Absolut Aztlan Asininity

The ideal of Aztlan- the mythical super-country that existed before Mexico lost the 1848 Mexican-American War- enjoys significant support among Mexicans, despite the fact that Aztlan never existed. Mexico was a subsidiary of Spain until 1821, and Texas won its independence in 1832. The territories that became the south-western United States did not all become part of the United States as a single entity- California formed an independent republic, as did Texas. The remainder of the territories were gained as a result of war. For additional information on the mythology of 'Aztlan', please visit mexica.net, as they have a nice explanation of what Aztlan really was- the legendary birthplace of the Aztecs, who never held control over any part of the current United States.

If the Mexicans want to press for the 'return' of south-west United States, I'm sure they will have no problem allowing the secession-minded inhabitants of their own country to split off as well. And they would be delighted to give up all of Mexico to the descendants of the Aztecs- whose defeat allowed the Spanish Conquistadores to establish what would become Mexico. And I'm sure they also would support Spain in regaining governance of most of Latin America as well. After all, most of the countries therein fought their way to independence due to combat. And of course they would support the Islamic insistence that most of Spain, Eastern Europe, Greece and Russia should be 'returned' to them as well.

The entire case is of course ridiculous, but it seems Swedish vodka-maker Absolut either doesn't know much history, or has chosen to deliberately offend the United States- their biggest customer. In a series of new advertisements, running only in Latin America, Absolut presents a map of Mexico that includes a large part of the United States, with a caption stating 'In an Absolut World'. So, in other words, in a perfect world the United States would not exist? It certainly seems that is indeed their message. Of course, that would present the samll problem of a Europe under either Soviet or Nazi domination, since Sweden's role in World War II was neither dignified nor particularly brave- and their subsequent contributions to protecting Europe are nil.

Michelle Malkin has perhaps the best comment on Absolut's absolute idiocy, titling it 'Absolut Arrogance', but even the usually reliably liberal Los Angeles Times is not particularly sympathetic to the racist and historically illiterate claims of La Raza, admitting,

Mexico reconquers California? Absolut drinks to that!

The latest advertising campaign in Mexico from Swedish vodka maker Absolut promises to push all the right buttons south of the U.S. border, but it could ruffle a few feathers in El Norte.

Of course, the LA Times forgets that California also broke away into an independent republic, becoming part of the united States separately from the remainder of the conquered territories. But that is an expected lapse, since most reporters have even less knowledge or understanding of history than do La Raza. And the Times manages to ignore the insult at the heart of the ad- the idea that a Swedish vodka company is advocating the destruction of a free and democratic country- which incidentally is the sole reason Sweden was not absorbed into the Soviet Union's sphere of Europe post-World War II.

I shall not be purchasing Absolut for myself and will advise my friends and colleagues to do the same. If and when Absolut apologizes for their arrogance and anti-Americanism, I might reconsider. Maybe.

NY Times Complains About US Control Of Internet

The New York Times newspaper headlined its article about the recently concluded United Nations-sponsored Internet conference in Brazil as US Control of Internet Remains Issue. However, as is usual with the Times, while the tone of the article was complaining about the fact that the United States maintains control over the core Internet, they offered no evidence that handing over control to a foreign or even worse, a UN-controlled entity would be better. As the Associated Press article used by the Times reports,

A U.N.-sponsored Internet conference ended Thursday with little to show in closing the issue of U.S. control over how people around the world access e-mail and Web sites.

With no concrete recommendations for action, the only certainty going forward is that any resentment about the American influence will only grow as more users from the developing world come online, changing the face of the global network.

Of course, while the AP and the Times reported that 'the only certainty going forward is that any resentment about the American influence will only grow;, they were unable to show that there are actually andy disadvantages to the current system. If thee is indeed 'resentment', neither the AP nor the Times were able to make any arguments to justify the resentment. And the AP and the Times were completely unable to present any evidence showing that forcing the US to give up control would bring any improvements.

The Internet grew out of the ARPANET created by the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which created the first interlinked network of computer systems and eventually provided the backbone still used by the Internet today. the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, headquartered in Marina del Rey, California, is the main control for assigning domain names and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses worldwide. It appears that the simple fact that the United States government holds a veto over ICANN's operations and decisions has made some countries want to end US control and hand it over the to United Nations or some other non-US authority. But the US invented the Internet and to this day hosts some of the root servers. And there is no evidence that the US is doing anything to impede the free flow of information- in fact the United States is one of the few countries that has a consistent history of supporting and advancing freedom of information. As even the AP was forced to admit,

The United States insists that the existing arrangements ensure the Internet's stability and prevent a country from trying to, say, censor Web sites by pulling entries out of the domain name directories.

Supporters of the current system denounced the Russian proposal.

''The Russian proposal seeks to exponentially increase government interference in the ICANN process, introducing a dangerous and destabilizing force into a global Internet addressing system that has been a paragon of stability under the current oversight structure,'' said Steve DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice, a coalition of high-tech leaders like Time Warner Inc.'s AOL, eBay Inc. and Yahoo Inc.

The United States has a vested interest in the free exchange of information, and has a history of working to protect that free exchange. In contrast, the United Nations has a history of helping countries dominated by unelected and repressive governments (such as Venezuela, Hussein's Iraq, China, etc). Therefore, I cannot see that handing over control to the UN or any other non-US agency would bring any improvements. In addition, as the Internet is almost entirely a US creation, why should the US give up its role? The Times and the AP cannot present any answers to this question. Or would the Times and the AP prefer that countries such as China or Russia, neither of whom have a good record of providing free information, gain control of the Internet, as they would surely do if the UN takes control.

This is yet another example of empty-headed reporters, who somehow see the United States as the enemy, despite the patent fact that they would be unable to engage in their favored method of reporting through leaks under a truly repressive government, such as China's, begging for an action that ultimately will not benefit them. I sometimes wonder if most reporters have ever been taught how to perform critical analysis, since there are so many articles such as this generated. I wonder if the Times and the AP have thought through the consequences of forcing the US to give up control of the Internet. But the answer is almost certainly negative. After all, had they been capable of actually thinking the argument though to its logical conclusion, I doubt they would have gone into journalism- a discipline that is not known for its difficulty. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

One Down- How Many Left?

I have been unable to post due to personal and professional commitments for the past few days, but the news from yesterday is simply too good to pass up. One of the biggest enemies to Western society and our way of life perished when the United States military, in conjunction with the Iraqi forces killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi yesterday.

This news cannot be overstated, despite the near-gloom on the Left side of the blogosphere and the attempts of the Drive-By Media to downplay this. One commentator I heard made the very good point that the MSM seems highly pout out that the US is able to score a victory of this magnitude despite their determination that we have lost the war. Perhaps if they would spend a little more time actually reporting honestly on what is happening over in Iraq, fewer people would be against the war? The media has been trying since 2000 to destroy the Bush Presidency and they are determined to cause another Vietnam in Iraq, Interestingly enough, when I GOOGLE for al-Zarqawi's death, I cannot find any of the stories that ran yesterday on it. Could it be that the MSM do not want this story to be read? It is a thought....

I do not know the source of the media dislike for the United States, but I wish that they would either admit it or report objectively. The First Amendment is all well and good, but the Press needs to have some kind of oversight, since they are clearly walking very close to treason and in some cases (The New York Times comes to mind) they have already crossed that line, in my opinion.

However, this does not obscure the fact that AL-ZARQAWI IS DEAD!!!!!! We got the son-of-a gun, and hopefully the charred carcass of Bin Laden himself will not be far behind.

This also brings up an interesting point as to al-Quaeda's organization. With al-Zarqawi dead, the organization in Iraq lacks a leader. Bin Laden has been steadily more isolated and is running out of cohorts, as the US and its allies move ever closer to whatever cave he hides in. In Iraq, the al-Quaeda leadership has been decimated in recent months, according to documents and communications that have been intercepted. Now, with one stroke the US has wiped out the leader and several of his closest deputies, making it even harder for al-Quaeda to function. They may want to make a big splash, but they are finding it ever harder to move around and operate as the Iraqi forces become ever more efficient and the US troops move closer to their boltholes. This has already happened to the main al-Quaeda leadership- they are trapped in case and are not able to move freely anymore.

It will be very interesting to observe what happens now with al-Quaeda. I for one think their days are numbered. We are clearly winning on the battlefields. And if our media would display even a l;little patriotism, we would be winning here at home as well. Only the media's determination to destroy the United States and George Bush have given the Islamists the hope that they can win. Isn't it time to deploy the treason laws against the media, since it is easily provable that they are doing their best to help the enemies of the United States? It is proven from the terrorists' own mouths...

国際貴社とアメリカ (International Press and the US)

It is very interesting to view the disconnect between the way the international press corps views the United States and the way that most of the world's population views the same country. The international (and US) press has absolutely no compunctions about publishing derogatory and insulting articles and issues such as the infamous Newsweek Japan highlighted so clearly here. Although Newsweek apparently was afraid to publish that story in the U.S. Interesting how they are so courageous- especially when no Americans are likely to be listening/reading!

However, it is even more interesting how the majority of the world's population clearly disagree with the self-elected elites of the Press. In fact, the US is still the number-one destination for both legal and illegal imigration. While the international press sneers, ordinary people- those who, unlike the majority of the Press actually work for a living- are voting with their feet. You think the Press might notice?

It is my sincere hope that someday the Press' contempt and dislike for their own country, and their despicable tactics in constantly denigrating it, will come home to roost. I only hope I am here to see it.

Hat tip to Gaijin Biker and Michelle Malkin.