“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” — Mark Twain

Speaking of knowing for sure, Al Gore is pushing a documentary in which he stars, called An Inconvenient Truth. It was shown at the Sundance Film Festival, and will have a limited release in the United States in May. You can watch the trailer at YouTube to see the fear-mongering this movie employs. (On a side note, Gore introduces himself as, “I am Al Gore. I used to be the next President of the United States of America.” While this comment elicits hoots of amusement from the audience, it isn’t true. At no point was Al Gore ever slated to become President because at no point in the process did he ever have the necessary number of electoral votes. But that’s a minor nit.)

You can visit the official website for the documentary at ClimateCrisis.net. I took the Mark Twain quote from the first of several quotes to display on the Climate Crisis main page. I find it very interesting that they use it. The site itself is very slick, composed with Flash, but I personally prefer a more low-key site. Whenever I see a site that’s overly “flashy,” I have to wonder if they are using slick packaging to compensate for the fact that the data can’t sell itself. Here’s a chunk from the site:

“What is Global Warming?

Carbon dioxide and other gases warm the surface of the planet naturally by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere. This is a good thing because it keeps our planet habitable. However, by burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil and clearing forests we have dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and temperatures are rising.

Overlooking the grammatical errors such as comma splices and run-on sentences, this is a wonderful bit of misdirecting prose. “Carbon dioxide and other gases” starts it off, getting the readers focused on carbon dioxide while lumping all the rest into the “other” category. But since CO2 comprises less than 3% of the greenhouse gases, that “other” group is rather large. Carbon dioxide, however, has been the poster-child substance of global warming.

Further, in that first sentence it states that the greenhouse gases help keep us warm by “trapping solar heat.” But Steven J. Milloy, the brains behind JunkScience.com, contests this language.

Greenhouse gases … do not “trap heat,” but could be fairly described as delaying the energy transfer from Earth to space. “Trapping heat” implies that the energy is stuck in the system forever — this is a false notion. Greenhouse gases do not emit energy in the same bandwidth that they absorb energy, and thus emissions from carbon dioxide are not absorbed by carbon dioxide. While energy may be delayed on its inevitable journey back to space, it will eventually be emitted regardless of the number of intervening stages.

As part of its drum-beat of environmental woe, the Climate Crisis site states that man’s actions have “dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere.” Hold onto your hats, folks! They are right that CO2 levels have increased in the last two centuries. All the decades of factories, coal plants, and automobile emissions have raised the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere from about 0.028% to about 0.038%. That’s two hundredths of one percent increase, and that is what is known among environmental fear-mongers as a dramatic increase. To put that into perspective, it’s like calling up your electric company and complaining about your monthly bill having been “dramatically increased” because it went from $100.00 to $100.02.

And right after shocking you about an increase in atmospheric CO2, they hit you with “and temperatures are rising.” I normally call these rising temperatures “Spring,” and I don’ t freak out about it. Humor aside, is there any proof that the two hundredths of one percent increase in CO2 is the sole cause of the temperature increase? The increase in solar activity and global warming on Mars (and Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto) suggest to me that the primary cause of our temperature increase is not man-made. But that sort of idea doesn’t get government grants or create documentaries.

Visit the Climate Crisis site and watch the movie trailer. Then visit Milloy’s page at Junk Science and read his explanation of the real inconvenient truth about global warming. It’s not made with Flash, and there isn’t any music playing in the background, but there are over 6,000 words of solid information, debunking the global warming propaganda with real, checkable, scientific facts. I quoted one part above, but here are two bits that I think are particularly worth quoting:

Change is what the climate is always doing and is the result of our planet’s orbital eccentricities, axial wobble, solar brightness variation, cosmic ray flux, etc.. There are also plausible terrestrial drivers of climate change too, including super volcanic events and tectonic movement, but these are not in the realm of anthropogenic (manmade) effects and so we won’t looking at them here.

The global mean temperature over which there has been so much obsession is only one part of climate — for example, how wet or dry the climate happens to be is probably of far greater significance than a simple mean temperature — in fact, it’s not even clear that a global mean temperature is a particularly useful metric. However, it is the cause of great angst at present so it will remain the focus of this document for that reason alone.

But we’re responsible for all the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect?

Gracious no! Humans can only claim responsibility, if that’s the word, for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural (you can see the IPCC representation of the natural carbon cycle and human perturbation here or a simple schematic from Woods Hole here). Half our estimated emissions fail to accumulate in the atmosphere,” “disappearing” into sinks as yet undetermined.

After you read Milloy’s Junk Science page, I think you will agree that those people who beat the drum of man-made global warming are the people who already know for sure that man is causing it. And they won’t let a little inconvenient truth get in their way.

My aunt emailed me this week asking about a article posted on MoveOn.org. I normally avoid anything done by MoveOn.org, but I agree with their stance on Network Neutrality. Basically, there is a move in Congress to grant phone and cable companies the ability to treat their network traffic differently based on how well they like the people sending the data. Popular Mechanics sums up the plan in these words:

Whether you’re a casual Internet user, or an always-on, hardcore Web junkie, this concerns you. It’s time to have a talk about “network neutrality.” It’s been a subject of a lively debate in the blogosphere, and it’s percolating into the news media. Network neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs, the telephone and cable companies that deliver the internet to you fresh daily) should keep all content—from tiny personal blogs to giant corporate sites—equally accessible: I.E., the way it is now.

Enter Congress, which is currently considering legislation—the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006—that may change the Internet from the wide-open, egalitarian universe of free-flowing information that it is now, to a place where the guy with the biggest bucks has the loudest voice. If passed, it would allow phone and cable companies to charge content providers (websites) for the privilege of driving along the ISPs stretch of the info super highway (usually the last mile right before content ends up on your screen). If content companies can’t pay the fees, they end up in the slow lane — and you get to wait and wait and wait. Or maybe you won’t get to use those sites at all.

Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to “fix the Standard of Weights and Measures,” and Congress is exercising that responsibility when they establish any set of industry standards, like making sure that a pound of butter is the same as a pound of nails. Because of the gulf of technology between the 21st Century and the Founding Fathers, I doubt they would know the difference between an internet or an inner-tube. But I think the Founding Fathers could recognize that Congress would be overstepping its responsibility if they specified that the butter manufacturing industry could use a 15-ounce pound while forcing the nail makers to use a 16-ounce pound measurement. A standard is exactly that: standard and uniform for all who use it. And the Internet’s TCP/IP protocol is a standard that makes no distinction over who has paid more to the phone or cable companies, or coughed up sufficient contributions to members of Congress. I can understand the urge Congress has to meddle, but they should keep their fumbling hands off the Internet.

There are many sites that are championing the fight to keep the Internet neutral as far as prioritizing the data it carries. I like Save The Internet the best of the half-dozen I’ve visited. From their FAQ section comes these chilling examples of how companies have already violated Network Neutrality.

Isn’t the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical?

No. So far, we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that without network neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing services they don’t like.

  • In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
  • In 2005, Canada’s telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.
  • Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to “enhance” competing Internet telephone services.
  • In April, Time Warner’s AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.

The MoveOn.org site is not bad, but they are failing to understand one critical truth about Congress: sending an email message to your Representative, your Senators, and the President is never as effective as typing up a letter on good paper. So don’t email Washington D.C. — write to them. You can look up your Representative with your Zip Code at House.gov, and your two Senators at Senate.gov. President Bush can be reached at the following address:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

So get cracking.

Lots of people speak English. There are some who do it well, and there are some, typically non-native English speakers, who should be kept far away from the English language. Now, I confess to being an American, and speaking the American version of English, but not everyone agrees that Americans even speak English. World renowned phonetician Professor Henry Higgins once said about English, “There even are places where English completely disappears; in America they haven’t used it for years.”

The people over at Engrish.com have catalogued that particularly bizarre variant of written English as used by non-native speakers in Asia. The term “Engrish” comes from the difficulty that native Japanese speakers have distinguishing between the English L and R sounds, but it doesn’t have to be limited to Japanese mistakes in written English. There are plenty of examples in Korea, China, and Indonesia. Mmm…. garwy sauce…

I bring up Engrish because the lovely and talented wife came across some Russian examples in the online menu of the Petrov Vodkin Restaurant. Since this is Russian-based Engrish, she called it “Engliska.” But it fits right in with other Engrish menu examples. Since this is TPK’s idea, I shall use the super-spiffy TPK font for my snarky comments. And now, on with the snark!

Hello. What’s snew with you?

A Bit Of Fish In Envelope
Pike-pearch & sturgeon fillet covered in parchment and baked together spring vegetables. Taste it urgently!!!
(French Bourbon Cognac Sauce as piquant detail to this beautiful “fish about you”).
Taste it now! Now! NOW!!!!

Red Bull Fetish
Primordial bull tecticles fried with leek onion and carrots, undressed in white wine & cream sauce, aromatically confused inside the puff paste nest, full of vital force for real men and inquisitive women.
I prefer my primordial bull tecticles to not be so aromatically confused.

Piping Rabbit
Aromatic and unforgettable, tender fillet in creamy sauce, appreciate at its true value.
A fresh skunk could be described as both aromatic and unforgettable, but at 500 Rubles, this rabbit’s true value is about $18.27.

Roast Lamb
Laconic stewed lamb with fresh sweet pepper accent, onion rings and tomatoes.
If it were truly laconic, then the description would be “lamb.”

Regal Trotters
Fried sucking-pig trotters in garlic gravy, dogmatic, more than dogmatic and frivolous, more than frivolous.
No, it’s mainly frivolous.

“Russkaya Skovoroda”
Vivid variety of browned potatoes, white mushrooms and sweet veal under melted cheese cover. Testes great!
Are those primordial bull testes?

Pork chop on a bone
Grilled spicy pork with potatoes and vegetables under influence of bitter gravy. (A Pork! A Pork! My Kingdom for a Pork!)
OK, we have now hit the porn part of the menu.

Shrimp’s Cocktail
Shrimps with slices of pineapple and special “only for adults” sauce.
See? Told you this was the porn part.

Smocked Sturgeon
Shouldn’t that be a smocked surgeon? “Doctor Sturgeon, to the operating room STAT, Doctor Sturgeon.”

Boiled Tongue
Tongue as it is. And even more than just a tongue.
No, that’s just a tongue. TPK said, “No means no, buddy!”

Fried Chicken
May be your favorite personage – cooled, peppered, sliced and with herbs.
Foghorn Leghorn! NooooooOOOOoooooo!

Shashlik “Freedom Captive”
Lamb juice issue, captivating in your own sauce, garnished with marinated vegetables and fried potatoes. Free… like a vision… Sentenced to be with you. Take it easy.
And now for the bondage porn.

Shashlik “Pork & Pork & Pork”
Beautiful pieces of pork with vegetable salad and French fries in very special astringent sauce… Would you like some more pork?
OK, I think I have made my point about the porn menu.

IBorsch Chernigovsky With Pampushkas
Spicy broth sated with vegetables, meat. Best served with one smile or two rolls.
OK, enough with the food porn, you perverts! Although I must confess that I do have a nice smile after two rolls.

Duck Occurring At The Table
Imagine a Whole Duck, completely bride, packed layer upon layer of apples and prunes and sodden with Jamaica Rum. The “MUST HAVE” dish for 3-4 versed persons.
I’m trying to imaging that duck completely bride, but I can’t. I guess I’m not a versed person.

“Cheese Fantasy” Cake
Alternative cheesecake temptation. You will love it if you love yourself.
You know that’s what got Pee Wee Herman in trouble.

Ice Cream With Kahlua
Vivid variety of browned potatoes, white mushrooms and sweet veal under melted cheese cover. Testes great!
I’m not a big veal al la mode guy, but I hear this is related to the primordial bull tecticles.

The political cartoon duo Cox and Forkum have taken on the current gas woes.

Gas Fumes

They also link to a piece from the Ayn Rand Institute written by Alex Epstein called The Myth of “Price-Gouging”.

The term “price gouging” implies that gas stations have an ability to forcibly inflict harm on us–but they do not. Any price we pay for a gallon of gasoline–whether $1 or $3–we pay voluntarily, based on the value of the gasoline to us. If we think we are spending too much on gasoline, we are free to drive less, to buy more fuel-efficient cars, to use carpools or busses, or to travel by bicycle or on foot. Gas station owners cannot force us to buy gasoline; they can only offer us a trade, which we are free to accept or reject.

But, one might ask, without anti-”price gouging” laws won’t owners of gasoline charge the absolute highest prices they can? Absolutely, and they have every moral right to do so–just as consumers of gasoline have every right to pay the lowest prices they can find. Gas station owners are not our servants. They are producers who spend money, exert effort, and assume risk to bring a product to market. They own the gasoline they sell, and like any property owner they should be free to set the terms of sale.

Since we pay the lowest price that we can find for gasoline (and never more than it is worth to us), and gas stations sell gasoline for the highest price they can get (and never less than it is worth to them), the price of gasoline is a reflection of mutually beneficial trade–the essence of proper interaction under capitalism. For a gas station owner to charge what the market will bear is no more “gouging” than it is for a computer programmer–or a cashier–to negotiate for the highest salary he can get.

I’m not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV, but I’m going to indulge in a bit of armchair psychology today. When I see people on the Left talk about how dumb President Bush is, it reminds me of the way rebellious teenagers talk about their parents. Most teenagers are convinced that their parents just don’t know anything. Their parents are just so old-fashioned, so stodgy, so unhip. They just don’t understand the world of the teenager.

Like teenagers without much real-world experience, leftists today cling to their pet theories and projects. They are surprised and dismayed when real-world occurrences don’t fit with their theories. And when things don’t work out precisely according to their theories, they figure the world must change to fit the theory, not the other way around.

When leftist teachers expound the merits of socialism or Marxism, you can be assured that they have little real-world experience. Like teenagers who believe nothing is ever their fault, they tend to place blame for Marxism’s consistent failure record anywhere but on the philosophy itself. Both my wife and I have heard teachers claim that Marxism would work great if only the right people were in charge. A century of failure only means that they need to try that much harder to get it right this time. Likewise, liberals will subsidize single mothers and pay people not to work, and are then shocked and surprised to find an increase in illegitimate children and generations of people on welfare. How could this have happened? Their theories were so good! The world must be at fault somehow. Rather than doing the logical thing — pitching out a faulty theory and starting over — they cling all the harder to it, and demand that we try it again. Throw more money at the problem. That will fix it. It will work this time. Really.

And liberals, like teenagers, are the last people to whom you should give unlimited power and money. As P.J. O’Rourke put it, “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”

As I drove home from work today, I listened to the Randi Rhodes show for as long as I could stand it. Randi lasted about five minutes before I shut her off. She was analyzing some message she had received from Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, engaging in a fit of snark, exposing an embarrassing ignorance of history and politics, and clearly demonstrating a raging case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Whenever you hear someone say that she is more afraid of President Bush than of Iranian President and Middle-Eastern Whack Job Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, rest assured that person has BDS. Tom Maguire has a fun article about how far some people take their BDS. They are capable of blaming practically everything on President Bush.

If you suspect someone is suffering from BDS, there’s a simple test. Just make an off-the-cuff statement about your cell phone cutting off unexpectedly or having problems with static, and then say that President Bush must be listening on the line. If he or she launches into a tirade about how President Bush is violating our privacy and freedom to communicate, then you’ve just pinpointed a raging case of BDS.

You don’t even need to play a psychiatrist on TV to make that accurate diagnosis.

Yes, you read me right. Osama bin Hidin’ came out with another smack-talking audio tape against the evil Western Crusaders who are intent on waging war against Islam.

Peace, Allah’s mercy and blessing be upon you, as I am directing this speech to all the Islamic Umma, to continue talking and urging them to support our prophet Muhammad, and to punish the perpetrators of the horrible crime committed by some Crusader-journalists and apostates against the master of the predecessors and successors, our prophet Muhammad.

The holy verses of the Quran and the holy prophetic teachings have all clarified the need for according love, respect and obedience to our prophet. Allah, the Almighty, has made it a taboo to offend him, saying in the Quran those who harm Allah and his messenger would be damned and severely punished.

Right after the broadcast, al-Qaeda-like bombings rocked the Muslim nation of Egypt. Gosh, Osama’s really letting those evil American crusaders have it. What’s next on his agenda? Is he planning to show his wrath against the West by killing more Iraqis?

To be fair, I’ve heard that many Egyptian Christians liked to congregate during the Orthodox Easter time in the area that was bombed, but the bombings in Egypt were not guarantied to strike only Christians. Why is it that Osama feels it is OK to kill Muslims? And why do Muslims still get starry-eyed and weak at the knees over Osama when he has no compulsion against killing them? It reminds me of the musical Carousel when Julie talks to Louise about how Billy struck her. “It didn’t hurt at all. It was just as if he kissed my hand.” I wonder how many more “kisses” Osama will have to give the Muslim world before they wake up to his abuse.

Osama talked about the Danish cartoons, but strangely he doesn’t talk about Iraq at all. Has he given up with Iraq and is going after the easier targets like Egypt? It is certain that al-Qaeda has been very quiet on the U.S. shores. I can only assume that they have been weakened enough to only be able to strike out in the Middle East. No wonder they go for killing Muslims. They may be the only people al-Qaeda can reach.

A few quick links from today’s Drudge Report regarding the subject of rising fuel costs. In the first link, President Bush warns of a “tough summer” ahead because of the rising price of gas, and I know we will feel it this year. We are planning on a family vacation that will take us through five states, driving nearly 3,000 miles. And because we plan to rent a car since we can no longer rely on ours to make it through a long cross-country trip, we will most likely be getting something with worse gas mileage. Anyway, back to the President. The article summarizes him this way:

But even as the president stressed Saturday that the government was making efforts to protect consumers from price-gouging, he said there was little he could do in the short term to alleviate the impact of higher oil prices.

But there is something that President Bush and the government can do to help alleviate the pain of high gas prices. And he brings it up later.

Bush also blamed the higher prices on a shortage of refinery capacity in the United States, and also on an ongoing shift in fuel additives and mixes that has caused supply hiccups in certain areas.

If the government and the BANANA* environmentalists would allow the U.S. to build more refineries, we would not be operating at maximum capacity as we are now. We are still suffering from refineries that are not at full capacity after the onslaught of Katrina. And if we skip the silly idea of specific gas formulas for different regions, the marketplace could react to temporary local shortages quickly. But not everyone is upset about the high price of gas.

The daughter of the founder of Earth Day says she doesn’t think gasoline prices are too high.

Tia Nelson, the daughter of former U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, said “we pay less for a gallon of gas than anywhere else in the world. And if we paid what the Europeans paid we’d wouldn’t be driving vehicles that got 12 miles a gallon.”

The unspoken belief is that she’d be OK with much higher gas prices if it meant that fewer people would be able to spoil the planet with their noxious gas fumes. (Ms. Nelson seems to like the idea of higher gas prices because it would coerce or force others into living a lifestyle of which she approves. She categorically refuses to consider the needs of American families with many small children, for whom an SUV makes more sense to purchase than three or four smaller vehicles. Hey, they shouldn’t be breeding like that anyway, right? Elitist snob. –TPK) And there are people, like University of Texas professor Eric Pianka, who speak with relish about global pandemics that would wipe out 90% of the Earth’s population. It appears Pianka is a fan of Paul Ehrlich, the author of The Population Bomb. To sum their ilk up in a short phrase: there are too many of those people, and not enough of us. Spare me.

* BANANA = “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything”

So, it’s Earth Day again. The day loved by environmentalists to celebrate the Earth and to bash corporations and Republicans because they are corporations and Republicans. This year a common theme will be global climate change, which is the same theme they had at the very first Earth Day. The only difference is that back then, in 1970, the global climate change that had the environmentalists’ collective undies in a bunch was global cooling.

Frankly, I’m not even going to bother looking up much of what has been written and said about Earth Day and global warming. I’ve covered the topic already. Knowing that the sun is the source of our planet’s warmth, and knowing that it has been active recently enough to cause global warming on Mars, I have to wonder just how much the environmentalists blame corporations and Republicans for what the sun is doing.

Anyway, I have just one question for the next person who brings up global warming: since scientists have long known that the Earth has always cycled between periods of warmer and colder weather, just who was it that promised them that the Earth’s climate would never change again?

James Lileks raises a good point today in his Bleat.

I am amused by smart people who defend uncouthness on the grounds that it’s honest. (Hypocrisy, after all, is a cardinal sin. Or would be if there were such things.) Dennis Prager was talking today about a dance troupe whose work is mostly base and gross, complete with naughty shocking words and on-stage wanking. They were lauded by critics for their honesty, of course. (The entire cultural top-tier crew, at least in the media, has the values of a Playmate. Turn-offs: Phony people.) I have no problem with the artists, since I don’t expect much from them anymore; those who add to the sum of ugliness are welcome to do so, but they have made themselves irrelevant. I do have a problem with the critics who applaud breaking taboos and stepping over lines, because it’s the cultural establishment – whatever that is – that has celebrated and enabled the decline of art in the 20th century.

No artistic standard, once erased, as has ever been replaced by a more technically demanding one.

Unless you believe that it is harder for a layman to fake a later DeKooning than a J-L David.

Anyway. It’s not so much the redefinition of standards that bothers me as the glee with which the old standards are trashed, and the sense that the arts have become unmoored from the larger culture.

To provide some context to Lileks’ comparison, here is probably the most famous piece by J-L David, and the most famous one by Willem de Kooning.

Marat Assassinated

Woman, I

I have already discussed my definition of art, even tho it is more of a reverse definition — if I can do it without talent and/or training, then that ain’t art. And when I look at Marat Assassinated or his The Death of Socrates, I recognize that I do not have his talent for painting. But too many of the modern artists produce “art” that I would find very little difficulty to fake.

I was in a good mood as I started to write this, but looking at modern art can really wind me up. I guess I have a hard time getting past the snooty pretentiousness of the art reviewer. I linked to Jackson Pollock’s One: Number 31 as an example of something I could fake up without talent or training, so it doesn’t fit my definition of art. Here is the description at the Museum of Modern Art’s web site for Pollock’s piece:

The Surrealists’ embrace of accident as a way to bypass the conscious mind sparked Pollock’s experiments with the chance effects of gravity and momentum on falling paint. Yet although works like One have neither a single point of focus nor any obvious repetition or pattern, they sustain a sense of underlying order. This and the physicality of Pollock’s method have led to comparisons of his process with choreography, as if the works were the traces of a dance. Some see in paintings like One the nervous intensity of the modern city, others the primal rhythms of nature.

Eh, primal this.

To wrap this up, I will quote a bit of pretentiousness my wife found the other day:

TASTING NOTE: A mild aroma with tones of exotic wood, dried fruit and spicy notes. With a delicate, persistent flavour, well proportioned and full. Highlighting tones of cedar, tobacco and raisins.

When TPK read this tasting note to her sister, she guessed it was written about a wine. The surprise comes from realizing that it comes from the back of a dark chocolate bar wrapper. I think the note is a way of justifying the cost of the chocolate. It is, after all, “The ultimate dark chocolate experience.” I just think TPK is a sucker for dark chocolate.

Charles of Little Green Footballs posted a link to an article explaining that many Arabs favor Iran getting nuclear weapons.

Most in the Arab world see the U.S. and European campaign against Iran as hypocritical, while Israel refuses to allow international nuclear inspections and is thought to have some 200 nuclear warheads.

“I want the whole region free of all nuclear weapons but if the West continues its double-standard approach on this issue then Iran has the right (to have them),” said Abdel-Rahman Za’za’, a 29-year-old Lebanese engineer.

“This could provide some balance against Israel and help the Palestinians in their negotiations. We have to take our rights because they are not going to be given to us,” he added.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest opposition group, said this week it saw no harm in Iran developing nuclear arms.

“That would create a kind of equilibrium between the two sides — the Arab and Islamic side on one side and Israel on the other,” said deputy Brotherhood leader Mohamed Habib.

I bolded two bits in the article above, but the both basically restate the same theme: Iran, and by extension all of Islam, needs to have nuclear weapons to balance Israel and its nuclear weapons. And if the two sides were equal, I could understand their desire. But they are not equal in population or in land. Here is a map I used in my post about “Losing Zion” that shows how very unbalanced Israel is when compared to the Arabic states.

A speck of blue in a sea of green

There is one other way that Israel is unbalanced in respect to the Arabic states surrounding it:

Israel has the lion’s share of freedom. And no amount of Arabic nukes will give the Arab people freedom.