Images From Missouri Ice Storm

By Alan Burkhart

Thursday (01.29.09) I traveled up I-55 through Arkansas and Missouri on the heels of a rather nasty winter storm. From just north of Blytheville, AR to a bit north of Charleston, MO the storm dropped an unbelievable amount of ice. The results were devastating. Thousands of people without power and significant damage to homes, trees and power lines.

Being the shutterbug that I am, I grabbed my digital camera to get images for my blog. But the batteries were dead. And since no one had power and all the stores were closed, I could not get any batteries. So, I was reduced to walking around in the cold snapping low-resolution pics in bad light with my cell phone. Most of them came out too crappy to use here, but I've managed to salvage a few. Most of these were shot at or near the Pilot Travel Center in Hayti, MO. A few others were shot north of Hayti after I hit the road again.

Trees along I-55 just smashed to bits by the ice

Look at this tiny twig encased in so much ice...

Uh oh! Better call GEICO

Another crappy image (crappy cell camera)
This was at the exit of the Pilot Travel Center

(Above & Below) Decorative trees at the Pilot ruined by the ice

One of hundreds of power poles snapped by the ice

No power = no gas.
While at the Pilot, I was approached by dozens of motorists looking for
ANY PLACE they could find some gas.
Also an elderly fellow whose generator had run out of fuel.

(Above and Below)
There is a tree under all that ice.
Really. No foolin'

See ya'll on the road.
--Alan

Fighting Fire with Fire

In a recent article posted at truthout.org, Phillip Butler makes a case for the arrest of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for crimes against the U.S. Constitution. Butler is a veteran military pilot and was a POW in Vietnam for 2,855 days. Since his repatriation in 1973, he has earned a PhD in Sociology and according to his author bio, "he mentors business and organization leaders and is a community activist."

His article is well-written and thorough, using the Third Geneva Convention and its rules regarding the interrogation of POWs as the basis for his assertions. In the article, Butler accuses the Bush Administration of "gross attempts to institutionalize torture." In addition to being well-written, the article is also gravely out of step with the times.

Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention states:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

In a war between two legitimate nations, each with a well-organized and identifiable military, this is an acceptable practice. Unfortunately, such is not the case in the war being waged against the free world by Islamic fundamentalists.

In Article Four of the Third Geneva Convention, "Prisoner of War" status is defined as follows:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Simply put, the above stipulates that to qualify as a prisoner of war and be guaranteed rights under the Geneva Convention, one must be either:

• A member of a uniformed military representing a nation or state,
• a volunteer working with said military – and with proper identifying documents,
• or one who spontaneously takes up arms against an invading military and carries weapons openly in accordance with the customs of war.

The vast majority of Muslim terrorists fall under none of the above. As such, one can credibly make the case that they are not qualified for the protections provided to soldiers of an honorable military. The Geneva Convention does not apply to them.

In his article, Butler discusses the fact that he faced horrific treatment at the hands of the North Vietnamese. I am awed that he could retain his sanity under such conditions. But while I have tremendous respect for him, his views on the Bush Administration's policies regarding captured terrorists are flawed.

He bases his assertions (that Bush and Company should be prosecuted) on his loyalty to the Constitution and the pain he suffered at the hands of the Viet Cong. What he has failed to think about is the fact that the Vietnam War was different in several key ways from the war on Islamic terrorism.

Like Islamic terrorists, the Viet Cong had no honor. Their capacity for cruelty knew no limits. They were completely comfortable with the idea of slaughtering their fellow countrymen in the name of their cause. But the Viet Cong were not interested in world conquest. There was never any chance of a Viet Cong soldier showing up on American or European soil with a bag of explosives.

Honorable military units struggle to avoid civilian casualties in Muslim nations. All the while suicide bombers gleefully detonate their bomb vests and truck bombs in heavily populated areas with the goal of killing innocent women and children. In Gaza, Hamas has stated publicly that they will rearm even after Israel agreed to end their retaliatory strike. And you can bet that Hamas will continue to launch their missile attacks from civilian areas, specifically so Israeli counterattacks will harm civilians in Gaza.

Terrorists streamed into Iraq to fight Coalition forces even after the Iraqi people voted in a democratic government to replace the fallen regime of Saddam Hussein. Iran and Syria continue to fund and arm Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Around the world, the influence of Islamic Fundamentalism continues to build a vulgar legacy of death, destruction and denial of basic human rights. And all the while, they call Islam the Religion of Peace.

The simple unpleasant truth is that Islam will continue to compromise the safety and even the cultures of free nations until sufficiently drastic measures are taken to stop them. While it sickens me to say it or even think it, there is only one way to stop the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism and the destruction it brings: Civilized nations must be willing to be as ruthless as our enemies.

George Bush had the right idea. Shock them. Water-board them. Do whatever it takes, but wring what information we can from them and then stuff them back in their cells. And then use that information as a tool in the War on Terror. How unfortunate that our new President fails to recognize that Gitmo has been a rousing success.

Radical Islamics see humane treatment and diplomacy as signs of weakness. We have tried diplomacy. We have acted with tolerance. We have shown compassion. We have extended the hand of friendship to our Muslim brethren and we have seen that hand chewed away by the mad dogs who crashed commercial jets into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

George W. Bush was not a great President, and to be honest I'm glad he's done. But he was absolutely right to use harsh treatment against captured terrorists. It's the only thing they understand.

The world is changing. Phillip Butler and others like him need to pull their heads out of the sand and understand just how evil the enemies of freedom have become. We cannot, dare not, continue to treat Muslim extremists humanely. Until they are made to feel a level of fear that outweighs their lust for barbarism, we have no choice but to be worse barbarians than they are. The survival of the free world depends upon it.

Either we kill them, or they kill us. Pick one.

Related Reading:

• Phillip Butler's article
• Text of the Third Geneva Convention
• Hamas: We'll keep smuggling weapons

The Folly of Fanaticism

One would expect that as time goes by and mankind progresses and hopefully becomes wiser, we'd be more likely to take a logical approach to all things. And while some do exactly that, a disturbingly large and I fear growing number of people are retreating into fanaticism.

WordNet 3.0 (2006 by Princeton U.) defines fanaticism as an "excessive intolerance of opposing views." Know anyone who fits that description? I'm not talking about a fanatical Steelers or Cowboys fan. I'm referring to those who reject out of hand any view contrary to their own personal dogma, be it religious, ideological or political.

We live in a supposedly modern and enlightened culture. Intelligent and open-minded debate on important issues should be the naturally-occurring result of a mutual desire to find the truth. Sadly, all too often this is not the case.

Whether it's the fanatical proponents of human-caused global warming, religious fanatics blowing themselves up in the name of Allah, or mindless followers of the latest "Bush did it" conspiracy theory, too many people have closed their minds to the fruits of knowledge and reason. Preconceived notions become fact, religious dogma trumps reason, and science is forced into consensus and compromise to suit a political agenda.

Global Warming Fanaticism
Never mind the fact that the world has been far warmer in the past than it is at present. Forget that sea ice coverage has made a nice comeback. Ignore the fact that we're halfway to our next ice age. And for Pete's sake don't mention how cold it's been for so early in the winter. Forget all of that. After all, these are just facts, and facts are always trumped by computer models and carbon footprints.

Every time a new UN-sponsored "consensus" hits the press, the climate change fanatics loudly proclaim that the debate has ended. Now, they'll tell you, there can be no doubt that mankind is directly responsible for global warming. If we don't downgrade our standard of living in the name of being good little greenies, we'll all suffocate when the Ozone Layer burns away or we'll be washed off the face of the Earth by rising oceans.

The comparison of scientific findings by credible experts on both sides of the debate isn't an option for these people. Those who raise questions regarding the validity of the latest assertions of the mostly-leftist environmental activists are regarded as heretics and infidels. They're denounced and ridiculed, and occasionally face overt hostility from those who ignore the obvious benefits of healthy debate. For these people, human-caused global warming is the equivalent of a religious doctrine, and they do not tolerate heresy.

Obama as the Messiah
President-elect Barack Obama has gained more followers with less substance than any other national figure in my lifetime. Crowds swooned and chanted and genuflected at his rallies as if he were some hero of myth come to life. He has rarely taken a clear stance on issues, instead making vague and malleable promises of "change." On more than one occasion during the campaign I asked Obama supporters exactly what sort of change they were expecting. The answers were generally as vague as Obama's promises, and most of them grew quite uncomfortable when pressed on the matter. The pathetically obvious truth was that they'd never considered the specifics of what they were advocating. "Change what?" I would ask. They had no clue.

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.” - Barack Obama, writing about his college years.

I also asked a few of his supporters how they felt about Obama's well-known ties with Marxists like William Ayers. Roughly one in three knew what I was talking about. Two out of five didn't know the meaning of the term "Marxism." Of those who did, few cared. Nearly every one of them I spoke with around the country reacted with either defensiveness or hostility when I pressed them a bit to explain their reasons for favoring Obama. Thinking is such a difficult, painful thing.

Meanwhile Obama continues to play the role of the Pied Piper, and millions of Americans follow him blindly toward the river. In truth, I wish him well. The nation is a mess at present and we all want it to get better. But given that fact, is a presidential election the proper time for blind faith?

And speaking of blind faith...

Religious Fanatics

"Where is the [Islamic] nation? If 20 million people can encircle the Earth, then 20 million people could also drown Israel in a sea of blood." Egyptian cleric Sheikh Muhammad Mustafa

There is a thin line between being devout and being a religious fanatic. To follow the teachings of one's religion and simultaneously exist in harmony with the secular world can be a challenge, but most believers get it done.

But then there are those who don't. The most obvious examples of religious extremism are found in the Middle East, where radical Islamists espouse hatred and exhort their followers to maim and murder those who do not share their world view. How does one reason with people who truly believe themselves to be on a mission from God?

Consider these excerpts from the Hamas Covenant:

"[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility." (Article 13 of the Hamas Covenant)

"The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." (Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant)

And you wonder why Israel has finally had enough? Islamic clerics routinely teach their followers that waging holy war against non-Muslims, strictly because they're non-Muslims, is a high and holy calling. They're taught that jihad against the infidels is as right and proper as Christians see acts of charity and social work. Freedom of religion? Not in an Islamic nation.

Islam however, doesn't have a lock on the market where religious fanaticism is concerned. While Christians (and I use the term quite broadly here) typically don't engage in beheading infidels, killing teenage girls for family honor, suicide bombings and genocide, they do have their fair share of nutty buddies in their midst.

David Koresh and Fred Phelps come to mind. Both have been guilty of engaging in behavior no mainstream Christian would ever condone. Koresh (who thought he was Jesus) led his faithful down a tragic path to destruction, albeit with the "assistance" of Janet Reno and the BATF. Phelps, of Westboro Baptist Church fame, is busily engaged in promoting homophobia, and firmly believes that Aids, Hurricane Katrina and other calamities are God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuals. He also believes that his is the only congregation that will end up in Heaven when all is said and done.

While neither Koresh or Phelps could possibly be described as existing within mainstream Christianity, their perverse pseudo-religious teachings and charismatic leadership built them both a strong following. Many of Koresh's followers perished with him in Waco, TX. Fred Phelps still tends his small flock near Topeka, KS. Phelps' congregation is best known for their picketing of US Military funerals with hateful signs regarding America's tolerance for homosexuals.

What's the common thread?
Obama has done nothing to make me believe he's a fanatic of any kind. But many of his followers certainly fit the bill. They wholeheartedly embrace his vague message of "Change We Can Believe In" while having little idea what, if anything, the slogan actually means. They reject any and all contrary opinion of their new messiah in a manner markedly similar to hard line religious fundamentalists. Blind faith, pure and simple.

The global warming crowd likewise rejects credible scientific evidence that human activity is not a factor in climate change, and often reacts badly when challenged on their beliefs. For them, global warming is dogma, not science.

Hamas rejects any possibility of peace with Israel (or anyone else for that matter) because they firmly believe they are doing Allah's will. They and other terrorist groups have broken every treaty, truce and cease fire in the name of their so-called "Holy War" against the infidel world. The fact that they're currently having their heads handed to them on a tin plate by Israel strengthens their resolve rather than giving them pause. The reason? They believe that murdering Israelis is justified because Allah does not approve of Israel's existence. The result of this pigheadedness is the death of thousands of innocents on both sides of the barrier between Israel and Gaza.

Religious fanatics who subscribe, however loosely, to other faiths are little different in their maniacal devotion to their beliefs. It's worth noting that most of the more fanatical religious groups espouse hatred and violence to one degree or another, often at odds with the mainstream teaching of that faith. Nearly all abortion clinic bombers, for example, profess to be Christians. I have many Muslim friends who are just as saddened by Islamic terrorism as I am. And as a Christian, I find Westboro Baptist Church and their troll of a pastor thoroughly repulsive.

The productive sharing and debate of ideas is essential to the growth of any culture. In a civilized society, there is always room for another opinion. Always a reason for magnanimity. Always a chance to grow and evolve. And, always the possibility of being proven wrong. But as we become more and more polarized on so many levels, we begin to lose our ability to entertain ideas that conflict with our own. We fall victim to our own preconceived notions and refuse to consider that we could be mistaken. And that my good friends, is as dangerous to our culture as any foreign enemy.

Allow me to plagiarize WordNet 3.0 one more time.
fa-nat-i-cism
NOUN: "excessive intolerance of opposing views."

Are we there yet?

Sources and Related Reading:

• THE COVENANT OF THE HAMAS - MAIN POINTS
• WikiPedia Article on Hamas
• The Obama File
• Detroit Examiner: Trapped Between Two Worlds
• Radar Site
• THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE PAGES
• Extremism or Stupidity?
• Westboro Baptist Church website : God Hates fags (Warning: Offensive Content)
• Report: Global Sea Ice at 'Unprecedented' Levels
• Global Warming Censored