The World According to Imal

Musings on Life, the Universe and Everything.

"Imal is a warrior poet, a modern day Nostradamus without all the annoying quatrains."
-Greg Packer

"Heed the need to read my screed."

Published Wheneverly. A Proud American and Citizen of the Free Republic.

"Come for the coffee, stay for the pie."

Atom Site Feed

Saturday, September 18, 2004

Not Surrender, But Treachery 

There has been predictable controversy surrounding a television ad produced by MoveOn.org depicting a U.S. soldier holding his rifle over his head while sinking in quicksand.

MoveOn.org is a Clinton front group which was originally formed in the late 1990s to encourage Americans to "move on" from the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment proceedings.

The image of an American soldier surrendering can have only one anticipated effect: to outrage American citizens and build resolve for victory in Iraq.

No political operative, no matter how twisted, is stupid enough to think that an appeal to surrender will ever gain popular support in America.

Why? Because it never has. Not even in Vietnam. That was not a surrender of the American people or American soldiers, but America's leaders, to their eternal shame.

Ads like this undermine John Kerry far more than they hurt George W. Bush, and MoveOn.org knows it.

This is yet another example illustrating a careful if not terribly subtle campaign on the part of the Clintons to position Hillary for a presidential run in 2008.

Doing so means ensuring that John Kerry never sits in the oval office, and that's what this is all about.

The real target of MoveOn.org is not the President, but his opponent. The game MoveOn.org is playing is not one of surrender, but treachery against the man they ostensibly support: John F. Kerry.

The surest way to get Americans to fight to the death is to demand our surrender.

posted by Imal  # 1:20 PM

Saturday, July 17, 2004

Michael Moore Addresses His Fans 

(I saw this on a popular website and thought it might be worth posting here. See what you think.)

by Michael Moore

My fellow Americans, devoted fans and valued consumers, I wanted to lay to rest some of the rumors you may have been hearing lately. Of course, anyone who revolutionizes film and print like I have is bound to make a few enemies along the way, and we both know I have many of those. Sometimes their criticism is warranted, sometimes not, so I want to set the record straight. According to my critics, I distort the truth in my books and films. This is absolutely true.

In fact, converting source material into art worthy of bearing my name requires such creative talent and effort that I have considered patenting my methods. Some of my finest, Oscar-winning documentary moments are so heavily edited, spliced and overdubbed that my production staff and I sometimes spent days just trying to perfect that one six-second transition to make it seem like one of my "victims" was actually saying something he never really said. Film is as magical as it is powerful!

Another favorite of mine is showing you one thing while talking about another, and sequencing scenes in such a way that you are led to believe they are somehow related, when in fact they are not. This really has an impact when my art gives you the impression that two events happened one right after the other, when, in fact, they may have occured months or years apart. I do that all the time, it's my trademark. Of course, that's not as bad as using staged scenes and representing them as not being staged (which I also routinely do), and there are so many other ways I distort the truth to fit my evil and self-serving purposes, but then, who really cares, anyway?

The truth, my dear, valued, brainwashed and oh-so-easily-manipulated customers is that I have lied to you again and again, and that the very foundation of my work -- its very reason for being, from concept to closing credits -- is to deceive you into believing things that are just plain false.

That's right, I am a big, fat liar! My critics are telling the truth about me, every single one of them. Even though I say THEY are lying, we both know, deep in our hearts, that it's really just me that's lying. I have been lying my whole life, and I am really good at it. I even lie about lying. It's my special power. If I were a superhero, I would be "Liarman". I would still be fat, but at least I would be able to fly, and spread lies with superhuman speed! I would crush you all like bugs.

But really, what is a lie? What is truth? The answer is amazingly simple: they are exactly what I tell you they are. If I say something is true, it IS true. If I say it's a lie, it IS a lie. I am the source of all truth and all lies, because, in the end, it's all about me, and nobody else but me. You love my work, and you love me, because I am better than you. That's right! I'm smarter, richer and even better-looking than you, which means you must really be a mess, you pathetic, bleating little sheep. Believe it, because it's the truth!

While I'm on the subject of truth, I should also point out that I am a high-ranking member of Al Qaeda, and have been for years. I wholeheartedly support terrorism and think everyone in America should be slowly decapitated (I'll pay for the videotape), preferably with a dull, rusty, capitalist-produced Ginsu knife. I also demand, once every last American is dead, that the land America sits on be given back to the dinosaurs, who are really the ones who legally owned it before it was stolen by the Indians. I am also a member of the American Nazi party, worship the Devil (who I call "Uncle Luke") and love to torture small, furry animals. Sometimes, instead of torturing them, I just shoot them with one of the guns from my collection of over 300 exotic, unlicensed and illegal firearms.


Sincerely yours,

Michael Moore

EDITOR'S NOTE: All of the words attributed to Michael Moore in this article and disclaimer have been publicly spoken, written, published or read (either silently or out loud) in whole or in part by him at various times, sometimes singly or as parts of sentences which may not appear in their entirety here, and have been edited for publication using some of the same creative editing techniques and applying some of the same ethical, professional and technical standards used by Mr. Moore in his film and literary works, with the sole exception of this disclaimer, which Mr. Moore would not have included had he actually written this article. Copyright © 2004 would have been explicitly waived by Michael Moore.

The illusion of freedom is itself a tool of control.

posted by Imal  # 1:06 PM

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Puzzling News 

Things are rarely as they seem, and all the more so in the world of commercial news. There's always a reason for everything. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's not, and sometimes it's deliberately concealed. If a story doesn't seem to make sense, it's probably because the rationales behind it are unknown.

That's my personal playground, trying to find those hidden rationales. Sometimes I'm a million miles off-base, but usually I get some of it right, and every once in a while, I manage to nail it. But regardless of how accurate it may be, I always find a great deal of satisfaction by coming up with explanations for events that make sense to me.

In approaching the plot, like a mystery writer, I try to start at the end of the story and work backwards, applying the motivations of the characters in ways that make sense to each of them. And like classic mystery novels, a seemingly irrational news story challenges us to use our finely-honed wits to solve the puzzle.

What could be more fun than that?

Not only are there many layers in an onion, but there are many onions.

posted by Imal  # 4:18 PM

Saturday, June 19, 2004

"Al Qaeda says..." 

From UPI via the Washington Times comes an interesting article titled "Saudi confirms death of main al-Qaida man".

In this masterpiece of wire service exposition, the following phrase jumped out at me:

A statement by al-Qaida published on a Muslim Internet site said

I would sure like to know how UPI confirmed that this statement came from al-Qaeda, and not some joker posting in his underwear in Peoria, Illinois. They give us no indication of how they verified this. It's just posted as a certainty, and we're supposed to assume it's true.

To make things worse, the source article has apparently been "updated", and now reads like this:

But the al-Qaida network denied Saturday al-Muqrin was killed and called the government report a lie.

Nowhere in the story does UPI allow that maybe, just maybe, the statements may not actually have come from genuine Al Qaeda sources. By this dismally low journalistic standard, anyone can speak for Al Qaeda.

Want to put words in Al Qaeda's mouth? No problem! Just post to a Muslim website! UPI will push a story over the wire for you! I'll bet something like, "I'm Osama bin Laden and I'm a doodie-head!" would make headlines all over the world, at this rate.

This from a service fanatical about using such disqualifiers as "reportedly said" and "alleged president". It leads me to wonder how they can be so sure of the sources they are quoting when it comes to Al Qaeda. Worth pondering.

I suspect, however, that rather than having inside connections with Al Qaeda, as likely as that appears from their "alleged journalism", they're just posting more uncorroborated crap in a long series of uncorroborated crap.

The believability of the wire services is rapidly being eclipsed by the credibility of a two-year-old child. Next thing you know, UPI will be printing, "A monster told us..."

To claim an event is random is to admit not understanding what caused it.

posted by Imal  # 7:35 AM

Saturday, June 05, 2004

Farewell, President Reagan 

A great man died today, although in my thoughts he died years ago when the ravages of Alzheimer's Disease took his mind from us. Nonetheless, I find myself weeping at his passing. He was a key figure in my life.

I had the honor of serving in the U.S. Navy while he was Commander-In-Chief. Just a few years before, service in the armed forces was despised and attacked by those who hated anyone who wore a uniform, and this was a very real and physical threat. Under President Reagan's command, respect for armed service was restored.

Under his command, we faced an enemy determined to destroy us, and we defeated it. I was privy to a great deal of what was really happening in those days, and know how close we came to destruction at the hands of the Soviet Union.

I will never forget that, simply put, President Reagan saved the lives of every man, woman and child in the United States, including my family, friends and loved ones. That is a debt I can never repay, but I can honor it by remembering it. Our victory was the product of the work of millions of heroes, but without a leader like President Reagan, all would have been lost.

I remember it now, as I will always remember it.

From poverty, he brought us prosperity.
From malaise, he brought us strength.
From humiliation, he brought us pride.
From defeat, he brought us victory.

Farewell, President Reagan. I will never forget you. I pray that someday we may yet meet one another, when the sun shines upon us again.

With deepest respect and in loving memory of President Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1911-2004.

posted by Imal  # 3:13 PM

Sunday, May 23, 2004

Geopolitical Chess Under A Blanket 

My friend randog on the Free Republic posted the following to a thread on Iran sending a diplomatic warning to the U.S. over Iraq, I was inspired to respond as shown below, and thought I would share my thoughts thus revealed with my dear, rare and esoteric readership:

My spidey sense has been tingling, too. I feel like I'm watching a grand chess game, but the board is covered by a blanket and all I can see are the players' arms moving.

I did a big "Huh?!" over the Abu Graib incident, then got even more suspicious when Chalabi got busted, and now this.

Something big is going on behind the scenes but I can't make heads or tails of it. Imal--you got any ideas or insight?

Your chess game analogy is a good one, and I'm not sure if anyone gets to see under the blanket, even the players. Without a doubt, there are big doings afoot.

There is much to puzzle over these days, and though attention is fixed on Iraq, the contest is global in scope. Several other nations, notably China, have their mitts all over the Middle East, but that's not getting a lot of attention. In truth, Iraq is the fulcrum of a major geopolitical struggle that most of the world does not want the U.S. to win.

The highly-publicized-by-the-U.S. falling out with Chalabi appears to be a necessary prelude to his future political career. It seems contrived, and the only reason the world knows anything about it is our government's insistence that the world know about it.

After all, if Chalabi really sold us out, we'd make him disappear into Abu Ghraib or a successor, not turn him into an international media darling. I mean come on, does Chalabi or any member of his court really have a security clearance for sensitive classified material? This is cinema.

My take on this is that we're cutting Chalabi's umbilical cord. If he survives, he may well become Iraq's first "freely-elected" president of the new millennium. Thus the U.S. will "lose control" of the new Iraq to a leader who is publicly treacherous to the U.S., "his own man" (just look at the way he slapped the U.S. in the face!), a true "Iraqi patriot" and, all the while, he'll be privately in our pocket (we have a lot more on him than he has on us). Not a particularly new game to play, but you go with what works.

As for Iran, it has been in our sights for decades. They know we're after them, and they are justifiably concerned. With Iraq nailed down (watch, it will be sooner than it looks from this vantage point), we'll have Iran in the vice, with Afghanistan on the other side. We might use our dear friend Chalabi as leverage against them when he has his inevitable "falling out" with Iran (again, to prove he's not in anyone's pocket).

Of course, we'll blame Iran (and at some point Syria) for the lingering problems we face in both neighboring countries, while we quietly work to set up the next revolution, which will probably (and hopefully) be comparatively short in happening. With U.S.-occupied countries on their eastern and western borders, Iran's theocrats can plainly see the handwriting on the wall. "Diplomatic messages" like this one are laughably feeble attempts to salvage some dignity while they have their country taken out from under them.

After Iran's inevitable revolution inevitably succeeds, then the U.S. can count Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan as staunch allies. Perhaps Iran's deposed mullahs, imams and ayatollahs might find refuge in France, in accordance with tradition.

Syria will really start sweating bullets then (more than they are already), and I think we can expect a more genuinely free version of Lebanon to grace the Mediterranean soon, followed soon by a more "democratic" Syria, also soon to become more tolerant of the U.S., if not an overt ally (although that may very well be in the cards).

Meanwhile, the world will see the latest incarnation of the "Domino Theory", as boldly played by an "arrogant cowboy". Most will complain endlessly about it, but no one will be able to stop it. In light of their demonstrable impotence against this "threat", I suppose we can begrudge them some grumbling and grousing, all while they line up for their economic blessings from an ever benevolent Uncle Sam.

Ultimately, I suspect Bush the younger may someday be able to claim that he was the first U.S. president to actually take meaningful steps to secure a true and lasting peace in the Middle East (albeit not during his presidency, per se, but we don't credit his dad for the fall of the Berlin wall, either), while simultaneously presiding over a dramatic national shift from oil to alternative primary fuel sources (another story not getting a lot of press these days, but watch).

A wild card in all this is Al Qaeda, and I think it would be unwise to underestimate their ability to throw some very large wrenches into the plan. Every strike they make, however (even in Spain), will succeed only in galvanizing resolve against the radical Islamist agenda. If they succeed in striking hard in the U.S. prior to the November elections, we can expect a very different response from that which we saw in Spain, and I don't think it would go well for Kerry (not that it would anyway -- he's the Dems' "disposable candidate").

While it's true that Al Qaeda seeks to divide the world into Muslims and infidels, and thus foment world war, it seems they might already have overplayed their hand. Opposition to Russia's operations against Muslim insurgents in Chechnya, for example, has already faded to a whisper, and the stooge turnout for other anti-West causes is on a long, downward decline. Soon even Palestine will garner little sympathy, as the game they are a part of becomes more transparent.

Time will tell if I'm right or completely off-base on one or all of these topics. In the meantime, it's fun to speculate.

I am sure "Fahrenheit 9/11" is as fine a film as this year's Cannes jury is capable of appreciating.

posted by Imal  # 4:39 PM

Monday, May 17, 2004

Innocent until proven guilty? 

It's a common phrase in the press these days. It is most frequently used by those who are, in fact, guilty to attempt to deflect pre-trial notoriety, although those who are innocent can and should maintain their innocence, and this popular phrase fills the bill.

You get a special prize if you can tell me where that phrase comes from. (Hint: It's not in the U.S. Constitution.)

I prefer "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

Public discussion, whether in the press, on the Internet or on the sidewalk, isn't a court of law, either for purposes of presuming innocence or proving guilt. Attempts to impose courtroom rigor on public discussion are oppressive and contrary to the spirit of American freedom, as well as contrary to U.S. law if attempted by government.

If I see you commit a crime, I know you're guilty, and don't need to pretend I don't know you're guilty. In fact, to do so would be to disqualify myself as a witness to the crime, and that would be grossly irresponsible. If I as a witness have a reasonable doubt, so should a jury. If you reasonably believe I am guilty of a crime, it's your duty as a citizen to say so, and testify accordingly if called to do so in court.

Likewise, if someone behaves suspiciously, it is perfectly reasonable to take note and say so, and, in fact, it would be irresponsible not to. To publicly speculate about someone's innocence or guilt is speech protected under Amendment One to the U.S. Constitution. As long as one is not defaming or libeling someone else, such speculation is not only acceptable, but commendable.

It is our duty as citizens to keep an eye on what our government and legal system are doing. If we fail to do so, we fail as Americans, and will deserve the very unpleasant consequences of our dereliction of duty. Part of this duty involves observing and discussing criminal acts and legal proceedings, and assuring ourselves that our legal system is doing what it should.

"Justice is blind," but Americans need not be. In fact, we'd better not be if we want to remain Americans.

Sarcasm is the first refuge of a scoundrel.

posted by Imal  # 6:12 PM

Want More? Check Out the Archives!

07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003   08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003   09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003   10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003   11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003   12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004   01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004   02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004   03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004   04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004   05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004   06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004   07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004   09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004  

Copyright © 2003, 2004 Imal. Contents may be freely used and distributed provided attribution to the author is included.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?