Darth Chrenkoff?

Arthur Chrenkoff has a letter for George Lucas.

::::::::

But if in your mind, it’s the United States that has slowly transformed itself into an evil Empire, and therefore, logically all those who stand up to it are our story’s true heroes, than I have to say that the Dark Side is very strong indeed, and I have crossed over a long time ago.

::::::::

Confederate Yankee reprints a letter to the future

Confederate Yankee has a reprint of a letter from a year ago written by a man to his sons. It’s one of the most well-written pieces about not just what but why we must engage in this war against terror.

::::::::

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means. First, let’s examine a few basics: 1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: * Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; * Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; * Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; * Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; * First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; * Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; * Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; * Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; * Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; * New York World Trade Center 2001; * Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

::::::::

And it keeps getting better. After the basics of what the situation is, he goes into the why of fighting it.

::::::::

So with that background, now to the two major questions: 1. Can we lose this war? 2. What does losing really mean? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question – What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: … If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can’t stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

::::::::

The letter is very definitely worth your time to read, regardless of your viewpoints. Even if you don’t support the war effort, you should concern yourself with why others do.

MSM reports that Newsweek screwed the pooch, but was right anyway

Just caught a few minutes of Lou Dobbs on CNN as they were reporting that Newsweek has now issued a full retraction on the story. Of course, they made a big deal that investigations were still under way so “we don’t really know what’s true and not, yet.” Bullshit. Newsweek was in a lather about getting to air with a story that would make the military and the Bush administration look bad so they rushed it out as fast as they could. So they didn’t have any direct evidence that what they were being told was even remotely true. Who cares? It’s not like they were responsible for anything, anyway.

Newsweek lied. People died.

A cure to a cancer?

I actually found myself holding my breath when I read this report:

::::::::

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) – No one could have been more surprised than the doctors themselves. They were just hoping to relieve the symptoms of a deadly blood disorder – and ended up treating the disease itself. In nearly half of the people who took the experimental drug, the cancer became undetectable. Specialists said Revlimid now looks like a breakthrough and the first effective treatment for many people with myelodysplastic syndrome, or MDS, which is even more common than leukemia. “It may be, if not eradicating the disease, putting it into what I would call deep remission,” said Dr. David Johnson, a cancer specialist at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center who is familiar with but had no role in the research.

::::::::

Astounding, if this holds up under review. The numbers are simply staggering. This particular cancer attacks the marrow of the bones and reduces the amount of healthy red blood cells that are produced. Victims of this disease must have regular transfusions about every 8 weeks to survive. The elderly who develop this cancer usually can’t maintain the reduction and die. But check out this new drug’s results in the study:

::::::::

In small studies, Revlimid also showed promise and with far fewer side effects. In a new study, doctors tested it on 115 people with MDS who have the most common chromosome abnormality that causes the disease. After about six months on the drug, 66 percent no longer needed blood transfusions, said the study’s leader, Dr. Alan List of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla. A year later, three-fourths of them still don’t need transfusions. But the big surprise was that signs of the genetic mutation fueling the disease diminished in 81 patients and vanished in 51. “The chromosome abnormality completely disappeared, something we’ve never seen before” from a drug aimed just at boosting red blood cells, List said.

::::::::

Good news and a cause for real hope.