Rightank

Introducing the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Self-described environmental saviors, they wish everyone would stop having babies in order for the Earth’s puritanical renewal:

VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization. It’s a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet Earth. We’re not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters.

We don’t carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet. That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing.

Rather, The Movement presents an encouraging alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of the Earth’s ecology.

As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens… us.

Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom.

Here’s a thought: What if all the VHEMTers die before all humans are extinct? Who would carry on the cause? Howard Dean’s grandson? Here’s a crackpot article that takes this “Movement” seriously. (Hat tip: IMAPP blog).

I just finished reading Theodore Dalrymple’s book Our Culture, What’s Left of it: The Mandarians and the Masses. A very enjoyable read, loaded with personal ancedotes that captivate, emotionalize, and provoke one’s own feelings about how our pristine, civilized culture is being slowly thrown in the back-alley dumpster. Dalyrmple’s collection of essays vividly portray the societal costs of moral relativism and family revisionism–and why these intellectual utopias wreak havoc on the interpersonal relationships that uphold society’s mores. Highly recommended.

I’m sure you’re very excited for today’s opening of the World Summit on the Information Society (”WSIS”) in Tunis. At Tunis, nations will be encouraged to adopt the Tunis Commitment. This document is hilarious. If you thought the WSIS is a digital coup d’etat, think again. It’s really about lifting up the world’s poor and minorities:

9. We reaffirm our resolution in the quest to ensure that everyone can benefit from the opportunities that ICTs [Information and Communicative Technologies] can offer, by recalling that governments, as well as private sector, civil society and the United Nations and other international organisations, should work together to: . . . foster and respect cultural diversity.

11. Furthermore, ICTs are making it possible for a vastly larger population than at any time in the past to join in sharing and expanding the base of human knowledge, and contributing to its further growth in all spheres of human endeavour as well as application to education, health and science. ICTs have enormous potential to expand access to quality education, to boost literacy and universal primary education, and to facilitate the learning process itself, thus laying the groundwork for the establishment of a fully-inclusive and development-oriented Information Society and knowledge economy which respects cultural and linguistic diversity.

13. We also recognise that the ICT revolution can have a tremendous positive impact as an instrument of sustainable development. In addition, an appropriate enabling environment at national and international levels could prevent increasing social and economic divisions, and widening the gap between rich and poor countries, regions, and individuals—including between men and women.

18. We shall strive unremittingly, therefore, to promote universal, ubiquitous, equitable and affordable access to ICTs, including universal design and assistive technologies, for all people, especially those with disabilities, everywhere, to ensure that the benefits are more evenly distributed between and within societies, and to bridge the digital divide in order to create digital opportunities for all and benefit from the potential offered by ICTs for development.

20. To that end, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalised and vulnerable groups of society including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people, older persons and persons with disabilities.

23. We recognise that a gender divide exists as part of the digital divide in society and we reaffirm our commitment to women’s empowerment and to a gender equality perspective, so that we can overcome this divide. We further acknowledge that the full participation of women in the Information Society is necessary to ensure the inclusiveness and respect for human rights with in the Information Society. We encourage all stakeholders to support women’s participation in decision-making processes and to contribute to shaping all spheres of the Information Society at international, regional and national levels.

32. We further commit ourselves to promote the inclusion of all peoples in the Information Society through the development and use of local and/or indigenous languages in ICTs. We will continue our efforts to protect and promote cultural diversity, as well as cultural identities, within the Information Society.

38. Our efforts should not stop with the conclusion of the Summit. The emergence of the global Information Society to which we all contribute provides increasing opportunities for all our peoples and for an inclusive global community that were unimaginable only a few years ago. We must harness these opportunities today and support their further development and progress.

This hoiler-than-thou document exemplifies how the international liberal mindset uses the poor, women, disabled, and the ever expanding list of minorities in an abusive and manipulative manner in order to sound caring, sensitive, and compassionate. The internationalists anguish acts as a protective cover to further their shady goal of wresting the internet DNS from U.S. control. The world’s “marginalised and vulnerable groups of society” are the internationalists scapegoat. The “Tunis Commitment” makes me puke.

U.N. Ambassador John Bolton on the United Nations:

[The U.N.] has got to be a place to solve problems that need solving, rather than a place where problems go, never to emerge.

In the United States, there is a broadly shared view that the U.N. is one of many potential instruments to advance U.S. issues, and we have to decide whether a particular issue is best done through the U.N. or best done through some other mechanism. . . .

Isn’t great to have an ambassador to the U.N. who believes the U.N. doesn’t qualify as the only international instrument to advance our interests? Moreover, he describes the current U.N. mindset as a “culture of inaction.” Blunt and true. Hopefully Bolton can lower the number of U.N. workers it takes to turn a light bulb during the next two years.

Best of all, he has his priorities straight:

My priority is to give the United States the kind of influence it should have.

Finally, someone at the U.N. who puts United States interests’–not the international community–first.

I know I’m a little late in joining the Confirm Alito Coalition, but better late than never.

As previously stated, I strongly support Alito’s confirmation to the United States Supreme Court.

The IRS has decided to take action and initiate a formal tax inquiry to remove the All Saints Church’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status due to the message of a sermon entitled “If Jesus Debated John Kerry and President Bush” in which the preacher denounced Bush and praised Kerry. See the IRS letter here.

The constraints on churches within political campaigns are summarized on the IRS website:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

Why am I upset that a pro-Kerry church might lose their tax-exempt status? Because, in 2008 and beyond, the tables can be quickly turned. A conservative preacher, who intends his remarks for his own private (not public) congregation, may face IRS scrutiny if he had a sermon entitled “George Allen Against Hillary Clinton: A Potential American Tragedy” in which he lambastes Clinton’s foibles and his message ends up on the front page of the New York Times creating the “public statement of position.”

The Washington Times editorializes:

[I]t’s not just liberals who should be worried. Everyone who values the free speech and religious freedom should be concerned. Short of prohibiting speech that foments riots or encourages terrorism, government should not be able to intrude on the pulpit. The Constitution says so.

I couldn’t agree more.

William F. Buckley, Jr. on the French riots:

My view is unorthodox, Mr. Buckley says of the violence roiling the French suburbs. It seems to me that a very hard dose of market discipline would distract the attention of the young revolutionaries from their frolics, traditional and otherwise, and my sense is that if they had to worry about how to eat, and buy food, they would stop screwing around and face reality. If these people didn’t wake up in the morning thinking about what cars to burn–instead of work–they might not be having these problems.

Combined with the radical Islamicism, this socialist cocktail that Buckley rightly criticizes is harbinger of things to come in France and other European nations with significant Muslim populations.

Erstwhile, the riots continue.

Today, President Bush gave a glowing tribute to America’s veterans along with a powerful rebuke to internal critics of the War on Terror. Aside from the rebuke, W. clearly outlined the three broad goals of the Muslim terrorists in which he relied on the intercepted Zawahiri-Zarqawi letter :

First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions.

. . .

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country—a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments.

. . .

Third, these militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.

Importantly, Bush explained why these goals of Al-Qaeda should not be dismissed as poppycock:

Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. They are fanatical and extreme—but they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, “We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life.”

There is no middle ground in dealing with terror. America and our allies must keep fighting until the enemy is exterminated. President Bush must continue to explain why we must continue waging the War on Terror. Our commitment to fight must be stronger than the Islamofacists commitment to kill us, the so-called “infadels.” Thanks for the reminder, Mr. President.

Today we recognize the blessings of America’s freedom by honoring those who have fought to keep our liberty secure.

Whether we have a son or daughter, father or mother currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, or friends or relatives who have worn and waved our Nation’s flag gallantly into battle by land or by sea, we Americans are especially mindful of their sacrifices today.

For protecting the America I cherish, many thanks from Rightank.

In less than a week, the second World Summit on the Information Society “WSIS”) will be held in Tunis. Guised as a dialogue among nations, this consequential gathering is a blanket attempt by France, Iran, Russia, other technological allies to wrest control of the internet from the United States. Primarily, the other nations want to take away the Domain Name System or (”DNS”) authority:

The Domain Name System (DNS) helps users to find their way around the Internet. Every computer on the Internet has a unique address - just like a telephone number - which is a rather complicated string of numbers. It is called its “IP address” (IP stands for “Internet Protocol”). IP Addresses are hard to remember. The DNS makes using the Internet easier by allowing a familiar string of letters (the “domain name”) to be used instead of the arcane IP address. So instead of typing 207.151.159.3, you can type www.internic.net. It is a “mnemonic” device that makes addresses easier to remember.

Ignacio Ramonet, writing in the english version of Le Monde diplomatique, sums up why he thinks the United States should cede the internet:

Challenges to US control of the worldwide network are getting louder and stronger.

. . .

Though not always for the same reasons, Brazil, China, India and Iran all share the EU’s position in opposing the US on this. Some countries are even threatening to create their own national regulation bodies, which could lead to a disastrous fragmentation of the net. The disagreement has a geopolitical dimension. In an ever more globalised world, communication is a precious strategic resource. . . . Its role is fundamental in an economy so dominated by the non-material. So control of the net could put whoever holds it at a decisive strategic advantage. In the 19th century control of sea routes (“ruling the waves”) was at the heart of the British empire’s enormous power.

In theory, hegemony over the net gives the US the power to limit anyone’s access to any site in any country. It can also block emails anywhere in the world. So far, it has never done this. But technically it could, and a number of countries are worried by this potential. So this is the time to demand that ICANN cease to answer to Washington. Instead, it should be turned into an independent organisation under UN supervision.

According to Ramonet, because the U.S. is a hegemonic power (both in internet and political terms), could potentially block a European’s email communication with Santa Claus, and other nations are making noise like Iran and Russia, the internet should be handed over to an “independent” organization under the auspices of the U.N. (maybe they could get Kojo Annan to run it!). A mere possibility that the U.S. could block a electronic communication or world unity aren’t very convincing arguments for an overhaul of the internet governing structure.

Admittedly, the U.S.’s position of controlling the DNS is advantageous. However, we built it. It’s our government dollars at work. Moreover, I don’t want an international body of terrorist nations controlling the DNS because when you control one thing governmentally, you end up controlling ten things tangentially. Control fo the DNS is a precursor to control of the internet’s content. I sure as heck don’t want the Iranian mullahs controlling the political or social content of the internet. Do you?