican, but I'd rather be associated with conservatism. Republicans in government are a little too moderate for me these days. Once again, it's one of those "lesser of two evils" votes. But with all the conservative radio pundits badmouthing McCain, I wonder who is truly less evil.

In the end, we'll see who God puts in the White House and then I'll have to accept it. I'll make my voice known if I need to.

Crappy News Nonsense

When we moved into our new house a month ago, the cable line was still on from the previous occupants. I told RCN to get rid of the cable because I knew I'd waste too much time in front of the dumbtube, especially with all the crap I have to do. RCN said they were on it. So, I'm watching as much as I can now before it cuts out. But man it's depressing! I'm usually on the news channels or documentary/learning channels. Talk about lack of truth and objectivity! I'm not saying there isn't any, but it sure is rare. I feel sorry for people who accept much of what these channels talk about as fact. And not only that, but the old adage "blood sells" or "sex sells" doesn't give me feel good vibes. News producers, we know the world is a wicked and violent place full of bloodshed and tears. We're very aware of the evil and the crap that happens in the world. Even though it varies in one form or another, it's still the same bad news. Is there a possibility you can report good news as often as the bad? That would be so refreshing, I would very much appreciate it. I'm sure a bunch of other people would too.