mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

September 17, 2005

Some Potential Confusion Over Katrina's Toll

A source inside FEMA told me recently that, as of a couple of days ago, the agency had granted 1,758 funeral benefits to families whose pre-disaster address was in Jefferson Parrish. These are confirmed deaths with confirmed identification, but the implication may not be what it seems. So far this number is not in the public domain, and I can't verify it by any independent sources, but I believe it. The thing is, any large population of people will have a certain number of deaths over any 2 week period, so it's not a given that all, or even most, of these deaths occured during the hurricane or flood. In fact, since identification is a fairly rigorous process it's probably accurate to infer that most of these deaths occured under non-disaster conditions, either after the event or before it, and people are simply applying for the funeral benefit because they're without funds. The critical issue isn't the number, but whether these deaths were a direct consequence of the storm, whether the storm was a secondary factor, or whether they would have occured storm or not. And that's simply unknown to us at this time.

But be advised that if numbers like these are leaked to MSM it's very likely that certain people will interpret them to mean that the death toll from Katrina is much higher than the current number of confirmed deaths (579 in the state of Louisiana according to FOX just a few moments ago).

Posted by: Demosophist at 11:45 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I suspect your source is much like my sources. I have worked with FEMA on six occasions and I am a gov employee (USACE no less). My "sources" (from the bottom moving up) are about as dependable as a bunch of guys in a bar after work on a Friday. It's human nature - everyone wants to be seen as on the "inside" and "knowledgable" especially those who work in the "system". In the Army we called it "The Rumor Mill" - give your friend the same weight, no offense.

Posted by: hondo at September 17, 2005 01:49 PM (4Gtyc)

2 Find one photo of a bloated white body and let us all know the link.. Klanrooster is still missing.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 12:12 AM (VhNDM)

3 My friend assures me that FEMA wouldn't give funeral benefits unless the death was attributable to Katrina, but he didn't seem to know the difference between "primary" and "secondary" cause either, and agreed that some of the deaths might have been in shelters after the storm had passed. I don't know how you could verify that some of these people wouldn't have died anyway. On the other hand authorities who are actually counting bodies have the death toll much lower, and they haven't even identified most of these people. How FEMA colud have identified 1,758 victims of Katrina is beyond me. But may main point is that if someone actually publishes numbers like this, beware of the false inference that these were Katrina-caused deaths.

Posted by: Demosophist at September 18, 2005 12:23 AM (buXMS)

4 The Left needs dead bodies for their purposes and nothing under 1,000 will do. They'll count floating coffins, dogs and gators if they have to.

Posted by: Carlos at September 18, 2005 12:24 AM (8e/V4)

5 I worked for FEMA from 1996 to 2002. I was a supervisor case reviewer by the time I left. Apps have to submit documentation to support their claims, but fraud attempts are common. In Florida last year the number of death benefit claims approved and paid by FEMA ended up higher by several percentage points over what the counties ended up with as their official storm related death tolls. This is actually the "normal" result. In baseball, the tie goes to the runner, in FEMA the benefit of the doubt - and the benefit - goes to the applicant.

Posted by: Hucbald at September 18, 2005 12:46 AM (C9fqq)

6 BLOATWATER and Hellibacon, perfect together!!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 07:02 AM (VhNDM)

7 Given the propensity among blacks' for scamming the government at every chance, I'm guessing that about 50% or better of death claims are fraudulent on some level. I can't wait to hear the PC bleating on this one, but you all know I'm right.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 20, 2005 09:38 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

She's Back!!!

Yes Cindy and Michael the perfect couple are at it again (ugh mental image I wish I never had but this should help). What can I say but wheeew looney looney looney!!!!!!

Mark In Mexico has the goods on this latest moonbat mission.

Cindy Sheehan's post in the Michael Moore blog is an obvious attempt to place blame for the conditions in New Orleans and Algiers on George Bush. She drops the name of Malik Rahim as though he is backing up her accusations. It doesn't sound like Rahim agrees.

Also Mr. Right is struggling with his blog addiction as well. We know we can't leave it alone either.

Posted by: Howie at 10:02 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Birthday Sweet 218

Today is the birthday of our Constitution

On Saturday, September 17, 2005, we are celebrating the 218th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. This day is known as Constitution Day. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Pennsylvania and came up with a great and intricate system of checks and balances. It was decided that our government would have an executive, judicial, and legislative branch. The decision for a bicameral legislative branch came from the argument between the smaller and larger states. The larger states wanted more representation because they had more people, forming the House of Representatives. The smaller states wanted equal representation of every state, forming the Senate.

Cool link.

Hat Tip: Rep. John Shimkus.

Note for Iraqi's this is our second one and it took ten amendments to get it passed. So if you don't like the one you are considering you can always change it. Heck the French have had dozens. Let's see what else Mr. Shimkus is up to. Below the break and it's good stuff. Also this kind of got me thinking. How many think Mr. Shimkus should run for old DICK Durbin's Senate seat? Think about it Mr. Shimkus you'll only have to run every 6 years.

more...

Posted by: Howie at 08:14 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

September 16, 2005

A Day without Sunshine

Mrs. See-Dubya: "I'm going to order this book called Baking Without Sugar from Amazon. Is there anything you need so we can spend enough to get free shipping?"

See-Dubya: "Sure, get me a copy of Sex Without Orgasms and get yourself a bottle of unscented perfume to go with it. I'll run out and get a keg of O'Doul's to drink with your sugarless bran brownies."

Yes, the couch is breaking in nicely, thank you.

Posted by: seedubya at 05:59 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Galloway-Hitchens Post

Heard it. Loved it. Fine Political Theater.

I doubt very much that any minds were changed, but I think Hitchens won in a walk. Galloway savaged Hitchens; Hitchens savaged Galloway, but he also laid out an unrefuted case for regime change in Iraq. Plus many of Galloway's ad hominems lacked any real sting--he triumphantly bellowed that Hitchens had opposed the 1991 Gulf War, but he had apparently changed his mind, so how could we ever trust him again?

That may be a more effective insult in Galloway's fever swamp, where deviating from blind orthodoxy and reconsidering one's position is considered treasonous. Among the right, many of us (not me so much) got here from liberalism after being, as Irving Kristol put it, mugged by reality. It's called growing up.

Anyway, two links of note about the debate:

The first is a useful transcript of the debate prepared by one-man-think-tank George Gooding at Seixon.com. He'll have the second half up soon, but in the meantime look at his other stuff about Iraq casualty reports, Galloway's perjury, and Valerie Plame (who?).

The second--and only a few of you will think this is funny--is this news roundup by the New Criterion's blog Armavirumque (which is Latin for "armavirumque".)

If the wording of one of their links doesn't jump out at you, go here and Dave will explain it for you. Very strange thing to see referenced in that bow-tie and brandy-snifter blog of highbrow literary criticism--but I guess no one's immune to the boyish charm of a bad sportscaster.

(PS It doesn't actually use that phrase in the linked article.)

Posted by: seedubya at 05:48 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Galloway is a piece of shit who, like all other liberals, needs a hemp necktie.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 16, 2005 07:23 PM (0yYS2)

2 I finished the second half 17 hours ago.

So the entire Galloway vs. Hitchens transcript is there now. Enjoy!

Posted by: George at September 17, 2005 04:28 AM (9RcD9)

3 While what I've read so far is quite entertaining, it devolved into nothing but guttersniping. Then I read this in the UK's Independent: "The "sold out" sign on the doors of Baruch College spoke volumes about the thirst for open public debate on the issue, and the rarity of home-grown voices who might quench it. For a subject that is often discussed but seldom debated, the talent had to be imported." It made me want to personally go over there and slap the crap out of the writer. That was not a "debate". Debates have moderators and an air of decorum. Debates stick to facts and appeal to the intellect of the listeners. And last of all, the debators should be evenly matched. I mean really - I could have beat Galloway myself. He's a disgusting and vile man and a compulsive liar. No wonder he's so loved by the extreme left in this country. They said roughly 2/3 of the audience was with Galloway. Sure they were. It was in NY. Next time, let's have it in Texas and see how well received he is.

Posted by: Oyster at September 17, 2005 06:24 AM (YudAC)

4 "They said roughly 2/3 of the audience was with Galloway. Sure they were. It was in NY." Didn't some sort of terrorist attack happen in NY some time back? Is it just me, or do New Yorkers have a much higher incidence of absolute morons than most populations? Where I live, I've even heard some flaming pansyass liberals say muslims should be deported, so WTF is the matter with these idiots?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 17, 2005 08:30 AM (0yYS2)

5 Actually, IM, I think California's got 'em beat.

Posted by: Oyster at September 17, 2005 12:08 PM (YudAC)

6 It's funny that Oyster is lecturing the British about decorum. Not that Oyster isn't decorous, I mean, just the idea of Americans telling them to act like grownups.

Posted by: See-Dubya at September 17, 2005 01:41 PM (hmJ+A)

7 Good point, See-Dubya. What I was going to allude to as well, but did not mention, was the raucous manner in which they even conduct Parliament sessions. Heckling and shouting insults while people speak. It's quite amazing to watch. And while our own House and Senate display their share of snide and sideways remarks during sessions, it's never quite so, well, boisterous and disorderly. Of course that's only because we've so far been able to keep Ted Kennedy relatively constrained.

Posted by: Oyster at September 17, 2005 02:09 PM (YudAC)

8 Impy, you would be crying after five minutes with Galloway.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 12:14 AM (VhNDM)

9 Yes, I would be crying after five minutes with Galloway, for one of the following reason: 1. The human body only contains so much blood, and that tends to leak out too quickly during vigorous "debate". 2. Because I left my propane torch and vise-grips at home. 3. Because I didn't bring my weighted gloves, and my fists are too sore to continue. 4. Because there's only one of him, and he's too soft to last long. 5. Because it's a once in a lifetime chance, and there's nobody around with a camcorder.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 18, 2005 12:50 PM (0yYS2)

10 C'mon Impy, the rattling medicine bottles are ringing in your ears!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 07:49 PM (VhNDM)

11 The Incapability of the American right to deal with anything from a Hurricane to a bomb, is outstanding. Not only can the United States not keep the price of Oil down when it steals it from Iraqis but it cannot even organise a few buses to get poor black people out of New Orleans. Galloway was opposing Saddam Hussein When you kids were probably in cradles. He was my local representative,a very true and caring man. The comment he made to Saddam was addressed to the people (something which he very quickly expressed to the press and others). Hitchens is a turncoat, a fool and a warmonger. And like all other American Warmongers he's not in the front line. Plenty of Black Amnericans are in it though. For some reason when it came to getting them from New Orleans to Baghdad, it was a smooth effective operation. PS. My Url is not being accepted because its from the UK.

Posted by: Brian Christopher at September 19, 2005 11:00 AM (I70Fk)

12 Futhermore, George Galloway is not a "Liberal". In American politics and culture the term Liberal has been skewed and distorted for propaganda terms. Many might remember a time when Liberty was something the United States was proud of - but no more. Liberals in America are people who believe in social change and are open minded about the way these social changes should be brought about. All of them believe in Liberal markets - capatalism and free enterprise. George Galloway is a socialist. That's not a liberal. He may have some liberal attitudes but that does not make him a "Liberal". After all, in the US you can call yourself a "Democrat" but it doesn't mean that you believe in willy-nilly liberal ideas like Democracy. At least not if coercion is more beneficial to you and your Papa's business partners.

Posted by: Brian Christopher at September 19, 2005 11:09 AM (I70Fk)

13 BC: In Britain, do the articles appearing in the leftist BBC just get pasted into hardcover scrapbooks and sent off to the schools for your children to read (while held only in their left hands--their right hands tied behind their backs--and with their right eyes taped shut)? And then they all speak with one voice, out of--guess with side of their mouths? (No.... way further south!) Is that where you learned your propaganda?

Posted by: JV at September 20, 2005 03:14 PM (9UtjO)

14 Yes, Brian - Galloway is a socialist. In America many, many liberals are socialists as well. But America is not a socialist country (or at least we are fighting an uphill battle not to become one). What do you know about American liberty? Is cradle to grave socialism liberty? Is abortion, mercy killing, rationed healthcare, confiscatory taxes and living from welfare check to welfare check liberty? I think not. How dare you impune the American political right in regards to 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. Those are cheap shots. You know, we Yanks are constantly being accused of being arrogant - we've got nothing on you Brits. Your media - the BBC World News especially - makes our leftist media look like the amatuer hour. Fortunately our TV's and radios have an on and off button that we exercise when ever the BBC comes on. Good day.

Posted by: Craig Willms at September 24, 2005 10:33 PM (0nyqN)

15 Interesting that you refer to the "leftist BBC". In the UK the BBC is considered a right-wing government mouthpiece (just ask Andrew Gilligan). I couldn't have learned anything from the BBC as the only encounters I have with them is when their security men try to silence my protests (The BBC Building here in Glasgow is a stone's throw from my house - depending on how big my stone is). Incidentally the BBC apologised to Israel for not going through the Israeli censor when it interviewed Israel's illegally detained anti-nuclear hero Mordecahi Vanunu (who I am proud to say is the Rector of my student council). Abortion is not socialism. Mercy killing is certainly not Socialism (Mr Galloway isn't a fan of it by the way). rationed helath care is the opposite socialism, nor is confiscatory taxes or living from one welfare cheque to another. Health care in this country is free by the way. What you are describing is a slanted view of the failed American liberal left - that is the very point I am trying to make. Socialism, my friend and comrade is the equality of all human beings. It is the attempt by the democratic masses to ensure that equality exists in fact as well as on paper. It does this by ensuring that every individual is rewarded in proprtion both to his or her needs and according to his or her value to society as a whole. It puts people before profit. that is it's essence. In a socialist society unemployment is non-existent and so "welfare" is not required unless someone is unable to work, in which case it is assumed that they nonetheless deserve necessities to live a healthy and fulfilling life. Therefore real socialism isn't about taking taking away taxes from the owners of production. Its about getting them to pay people a fair wage in the first place - result fat Cats dont get so fat and the little guy doesn't slave his life away for nothing. My problem with the United States right-wingers is not that I am a socialist or that Socialists in the United States are targeted as madmen or dreamers. I don't care that your twin towers of so called "Free trade" were bombed or that your President will go down in history for his lack of intelligence. What I do care about are the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine who suffer from your arrogance, your hypocrisy and your lies (not to mention your bombs) . I do care about the people of Saudi Arabia who have campaigned for democratic change only to see your Government (And mine) sell them Ã‚Â£40 billion of arms to suppress their people. I do care about the people of Malawi, Sudan and Ethiopia who work as slaves to make pills for Westerners and yet cannot afford to buy medicine for themselves or their familes. Even though in a single year the US Arms buget could wipe out african debt. Every year each Israeli citizen gets the equivilent of $1000 curtesy of Mr and Mrs John Q taxpayer in the US - A country of Six Million relatively wealthy people. Just to the west of them an entire continent sits on the biggest mass of fertile land in the world and starves - receiving less money in aid (as a continent) than the zionist pet project that the US funds as a way of keeping Christian fundamentalists and arms dealers in America happy and as a way to further Anti-semetic aims by encouraging Jews to leave the land of the free and head for Israel. Oh! And I hear creationism might be on it's way back into science class. You're absolutely right, the US is on the brink of becoming a socialist utopia any day now. You better buy a flight to Britian. Our Mr Blair only has a little while left before he's kicked out of the Labour party for being an under-cover Nazi.

Posted by: Brian Christopher at October 03, 2005 08:41 AM (6RMND)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Heading to Katrina Disaster Zone

I'm flying down to the Katrina disaster zone today to see what little help I can offer. It's the least I can do after I was such an arrogant prick about it. I regret those words. There was no bigger news than Katrina that week or since. I'll be back Monday.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:56 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Roy Hallums Home, Rescue Video Released

Roy Hallums, the American hostage held in Iraq since November and who's cause was covered extensively at this website, is back in the U.S.

Additionally, the U.S. military has released a video of the rescue operation that led to his release. I will post the video and images from it as soon as I have it. Please e-mail me if you have the video. The video is described below.

Above: A photo taken by Sgt. Jason Mikeworth MNF-I PAO (by way of of DOD) of Roy Hallums shaking hands with Air Force Brig. Gen. Frank Gorenc before boarding a flight home from Iraq.

Susan Hallums sent me an e-mail this morning. I thought I'd share it with you.

Dear Rusty,
I am sorry that it has taken me a few days I have thought of you many many times. I dont have my computer so there has been limited communication.
I have been so thrilled to have Roy back home. We are truly blessed that our prayers were answered and our faith NEVER allowed us to stop believing that Roy would return home.
I didnt know he would request a turkey sandwich and then request to be H-o-m-e, but I am truly extremely thankful and happy for this wonderful outcome.
You were the 1st to help Carrie and I and our interviews are an unforgettable experience, but Roy told me we all helped. We will never forget your huge efforts. My prayers are with the other hostages and their families may God be with them.
Thanksssssssssssssss,
Susan Hallums

And thank you Jawa Report readers for all of your support in the past. The Hallums family is still trying to raise money to cover expenses experienced in this ordeal.

Please visit their website here and donate if you can. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:54 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Trying to raise money to cover expenses? Count the Filthy one in to help.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at September 16, 2005 12:29 PM (5ceWd)

2 Thank God! Sometimes it's hard to figure out these terrorists. Why would they hold Roy for so many months, yet not hesitate and slit the throats of Armstrong and the others so quickly? For whatever reasons, I'm glad they kept him alive...truly a miracle...his family must be thrilled!

Posted by: Laura at September 16, 2005 03:43 PM (L3PPO)

3 Yes Filthy we must put our money where our mouth is.

Posted by: Howie at September 16, 2005 04:01 PM (D3+20)

4 Laura: You posted the same thing the day the news released, I responded to it then. There have been numerous people in Iraqi held ransom, where their kidnapper's have requested cash for their safe return, they are most likely Iraqi nationals, possibly thugs from the old regime. The people doing the beheading are the foreign terrorist's from groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Ansar Al Sunnah hardliners / nutjobs. One only has to look at the pictures of the Fedayeen: http://media.msnbc.msn.com/j/msnbc/1843000/1843988.hmedium.jpg There was an estimated 20,000-40,000 of these irregular forces most of which were recruited street thugs, and prisoners under the control of Uday Hussein. These people did not give up their day job, and reports suggest a lot of these were trained in terrorist operations by the Iraqi Government before the War, to fight a guerilla war when the regular army was defeated, and Saddam deposed. It seems sometimes the administration focus on fighters from Syria/Saudi Arabia/Yemen etc, but there were numerous thugs already willing to do homicide bombs in Saddams Fedayeen army, in fact if you remember the news footage in the beginning of the War they found numerous suicide vests, along with army equipment.

Posted by: dave at September 16, 2005 07:41 PM (CcXvt)

5 FANTASTIC!!!!! Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at September 18, 2005 05:55 AM (jHRvj)

6 Damn straight!!!

Posted by: george at September 20, 2005 11:16 AM (hrpbg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Danes with Disabilities Sex Program

(Denmark) The Danish government has launched a program which pays prostitutes to have sex once a month with disabled people.

The program has created some contentiousness, particularly from Danes that don't get taxpayer-funded hookers. The argument is that every Dane deserves free whores, not just the disabled.

My take is that this is a clear case of discrimination.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 10:51 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

Traitors at ACLU Give Propaganda Victory to Enemy

Our enemies are already using the ACLU's latest victory to recruit more jihadis to kill more Americans. Thank you ACLU.

Check out Islam Online's take, if you don't believe me.

Stop the ACLU has more.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:13 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

1 This is really the fault of the Republican/Conservative leadership in this country. We in America are letting these people become the tail that wags the dog. Why doesnÂ’t Presidential, Senate, and House leadership get out and criticize this blatantly anti American organization? We need to define who we are and who they are. When these lines are clearly drawn, Americans will choose one or the other. The majority of Americans will side with what is best for our country. ItÂ’s almost as if the conservative is afraid of offending the guy who is sticking the knife in his back. Who the hell cares about offending him? Throw him down and kick his ass! Even if you loose, you didnÂ’t go down like some ass kissing clown who pretends to respect and admire the bastard who stuck you. You sure donÂ’t see democrats holding back their views on subjects like the Roberts confirmation. Why is the GOP so timid in taking on this very partisan organization that is hated by so much of this country? I believe it is the fear of the MSM. Well the MSM isnÂ’t what it used to be and we better take the offensive our we will loose without firing a shot. LetÂ’s have it out and let the chips fall where they may.

Posted by: Brad at September 16, 2005 11:03 AM (3OPZt)

2 Be aware their antics (and others like them) do have different kinds of consequences. Conservatism has been growing/spreading in this country since 1980. They (Left) have slowly over the past 40 years alienated/pissed off millions of Americans. Their actions not only have revitalized and strengthened conservatism with new conviction, they have "helped" considerably in moving the "swing" (on-the-sidelines) voter our way. We are winning - ever so gradually - but winning no less! Never forget that powerful statement by R Reagan in '80 - question: Why did he leave the Democatic Party - answer: They left him.

Posted by: hondo at September 16, 2005 02:51 PM (4Gtyc)

3 That's why the left is enamored with the ACLU and other left leaning organizations. They are the champions of anyone in our country who doesn't belong. Why does one think the left is so vehement in fighting laws that will curb voter fraud or laws that promote convicted felons' right to vote? They have lost so much support from "natural" American citizens that it's the only way they can get enough votes to remain relevant. They're desperate. Desperation breeds mistakes, exposes lies and will further marginalize them. The Republican party is starting to piss me off too. They stand there and take it and don't fight back. They're just trying to appease the Democrats now. It was evident in Bush's last speech regarding the Katrina disaster. He might as well have just stood there with a his mouth shut and held up a blank check for all to see and abuse. Might as well take that check and dip it in a vat of pork lard before he signs it. Sorry, got off on a tangent there.

Posted by: Oyster at September 17, 2005 06:43 AM (YudAC)

4 The problem with knee-jerk Republicans is that once you cut them off at the knees your left with jerks. There are few true conservatives in the house or senate.

Posted by: Lonetown at September 17, 2005 07:11 AM (7jAem)

5 You guys are such spazzes. The gov't works for *us*, the people. The ACLU finds evidence that there were, in fact, more systematic problems in the training of interrogators, which the big overview report denied. Now, if you are a boss, and your employees are bullshitting you, do you just let them continue blowing smoke up your ass? What, do you like that tickling sensation in your butt, or something? Me, I demand the truth, and accept no substitutes. Why don't you?

Posted by: The Hoganator at September 17, 2005 10:02 AM (JEe1a)

6 Dear Hoganator: "The gov't works for *us*..." You're damn right. But the ACLU? That's a whole 'nother story. I don't want to have to explain the Geneva Convention thing to you. I think you already know it. Nobody's tickling *my* butt. I just don't care how they were treated. That's just how I feel, take it or leave it. If these detainees were in uniform and not specifically targeting non-combatants - women, children, old men - sawing the heads off innocent people and torturing some to degrees that would make what happened in abu Graib look like a tea party, I'd agree with you. I mean c'mon, they're killing their own without remorse. At what point are we finally allowed to stop caring? So it's not necessary to talk down to us about our ignorance or denial. I understand your chagrin. The government ticks me off too. This just doesn't happen to be on my particular radar. But exposing the treatment of the terrorists isn't enough for them. We're not stupid, we know what went on. They will carry that banner as high and as long as they can. And everytime something else grabs the headlines they start anew. Now they want to extend our rights to those who would gleefully kill any of us, including their infidel, ACLU saviors. And they've succeeded. How much is enough?

Posted by: Oyster at September 17, 2005 11:08 AM (YudAC)

7 Traitors R Us? Find me the WMD and maybe I'll be nice.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 07:09 AM (VhNDM)

8 Hoginator, Next time you send a democrat presidential candidate out to the suburbs, tell him to stand up and speak clearly in defense of the ACLU. Guess what, he/she wont do it. My challenge is also to liberals: Have the balls to stand up and tell us in your campaigns that you support the ACLU without reservation and without any qualifying statements. Then let the chips fall where they may. YouÂ’re a lying pussy hoginator because you and your kind will never present your views to America honestly in an election. You know what our reaction would be.

Posted by: Brad at September 18, 2005 09:25 AM (6mUkl)

9 We have three solutions to problems that face our society; the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. When the the first two have been nullified by corruption, and no longer serve the People, that only leaves the third. It is clear that the ballot box is stuffed, the jury box is rigged, and so the cartridge box is all that's left. I have no faith left in the government or the greatest majority of the people, because the government is corrupt and incompetent, with politicians bought and sold by special interests like whores in a brothel. The people have become generally stupid and apathetic, unable to think for themselves and more concerned with sports and celebrities than with the enemies which threaten us. Only a small minority of the people are now capable of thinking and acting in the interest of the survival and continuance of our civilization. I now honestly believe that the solution of 1776 is the only one that will work, as we've had years to find another solution, but things just keep getting worse. It's not because a solution doesn't exist, or because it's beyond us, but I have to believe because nobody really wants a solution. The worse things get, the greater the power of government grows, so solving problems is not in government's best interest, and therefore a conflict of interest exists between the government's duties to the People, and bureacrats' greed and lust for power. Just a little over two hundred years ago, a small percentage of the population decided they'd had enough, and stood up the the most powerful government and military in the world, to overthrow tyranny and preserve liberty, and the won. They did so despite the fact that many of their neighbors actively fought against them in support of tyranny. They did so in spite of the odds against them, which were astronomical. They did so because it was the only option they had, besides slavery. They had to win their freedom, or die trying. Now is our time to choose; what will be our course of action? To allow a corrupt government, which has been sold lock, stock, and barrel, to the highest bidders, to continue unchallenged? Do we continue to tolerate open treason and sedition, often by our own elected officials, against the nation and the people? Or do we stand up and challenge those who are charged with the duties of leadership to do the jobs they were chosen to do, and hold them accountable for their crimes of corruption and incompetence? If we do not make ourselves heard by our voices, we will soon have no choice but to make ourselves heard by the sound of gunfire, because we must not allow this creeping tyranny to advance farther. I don't advocate, nor do I want to see, open rebellion or civil war in America, but I'm just one citizen of millions who are fed up, and have zero confidence in the government, and the idiots in Washington had better realize that, because once things get so bad that enough people have given up hope of a civil solution, there will be no stopping it. It's better to live one day as a free man, than one hundred years as a slave.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 18, 2005 01:23 PM (0yYS2)

10 More from the evil Atheists.Communists.Lawyers.Underground. our own al queda the will replace the pledge with earth mother stanzazs or with HAIL CEASAR or HAIL KOFFI and have the koran in place of the bible and a PLEDGE TO THE EARTH as well

Posted by: sandpiper at September 18, 2005 03:36 PM (/4Knp)

11 Violence mongers jumpin' around rattling their prescription pill bottles like maracas - impy strokin' the barrel of his gun, dreaming of bloody revenge.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 07:52 PM (VhNDM)

12 Revenge? No. Simply justice.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 19, 2005 10:48 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Aussies: Speak English Immigrants

As I argued in a recent post, while moral decline does not mean an impending end to a nation, cultural decline might. A key cultural attribute of America is the English language. We could learn something from the Aussies.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:05 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Michael Yon Podcast

Here's your chance to hear Michael Yon. Shawn at Bareknucklepolitics interviews him here. Yon is one of the few embedded reporters sticking it out in Iraq and, unlike the talking heads on CNN, Fox, and NBC who don't ever leave the Green Zone, is actually out and about reporting facts from the ground.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Stupid Quote Of The Year

"...[Antonin Scalia and Clarance Thomas] hate the government so much that they would use their position on the bench to override the legislature, to override the will of the people with their decisions."
- Chuck Schumer on "Hannity and Colmes" 9/15/2005

You mean unlike the liberal justices across the country that are overturning valid state laws and votes by the people on issues such as underage death penalty and homosexual marriage?

Posted by: Drew at 07:56 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "You mean unlike the liberal justices across the country that are overturning valid state laws and votes by the people on issues such as underage death penalty and homosexual marriage?" A bit. Its just that the wingers would do it more.

Posted by: actus at September 16, 2005 08:22 AM (y/f3P)

2 I agree. The leftwingers would do it more. Leftwing judges have no regard for the legislative arm of the government.

Posted by: RepJ at September 16, 2005 08:58 AM (XAq/v)

3 Left wing right wing yeah yeah yeah. The problem is as Scalia said so well Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say? Here here!

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at September 16, 2005 09:06 AM (T0YCQ)

4 Drew: No fair. You used facts and logic to undermine the Senior Senator from NY's opinion. Left leaning judges may have no regard for the legislative arm of the government, but they are the only de facto power base that the left has in running the country at the federal level. The Left's power in Congress is limited and has continued to erode over the last 20 years. The courts are all the Left has left to push it's agenda. That's why this fight is seen as so crucial to the Left's agenda. They need it to stay in the game. It's also why they need the US to flop badly somewhere so that they can claim to be the way out of the mess (doesn't matter if its domestically or internationally, they need a massive disaster to suggest that they can do things better).

Posted by: lawhawk at September 16, 2005 09:20 AM (AcoYr)

5 I think if you check into the actual facts of the matter you will find the Supreme Court justice who has voted to overturn legislation more than any other is, in fact, Clarence Thomas. Scalia can't be far behind. Does that make them "activist judges"?

Posted by: Pug at September 16, 2005 09:31 AM (r5zYa)

6 didn't some Leftard just sue successfully to outlaw the pledge of allegiance somewhere?

Posted by: dcb at September 16, 2005 09:42 AM (8e/V4)

7 I wonder why leftards, like rectus, become leftards? What is the base deficiency which is the cause of their sociopathic hatred of Truth, Liberty, and Justice? Do they hate the essential aspects of Freedom, or do they simply hate those who prosper under than Freedom, while they themselves are almost uniformly losers, or see themselves so, in the game of life? What is it about someone else being free, happy, and prosperous that infuriates them so? It is no secret that liberals think themselves superior to their fellow citizens, and should therefore be the ones to order society so as to eliminate injustice, poverty, etc., simplistically thinking that these things are caused by uneven distribution of resources and not by stupidity, laziness, and ignorantly misdirected idealism, but what causes this cognitive disconnect in the first place? I think there is something fundamentally wrong in their minds which causes them to see up as down and black as white; a virus-like meme which once embedded in the brain, turns logic on its head and prevents them from ever being able to think straight again. Perhaps it is this unrequited feeling of superiority combined with the inexplicable (to them) success of those they see as inferior which sends them over the edge. Perhaps they simply can't stand to see other people free, happy, and prosperous without the benefit of their oversight. of course, with their oversight, nobody becomes free, happy, and prosperous, but rather subdued, miserable, and poor, which is the best way to keep a people under control. Within every liberal is a Stalin, who would starve 20 million people to death and send enemies to die in labor camps for the offense of daring to not repeat the Big Lie. They are all angry because they are petty tyrants who want to be in charge, and can't be, so they sycophantically idolize murderers like Castro, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, et al, and hate all who want to be free from their sickness. They should all be hanged before they destroy the last hope of freedom in the world.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 16, 2005 09:47 AM (0yYS2)

8 Actus lives in an alternate universe if he believes the lie he just uttered. Surely you jest, Actus!

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 16, 2005 09:58 AM (q9AWQ)

9 Congress is every bit as likely to try to grab power that is not properly theirs as the President or the Court. For example using the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify regulations whether or not they are interstate or commerce is one congressional abuse of power. In those instances it is proper for the acts of Congress to be invalidated. Seems to me, IIRC it was Leahy was reaching for power that is not vested in Congress when asking if Congress passed a law demanding the withdrawl of troops that the President had to obey. Huh? Congress can deny funding, Congress can declare war, but Congress can not end a war. That is a perogative of the executive branch.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at September 16, 2005 11:12 AM (T0YCQ)

10 I've noted the commerce clause gets interpreted differently depending on the issue before the court.

Posted by: Howie at September 16, 2005 11:37 AM (D3+20)

11 Howie, See my comment above that notes Justice Scalia's comment. I think therein lies the explanation for what you note.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at September 16, 2005 12:55 PM (T0YCQ)

12 "They should all be hanged before they destroy the last hope of freedom in the world." Don't wait a minute longer dude. "Actus lives in an alternate universe if he believes the lie he just uttered. Surely you jest, Actus!" The rehnquist court has overturned more statutes than any other. Ever read a Thomas opinion? pages and pages of the US code would disappear. Talk about undermining the elected branches.

Posted by: actus at September 16, 2005 01:31 PM (CqheE)

13 Now Roberts - next another Conservative - still 3 more years to go, maybe another actus? And in '08 what - "THE NEW LEFT?" .. not likely. V Lombardi once said winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. And throughtout the smoke and haze, the desperate attempts to organize something (anything!) effective in opposition, the shrill whinning of hysteria ... we are winning.

Posted by: hondo at September 16, 2005 03:07 PM (4Gtyc)

14 Actus, If the legislature passes a law saying all moonbats must be tied up and tickled till they all piss their pants does this mean it must happen? After all, its law? Would it not be appropriate for the SCOTUS to slap that piece of legislation down? I don't blame it all on the left. Sometimes commentators on the right clearly wish for what they condemn the left for wanting. The Constitution on its own leaves many holes to be filled in. These holes are to be filled in by the legislature, when a law is filling in a hole then the job of the court is to interpret that law as written. If that law presumes to override the constituion then the job of the court is to nullify that law. The problem many conservatives have with the courts is that when a clearly constitutional law is invalidated by the court solely because the judges prefer it that way. The ruling that bars the execution of minors is one of those. There is no prohibition in the constitution against that. The states should be able to allow or prohibit it as they see fit, in fact I would argue the Court's ruling is what went against the constitution in that case.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at September 16, 2005 03:23 PM (T0YCQ)

15 Give me a link, Actus, not an opinion.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 16, 2005 03:49 PM (q9AWQ)

16 "Give me a link, Actus, not an opinion." The Most Activist Supreme Court in History: The Road to Modern Judicial Conservatism By Thomas M. Keck, University of Chicago Press. "If the legislature passes a law saying all moonbats must be tied up and tickled till they all piss their pants does this mean it must happen? After all, its law? Would it not be appropriate for the SCOTUS to slap that piece of legislation down?" Of course it would be. Lets be clear though about who is striking down more legislation. Its the right wingers on the court that do it more.

Posted by: actus at September 16, 2005 04:23 PM (CqheE)

17 Interestingly enough this may be because the legislature is abusing its power? Isn't the endangered species act based on the Interstate Commerce Clause? How why? IIRC, the federal law prohibiting drugs & guns within a given distance of a school was also based on the commerce clause. IIRC, that one was also struck down. Perhaps, the legislature should mind its Ps and Qs a little more. Funny, I don't see a whole lot of right wingers clamoring to claim most of the justices as their own. There is more than on Republican nominated justice the right wants nothing to do with. Seems to me most now consider Souter a solid member of the leftist block on the court. The striking down of legislation is not in and of itself a bad thing. There are appropriate strike downs and there are inappropriate strike downs. Anyway

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at September 16, 2005 04:38 PM (rhWQM)

18 Quothe rectus: "The rehnquist court has overturned more statutes than any other." Good on 'em then! Congress makes laws based on poor information and often for the wrong reasons. Hello? Patriot Act, anyone? Nobody, not a freakin' one of 'em, read the damned thing. A bunch of staffers (i.e unelected and unaccountable lawyers) wrote it, and the idiots Congressmen (sorry for being redundant there) voted for it. "Ever read a Thomas opinion? pages and pages of the US code would disappear." Well what the hell are they waiting for? Oh, that's right, those pages of US code that would disappear disproportionately favor some groups over others, so they're sacrosanct. We can't be doing away with special rights for the gaylesbiantransgenderhippyminoritycommunists, can we? "Talk about undermining the elected branches." The Court exists partly for that purpose; to prevent an entrenched oligarchy from passing bad laws. I'm sorry, where are your from again? Russia? Or is it North Korea? Regardless; see, here in America we have a government of three branches, each with certain powers and duties, and the power and duty of the court is to keep the executive and the legislature from trampling the Constitution. It isn't to make "social justice", or "fight for the little guy", but to weight the Constitutionality of the acts of the other two branches. Of course, I don't expect you to know that, since they obviously only teach Marxism where you went to school.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 16, 2005 05:24 PM (0yYS2)

19 "A bunch of staffers (i.e unelected and unaccountable lawyers) wrote it" Try lobbyists. "The Court exists partly for that purpose" I know. But yet wingers complain that its hte left of teh court that strikes down too much. When in fact it is the right.

Posted by: actus at September 16, 2005 07:50 PM (y/f3P)

20 Hmmm, There is a distinction. For example the case I allude to in my previous comment and go into further over at Blogger Beer, see the Fatwa issued against me! :-) The striking down of the capital punishment of minors is an example. What in the Constitution prohibits that? Nothing, therefore it is a matter for the states and their legislatures. However, the SCOTUS, decided that was so yesterday and therefore had to go trolling far and wide for justification, justification not present in OUR Constitution. They resorted to foreign law (law which we have not consented to) and says our society needs to become more enlightened. This is judicial activism, striking down laws that are constitutional based on whimsy. This is BAD for our nation. Now, in the case I allude to above Congress tries to claim unconstitutional powers via standard procedures. The court in US vs Lopez ruled the law unconstitutional and nullified the law. So, you need to dig deeper.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at September 16, 2005 08:14 PM (rhWQM)

21 Marcus: Thanks for explaining the obvious to actus. But he still doesn't get it. He can't understand the one simple point that the legislature can pass all the laws they want, but if it's unconstitutional, it must be struck down. I don't care what side does it. Whether one side does it more than the other is not the issue. The issue is "was it unconstitutional"? It's not that hard to understand. actus is only unhappy in that he sees the "right" doing it more. If the left side was striking down more legislation, he'd be checking into the particulars so he could defend it.

Posted by: Oyster at September 17, 2005 07:06 AM (YudAC)

22 Actus, You gave me a book which is technically not a link. I went to my library today and could not find a copy of it, but I still disagree with your premise about the conservative side of the court striking down more laws than the liberal. That said, my objection has never been with the SCOTUS striking down unconstitutional laws, but with the tendency for the liberal side of the court to basically write law and order change based on personal views of what the Constitution should say. Under the Constitution as I read it, and I've read it many times, I do not see those particular powers enumerated. Reviewing law IS the priciple function of the court, and that is what the court should do. It's the liberal interpretation of laws based on a so-called "living" constitution that I find so objectionable.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 17, 2005 11:01 PM (rUyw4)

23 Impy, your scrotum is in a knot!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 12:27 AM (VhNDM)

24 You've got the wrong scrotum; brass doesn't get into knots. And I'm not even going to ask what you're doing.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 18, 2005 01:40 PM (0yYS2)

25 Chucky schumer is that iresponsible jackass who is constantly voting for gun control so why dont this bray stupid jackass shut his big fat piehole before he shoves his big fat foot in it

Posted by: sandpiper at September 18, 2005 03:39 PM (/4Knp)

26 Gracchus Maximus, you gotta calm down before the police show up with the white jackets.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 07:54 PM (VhNDM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Partial vs. Total War: Revisiting Tranquil Blindness

The following is an email exchange I had with Nicole Argo, one of the panel on suicide terrorism that I panned recently here. That is, it was unfair to the extent that some of my criticism wasn't so much substantive as atmospheric, and it may also have been unfair to Argo. I still disagree with Pape's policy prescriptions, which I think do not follow from his analysis, and I thought Bloom's attitude rather superficial and trite, reflecting the "unseriousness" of the Moveon crowd. And I still have the sense that the way nearly all of these people frame the issue of suicide terrorism reflects a false dichotomy between "military" and "non-military" strategy.

In the 1940s Roosevelt created an agency that he called the "Board of Economic Warfare," which was chaired, rather ironically, by R. Buckminster Fuller. While this agency wasn't "military," its design purpose was unambiguously to serve the military campaign. If there is value in the work of these researchers attempting to understand the nature of terrorism it probably is not in an alternative to a military strategy, but in service to it... with the laudable objective of preventing a drift toward what Clausewitz calls "Total War."

But Argo was quite gracious in the following note, and in a follow-up (which I won't post because I haven't quite figured out how to respond yet). Anyway, here's the exchange. The quotes from my original post are in bold, her comments in italics, and my responses in plain old, plain old.
more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:53 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1617 words, total size 11 kb.

1 Speaking of Total Wars, other than Medieval and Rome which were both excellent but Medieval was better after the Viking Invasion addition, should there be one that isn't on already? If yes, then where?

Posted by: A Finn at September 16, 2005 05:15 AM (cWMi4)

2 After the scathing comment frome "clarifier" in your last post about this I'm hesitant to comment further. I have an opinion though, so I will. Right here in the "comfort of my high speed connection". This is, of course, my opinion, so take it or leave it: If the conference was open to those without an indepth knowledge such as the speakers held, don't the speakers have a responsibility to convey what they know properly? And save the "as-a-brotherhood-we-understand-each-other" levity for closed discussions? That way, people like "clarifier" don't have to appear in a blog, defend the speakers and berate everyone for "misunderstanding". What I don't understand is why the most educated in the field are so reluctant to say that it took, in most cases, an entire life of swallowing whole "the soundbites offered them by the local cleric, or the international terrorist," and you forgot, culture, family enforced religious values, etc. for the vast majority of them. They didn't come to decide terrorism was a good idea on their own or in a short period of time. (As I said, in the vast majority of cases) The extremist's interpretation of the religion is so rigid and spartan and demanding that when one encounters such a charismatic ideologue as their recruiters/trainers it only reinforces what they've already "learned" and brings them to a whole new level. These charismatic ideologues are given the task of breaking down the suicide-bomber's natural instinct of "self-preservation" by use of the "religion" and the promise of a utopia, among other things, before they're sent on missions, - suicide or otherwise. Their reasons for their anger can be political, but they're told their religion demands their action. And let's not forget the one's who have told us of the drugs given them to bolster their confidence in their non-suicide missions or when we find the suidide-bomber handcuffed to the steering wheel of an IED-laden car. In these cases, it's obvious that they're reluctant and the "seargent" that sends them on the mission recognizes this. As I said, they're very adept. The religion is the one constant though. Instead of looking for the motives of the suicide bomber, I just think it would be more important to put the middle man under the magnifying glass. The suicide-bomber's master. These guys are very adept at manipulation and re-inforcement. We don't hear from these guys. They stay under the radar. The suicide bomber is just their means to an end. If the APSA panel is unsure where Iraq's bombers are coming from, and they are the "experts", then why are we constantly told that the vast majority of them are foreign - Saudi, Pakistani, Syrian, Iranian, etc.? But predominately Saudi. Are we getting bad information in that respect? Yes, I'll read what I can of these "papers" and my opinion may change, but I think the religous part of it is just too obvious to dismiss to the point of looking for other reasons. I think it underlies everything else. As I said: that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it ;-)

Posted by: Oyster at September 16, 2005 02:43 PM (fl6E1)

3 Oyster: I haven't read Clarifier's comments, so maybe I should do that first. I've just been swamped with... survival stuff. I'm also helping with a Katrina hotline for the Red Cross, which is a bit of an eye-opener. I'll have more on that later. Academe is pretty insular, and I agree that the panelists had an obligation to make themselves clear by going beyond that. Argo actually seems to agree with that part of my criticism. Most of these panels at APSA were on take-it-or-leave-it topics, but this one deserves the same kind of respect we reserve for the holocaust. I also don't think people misunderstood the panel that much. I misunderstood a few things, but I don't think they were made clear. For instance, it wasn't obvious to me that people were excluding Iraq from their conclusions, and I tend to think that many of them (especially Bloom and Pape) have a very definite point of view that isn't empirically driven. It's a preference stated as an expert opinion. As for the drugging and handcuffing, I've heard those stories but it's not clear how much that goes on. At this point it would be a mistake to think that's a serious aspect of what we're facing. Most of these bombers weren't conscripted; they're volunteers. I also agree whole-heartedly that Islam has had an undercurrent that was just waiting for this opportunity to manifest their revulsion for the rest of the human race. There are many noble things in Islam, but there is also this long-standing tendancy to regard themselves as the only genuine humans, which is why they refer (ironically) to the West as the "House of War." What they mean is that we are factionalized, whereas they are unified. In a deeper sense it means that we are mongrels, or children of the lie. This is why I saw Al Qaeda as a manifestation of a loming Tsunami. What we've seen so far is only a shadow of what's coming, if we don't try to cancel it. The religion is the one constant though. Instead of looking for the motives of the suicide bomber, I just think it would be more important to put the middle man under the magnifying glass. Yeah, I think these guys are the key as well. There will always be people willing to be recruited. Getting rid of the recruiters will undermine that threat, though.

Posted by: Demosophist at September 17, 2005 12:02 AM (mD48C)

4 Total war is for losers.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 07:54 PM (VhNDM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 15, 2005

Filthy-Dego-Wop Romans, the Conservatives That Love Them, and the Beginning of Empire (UPDATED)

Why are so many conservatives fascinated with Rome? Personally, I think it's latent homosexuality. In contrast, Dean Esmay has a more serious take on the same question for you conservatives of what he calls "the America sucks right."

These are the guys at your church that think God has an invisible shield over the U.S., and that as America slouches toward Gomorroh he slowly raises the shield. This line of thought can go to the extreme and become one that basically says were doomed, DOOMED, DOOMED!

In many ways, this argument is very similar to the namby-pambies of the 'hate America first' Left and self-proclaimed paleocons on the Right who share the belief that America is destined for failure, soon, because that is the fate of all empires.

The remedy? End the empire, bring troops home, etc. Only by ending the empire can America be saved.

Which, of course, is stupid, since at any point in Rome's history the same argument could have been made. Bring troops home from Palestine now, one could have argued in 70 C.E. Of course, 300 years later you would have found the city of Caesaria, near modern Haifa, bustling with activity--all of it Roman.

And what is so great about the Romans anyway? Filthy mass-murdering buggers that they were. Dean writes:

They were a vicious, savage people, given to mass murder on a scale that would make Saddam Hussein seem like a piker--and that was while their Empire was growing. Julius Caesar, before he seized power and turned Rome into an Empire, boasted of slaughtering over 100,000 people in just one of his jaunts into Gaul. Not 100,000 on the battlefield either--no, this included razing villages, hacking off the heads of children, women, old men, the crippled and lame. This was celebrated as a part of Ceasar's greatness, with triumphal celebrations and murals and statues showing in gory detail as Ceasar and his troops raped barbarian women and sliced barbarian children's heads off.
All that, and Rome's greatest days were yet ahead of her.

Let me just add a few other things. The Romans were not the biggest, not the most powerful, and certainly not the most long-lasting empire the world has ever known.

Biggest: British empire. At one time controlled a quarter of the world.

Most powerful: U.S., present day. Is there any doubt about this? Ok, we'll give special runner-up status to Alexander's short-lived but very kick-ass empire and a tie going to Genghis Khan's Mongolian hordes.

Longest lasting: China is by far the longest lasting empire ever known. Before the Romans even began to consolidate power let alone think of empire, China was already an imperial power. The Chinese Empire begins in 221 BCE. And when did it end? It hasn't. Even when China is conquered by external forces, such as during the Mongolian invasion, it continued. Instead of 'Mongolionizing' the Chinese, the Mongolians were Chinafied. How's that for 'end of empire' theory!

And China was, and is, a real empire. Not an empire in the Leninst sense of the word, or an empire in the dependency literature of the new Left, or like an empire, or an empire defined by--well, by whatever definition suits the purposes of polemists who wish to use the word to describe something they don't like, namely, America.

So, when did the Chinese Empire fall? It didn't. It's still in existance today. So, there's no more Emperor. Big deal. Go to modern China today and you will see it is not a 'nation-state' but an Imperial power. Nearly half of China's land mass is located West of where most Han Chinese live. Ask the Uygyars of Xinjiang or Tibetans if China isn't an 'empire'.

The Chinese Empire might suck every bit as much as the Roman one did, but it has lasted for 2,226 years and shows no sign of falling.

Even if we were to date the beginning of the modern Chinese Empire with reunification under the Sui Dynasty in 589 and date its end (wrongfully, I believe) to 1949, when The People's Republic was set up, that's an empire that lasts 1360 years!!

And we've been around, what, a couple hundred years? I bet it will be another 500 before we even begin to invent a food dish that is the cultural equvalent of the all important General Tsao's Orange Chicken.

Is America doomed? Hell no! World, you aint seen nothin' yet.

UPDATE: First, apologies for mispelling 'dego'. It should be dago. Laura is right--if you're going to use racial slurs to get people's attention you really ought to spell it right. I guess I just don't use racist terminology enough......

Second, Dean's orginal post was in response to an updated post by La Shawn Barber, who I have a great deal of respect for, but who I also disagree. Dean has a related posts here.

Like James Joyner, who enters the discussion here, I also have many concerns about some of the moral decline of America. I just believe that the argument that such declines preceed the downfall of a civilization are not backed by historical facts. If one wishes to argue that cultural decline preceeds the downfall of a civilization, I believe you are on to a more solid argument. One that is not, of course, without its own flaws. Part of what makes American culture so different than those others, though, is its ability to adapt and change over time. Further, if anything, American culture is still on the rise and spreading across the globe

La Shawn's argument actually is religious, if you go read her post. As a religious person--which I actually am to the surprise and shock of my readers (You thought I was kidding about being a Christian Universalist who happens to believe only Mormons go to heaven and that God is really a Buddhist?)--I believe La Shawn is basically right in her assessment and characterization of moral issues (with the exception of her not distinguishing between good gay and bad gay). As you all know I don't believe in gay marriage, as a rule, unless it is between two very hot chicks.

But, if you'll close your Qurans for a moment and open the Bible to the book of Ecclesiastes--the entire book--I believe you'll find that the good preacher notices something that many Christians today have overlooked. Let me quote him from the NIV, chapter 8, verse 10:

There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: righteous men who get what the wicked deserve, and wicked men who get what the righteous deserve. This too, I say, is meaningless.

Indeed. Long before Gibbons poor observations on the decline of empire, King Solomon (ascribed) noticed that the wicked often prosper and the righteous often suffer. Buddha, for the non-Christian, made much the same observation. That is just life.

I would suggest to the religious-right in America, and this includes Doc Rampage who makes an even more overtly religious argument here, not to make the error that their theological reading of history is orthodoxy. Even if one were to read the Bible in this way, one might make the argument that God punished the nation of Israel when it was wicked, and blessed it when it prospered, but that Israel is a covenant nation, different then the rest. Rome was not Israel, and neither is America.

Rampage is right, of course, that this is 'in house' fighting. Chomsky hates America, La Shawn doesn't.

Further, I thought it was the Romans that killed Jesus, the encarnation of God in the flesh--something my Sunday School teachers taught was kind of like the ultimate sinful behavior--and yet Rome grew and prospered for hundreds of years after that. I also seem to recall something about throwing Christians to lions, crucifying Peter upside down, and even one emperor (Nero) using them as human torches. All of this, of course, as they were busy buggering (not being buggered, mind you) young boys in the traditional Greek fashion.

And as for China, the longest lasting empire, did you know that the practice of polygamy was not done away with until this century? I have a friend from Hong Kong who comes from the noble class. His grandfather had many wives, not even counting all the concubines.

Last, let me just clarify that I do not believe that America is really an 'empire' in the same way that Rome was or that modern polemists believe. I thought I had made that clear in the paragraph about definitions of empire, but I guess I hadn't. America is Iraq is not empire. California Mafia has a related point here.

However, if you were to define America's empire as within the boundaries of the United States, then I might concede the point. We certainly conquered a lot of territory, colonized it, culturally extinguished native peoples, and subjected them to our wills. Go to Hawaii. Forget Hawaii, go to Virginia. That seems a lot like empire my friends.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:08 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 1520 words, total size 10 kb.

1 If you're going to wax poetic about empire maybe you should first define the term. Comparing, for instance, the U.S. to Rome is kind of stupid. Just because a contry is powerful and influential doesn't make it an "empire" in my book. Most empires I ever heard of get some land and tribute as part of the deal.

Posted by: Carlos at September 15, 2005 06:29 PM (8e/V4)

2 Yeah, we're actually the opposite of an empire, since we spend our wealth and blood for the sake of others' freedom, though nobody appreciates it. Personally, I wish we would say screw the world and let them eat one another, and nuke anyone to glowing embers who messes with us.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 15, 2005 06:35 PM (0yYS2)

3 Look if you're gonna use ethnic slurs, at least SPELL it right.....it's DAGO. LOL.

Posted by: Laura at September 15, 2005 07:12 PM (L3PPO)

4 Getting Chinafied for tomorrow sounds good. I'm getting the Kung Pao. Mo likes her chicken spicey.

Posted by: Maureen at September 15, 2005 07:36 PM (ny5O/)

5 For all the people who condemn America for committing "genocide" (another word the left has coopted and corrupted), they should read up on the Punic Wars to find out what genocide REALLY means.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at September 15, 2005 08:12 PM (CJBEv)

6 I liked what Michael Ledeen said a few years ago: China is a civilization masquerading as a nation-state. Also what Jonah Goldberg said: Now, the fact that we are not an empire, but could be one if we wanted to, confuses the dickens of all sorts of people. Indeed, some people find the idea so confusing they willfully refuse to believe it and just go on insisting we are an empire the way the guy in the Monty Python skit just kept insisting the parrot wasn't dead. ... Europeans who did have colonies and who did invade both their neighbors and distant lands for material gain Â— and, to be fair, for more ideologically complex motives Â— have a hard time computing that America isn't behaving the way they did. They think they've evolved past us, that they are on the same road as us and are simply a few miles ahead of us on the path to enlightenment. What they can't grasp is that America took a different fork in the road a couple of centuries ago. We can argue about who's on the high road or the low road now, but we're on different roads.

Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at September 15, 2005 08:22 PM (aL2tJ)

7 I don't like Chinese, but my cousin's wife from South Louisiana sure does make a mean "wop" salad.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 15, 2005 08:30 PM (q9AWQ)

8 God helps those who help themselves. The U.S. is better than everyone else at helping themselves in defense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Oh yeah, right makes right.[done on purpose]

Posted by: The Uncooperative Blogger at September 15, 2005 08:42 PM (ud47f)

9 Yo, Vinnie the ninnie... "Is anyone honestly suggesting that the Cole was bombed 20 years ago because America was a den of sinfulness on Ronald Reagan's watch?" Well? It wasn't, was it? How's that for accurate?

Posted by: kermit at September 15, 2005 08:52 PM (DX+fh)

10 Most of the time, when the Legions were brought back to Rome, it was so they could put their commander in charge...So "the bring the troops home" folks better be careful....

Posted by: MKL at September 15, 2005 09:15 PM (3fpKJ)

11 Tsao's Chicken was invented in America! Wiki it! God Bless AMERICA, BAAYYYBEEEE!

Posted by: NewOrleanian at September 15, 2005 11:30 PM (d6mij)

12 Wow Vinnie's quite the little troll isn't he? Yes, I obviously mis-wrote, I was thinking about the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983 under Reagan. The Cole was in 2000. Sorry 'bout that. As for people at the State Department reading my blog: some of them do. :-) However, I only made the statement because some Yemeni government weasels were reading it and I wanted to bug 'em.

Posted by: Dean Esmay at September 15, 2005 11:33 PM (98KKP)

13 By the way Rusty, I don't think I implied that Rome was the biggest Empire of all time, just the largest in history up until that time. Although now that I think on it, China may have been bigger at the time....

Posted by: Dean Esmay at September 15, 2005 11:34 PM (98KKP)

14 So the "America Sucks Right" is the Left's answer to the Right's "hate America Left"? Very clever. Kudos. You might actually get some traction with about 6 ignorant boobs out there.

Posted by: dcb at September 16, 2005 12:18 AM (8e/V4)

15 Dean, That's fine, it was a minor point. The larger point, of course, being that the Romans weren't the end-all be-all of Empire. All--on "empire", I was being kind of snarky in the post. It's the concede the point that America is an Empire and then argue "so what?" The paragraph about definitions was supposed to kind of draw that out.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at September 16, 2005 07:59 AM (JQjhA)

16 As a conservative, I like to watch History Channel shows about Rome because of the interesting architecture and their regular people. In alot of ways, modern day culture is like Roman culture (not just in America), but in just as many ways, it is different. We all like going to sports arenas, we like spas, we like being social in large buildings and wearing cool clothing... It's the values of the people that are different. We value life much more than the Romans did, and our society is built around this core value. God bless America.

Posted by: RepJ at September 16, 2005 09:11 AM (XAq/v)

17 You rascist infidels! Even Karen Hughes addressed Muslims last week! And we all know Hillary kissed Suha Arafat! "The Battle of Tours (often called the Battle of Poitiers, but not to be confused with the Battle of Poitiers, 1356) was fought on October 25, 732 between forces under the Frankish leader Charles Martel and an Islamic army led by Emir Abd er Rahman. During the battle, the Franks defeated the Islamic army and Emir Abd er Rahman was killed. The result of this battle stopped the northward advance of Islam from Spain. This battle is considered by most historians to be of macrohistorical importance, in that it may have halted the invasion of Europe by Muslims, and preserved Christianity as the controlling faith, during a period in which Islam was overrunning the remains of the old Roman and Persian Empires." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

Posted by: Demoralize Americans Telethon at September 16, 2005 11:52 AM (SgJ1P)

18 Just to clarify: I didn't mean to imply that I agree with the argument that God rewards and punishes nations today like he did Israel. I just wanted to point out that this isn't one of those specially-invented accusations that no one would pretend to care about except that it suits their rhetorical purposes. By contrast, the America-hating Left is always coming up with novel accusations. Expressing contempt for the US over things that they don't care about when it doesn't apply to the US.

Posted by: Doc Rampage at September 16, 2005 02:42 PM (6IZFG)

19 Rusty, the Romans were indifferent to Jesus' death. It was the Jewish pharisees who wanted Him dead because he was a threat to their corrupt religion.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at September 16, 2005 03:09 PM (OBX/n)

20 YBP: Welcome missed ya

Posted by: Howie at September 16, 2005 03:10 PM (D3+20)

21 But, DAT, I keep hearing from the MSM that the Crusades were the first wars between the Christians and the Muslims. The Christians started all the trouble with the Muslims. The Muslims were just a peaceful people minding their own business and would never attack a Christian. What are you saying here. Surely you must be wrong. The Battle of Tours you refer to was 300 years BEFORE the first Crusade.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 16, 2005 04:16 PM (q9AWQ)

22 Many, including well informed people like Dean Esmay, like to think of the Romans as brutal tyrants. By today's standards, they were. But, the value of life has been increasing since then. In their own time, Rome was the most civilized place on the planet, especially when it was still a republic. While they did commit acts of brutality, they also, just as frequently, opened their arms to the hoards they had conquered, offered to assimilate them, enrich them with Roman wealth, and even let them continue to worship their own pantheon of gods. The conquered were often astounded by how the Romans could so thouroughly trounce then on the battlefield, yet treat them with such mercy immediately after.

Posted by: Doug Purdie at September 16, 2005 05:16 PM (00DOn)

23 The Romans were so barbaric that they had elected leaders and public courts of law at a time when most people were living in tribes with hereditary aristocracies. We mustn't judge their faults by today's standards, but rather we should judge their accomplishments by their own day's standards, but of course, liberals never seem to be able to see the good in any system except, inexplicably, Communism, and conveniently manage to remain in a perpetual state of amnesia regarding the 100,000,000 (that's one hundred million) deaths that Communism has caused, and can only remember to mention that they have free health care.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 16, 2005 05:38 PM (0yYS2)

24 If today's China is a continuation of 500 AD China's empire than the US is surely a coninuation of the Brit empire, which is surely a coninuation of the Roman empire, which "Romanified" barbarian Europe when it was conquered, which was surely a continuation of ancient Greece, which "Greeked-out" Rome when it was conquered by Rome.

Posted by: Harkonnendog at September 16, 2005 06:15 PM (D+qeF)

25 Sorry Harkdog, but no. The US was founded as an entirely new entity based on principles taken from the Roman republic and Athenian democracy, with a dash of parliamentary procedure and a bi-cameral legislature, and was born as a confederacy which grew into a constitutional federal union of states. Likewise, the British empire was a new entity, born of feudalism, and Rome became an empire after Julius Caesar subjugated lands outside the boundaries of direct Roman control. No Greek but Alexander ever had an empire, and it died with him. You can't compare apples to oranges like that, because there is no direct link from one to the next.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 16, 2005 07:35 PM (0yYS2)

26 Laura beat me to it. Jeez Rusty, if you don't know the word is "Dago," I shudder at what your local slice shop shovels across the counter and says is pizza.

Posted by: TC@LeatherPenguin at September 16, 2005 11:39 PM (kiH79)

27 Beth, you wascal!, WTF are you talking about? Don't be DESPICABLE! by diverging from the point!!!

Posted by: Intolerant Bugs at September 17, 2005 02:02 PM (6Jp/w)

28 Roman Empire almost made it as long as the Chinese. Rome was founded in 753 BC. Roman empire ended in Constanople (Istanbul) in 1453. Looks like the Chinese have them by 10 years acoording to your post. Most conservatives I know, when comparing the US to the Roman empire, aren't doing it as a compliment, or for a love of all things Roman. Most references to Rome, from conservatives, are about the inherent evil and debauchery of that empire and how it relates to modern day liberalism.

Posted by: Chris at September 17, 2005 03:16 PM (M1mOT)

29 I have reservations about the Romans. as a left-handed person, I feel somewhat unconfortable about the Romans' practice of slaughtering left-handed children. But still, they were good architects. And sculptors.

Posted by: Norbert the Gnome at September 17, 2005 08:05 PM (AJeHE)

30 Empires suck

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 12:28 AM (VhNDM)

31 I resemble your racist remarks...damn you!

Posted by: Digger at September 18, 2005 04:32 AM (QgVvl)

32 Why does all this talk of American foreign policy remind me of a penetratingly rancid scene in the film, "Caligula"? "In the name of Rome?!"

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 07:14 AM (VhNDM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Deep Thoughts...

by Jeff Goldstein:

ShearerÂ’s implicit argument that because not everyone who remained behind in NOLA could have been safely evacuated, attempts to evacuate some or most of those left behind could (should?) not have taken place clearly echoes the anti-war argument that because the US canÂ’t simultaneously overthrow every tyrannical dictator in the world, it is somehow indelicate to rid the world of one (even if doing so jibes with our national interests)Â—and, in the process, frees 25 million people from a murderous BaÂ’athist rule.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:57 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Claim: Second Report of Chemical Attack in Iraq

For the second time in a week, a terror organization has claimed to have used chemical weapons in Iraq. The Islamic Army in Iraq issued a statement yesterday claiming that it had launched ten 120mm mortar rounds loaded with chemicals against U.S. and Iraqi troops stationed in al-Madain.

A translation of the communique can be seen here, via Evan Kohlmann.

On Sept. 13th the Victorious Army Group in Iraq issued a statement claiming that it had used chemical weapons in Baghdad, including against American troops in the Green Zone (story and background here). There has been no confirmation of those reports.

The Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI) has been associated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq in the past. The IAI stated that the chemical weapons were used to support Zarqawi's losing battle in Tel Afar. However, Zarqawi's group disclaimed any association to the earlier attack by The Victorious Army Group (or Sect, as he translates it) on the Green Zone with chemical weapons.

Terrorism expert Evan Kohlmann passes on information that The Victorious Army Group is rumored to be made of ex-Fedayeen Saddam and Iraqi intelligence personnel.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:34 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 2 kb.

America Doesn't Want You Either, Gwyneth

Gwyneth Paltrow would feel much more at home in Europe where sophisticated and nuanced discussion of America boils down to clever cowboy metaphors and deep analysis about arrogant empires falling, you know, eventually.

We concur. Move to Europe Gwyneth Paltrow. You'll fit in better.

Globe and Mail:

Yes, well, I went to Spain in an exchange program at 15, and I've always been drawn to Europe. America is such a young country, with an adolescent swagger about it. But I feel that I have a more European sensibility, a greater respect for the multicultural nature of the globe. And it's a strange time to be an American now....
I feel like we're really in trouble. I just had a baby and thought, 'I don't want to live there [America].' Bush's anti-environment, pro-war policies are a dis. . . ." Well, you can guess the rest.

And don't come back. At least, not until you get a boob job. I mean, she even looks like she could be a European star--but not an American.....

Posted by: Rusty at 01:18 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Have fun at the retirement community, Gwyneth. Don't worry about us, we're too busy, like, protecting the free world to watch your crappy remakes anyway. Toodles!

Posted by: Wine-aholic at September 15, 2005 01:42 PM (Wsn+K)

2 I'm not really one of those that says, "America, love it or leave it" because I believe in fixing things. But dis bitch needs to F'ing leave.

Posted by: Sgt Beavis at September 15, 2005 01:43 PM (Y37go)

3 I can't diss this chick. We told her to love it or leave it, and she left. Kudos. I encourage more of her moonbat buddies to do the same.

Posted by: Carlos at September 15, 2005 02:01 PM (8e/V4)

4 Who the f- is this broad? Buh Bye you 2 bit whore. If I ever see you around my tent I will slap a burka on your ass faster than you can say Bakakadaka!

Posted by: Filthy Allah at September 15, 2005 03:12 PM (5ceWd)

5 Super hot, but dumb as a bag of rocks. If she's on tv, I'm inclined to just turn the sound down. Her husband is just as inclined to be a moron. Go figure. I really feel bad for their kid though, the amount of stupid he is likely to inherit boggles.

Posted by: Defense Guy at September 15, 2005 03:30 PM (jPCiN)

6 These stupid Hollywierd liberals threathen to leave the US anytime things don't go the way they think they should. Frankly, I'm tired of their bullshit. If one of them would promise, put it on paper, and sign a contract never to come back to the US, I would pay their way to wherever they want to go. But unless they want to wear the burqa I would strongly advise them to stay in the US and shut up. Europe is dying faster than I thought it would. Within 25 years the Muslims will complete their takeover. I kinda feel sorry for them, but they(the Europeans) don't seem to mind one way or the other. The rape of Europe won't be pretty to watch, that's for sure.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 15, 2005 03:38 PM (q9AWQ)

7 What do you expect from someone who named her kid Apple?

Posted by: yaya at September 15, 2005 03:41 PM (OqZ3M)

8 Get some titties first you beanpole and then we'll talk.

Posted by: dcb at September 15, 2005 03:59 PM (8e/V4)

9 Hopefully in this case the apple will fall far from the tree. Doubt it though. :/

Posted by: Cindy at September 15, 2005 04:05 PM (O1SIn)

10 From IMDB: "Revealed that she named her daughter Apple, because apples are whole, sweet and crisp." I guess that's a "European sensibility" at work.

Posted by: Maureen at September 15, 2005 04:17 PM (ny5O/)

11 Sunday, May 29. 2005 Gwenith Paltro is New EstÃƒÂ©e Lauder Spokesmodel "I am very proud to be a part of such a fine company," said Paltrow. "Its roots have been deep in the culture of classic American beauty for decades, and I am honored to be associated with a brand as iconic as EstÃƒÂ©e Lauder." Looks like my wife is getting TargetÂ’s OÂ’ de Lilac for Christmas again this year. Estee Lauder can kiss my ....

Posted by: Brad at September 15, 2005 04:30 PM (3OPZt)

12 Apple will look real whole, sweet and crisp under a burqa. She will probably be married off to a 52-year old man on her 9th birthday. Like I said, Gwyneth better shut her mouth and get back to the US, or her "European sensibilities" might be in Mahmoud's harem. Not Filthy Allah's harem, because even though he wants one, he can't have it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 15, 2005 05:11 PM (q9AWQ)

13 "But I feel that I have a more European sensibility, a greater respect for the multicultural nature of the globe." She got all that from an exchange program at 15? Gag me with a steamshovel.

Posted by: Oyster at September 15, 2005 06:37 PM (YudAC)

14 yet another dumbass shit for brains bimbo airhead hollywood skank twat speaks out./

Posted by: Mr. K at September 15, 2005 06:50 PM (KIXKd)

15 Yep, Oyster, you're gonna need a steamshovel to pick up all the shit the Left's dishing out.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 15, 2005 07:25 PM (q9AWQ)

16 This "protecting the free world" stuff, well, if you expect blind gratitude and grovelling, how sincere is this support? Give'm a break, Europe lost lots of kids in the wars too, not only Germans, and the US had more at stake than just European lives. Sprechen sie Deutsch? Don't get all Ubermensch on Europeans. That is irritating. Just because Gwynthing is trying to sound even more intellectual than Britney whatchyamacallit. Respect!

Posted by: bruce at September 15, 2005 07:35 PM (7GWni)

17 Bruce, I don't know if you're European or not, but you are speaking from a European perspective. Most of us know or have family(my mother's brother was killed in the Normandy invasion) who were killed in the European wars. I, for one, had hoped that Europe learned something from these past conflicts. But, alas, not. I've read many times about the policy of appeasement vis-a-vie the Nazis that was practiced by both the French and British prior to Hitler's invasion of Poland. Many, if not most, Americans see the very same appeasement policies now being practiced in Europe with respect to the radical Muslims. For example, the Spanish, after being brutally attacked by the radical Islamists, folded like a deck of cards. The United States, on the other hand, took action against the aggressor when attacked on 9/11. Many here took exception with the almost non-existant support we received from our NATO allies after we had just recently cleaned up the mess in the Balkins. Here in the US many wonder, and I am very serious, whether Europeans will even fight to prevent the takeover by the Islamists. It seems that Europeans just hope a policy of appeasement will satisfy the Muslims who are now boldly demanding a return of the Caliphate. If you care to bone up on your World History you will note that the Caliphate was the colonizer of Europe prior to its history of colonialization of the Americas, and probably led to the New World being discovered because the Europeans were being denied access to goods from the far east by the said Caliphate. You know, that necessity being the mother of invention thing. Bruce, I think you identified the problem when you said that Gwyneth was just trying to be more intellectual than Britney. You see, it is this air of superiority permeating through Europe that is the real problem. Europeans want the US to fail and want us to be defeated by the Islamists in Iraq. What we can't figure out is why. If we lose in Iraq, it won't be the US who is likely to suffer, but the Europeans. The jihadis are well established in Europe and would be emboldened by a US pullout. They only have the numbers to strike in Europe, and your laws and customs give them a great advantage. We in America are allowed to own firearms while you are disarmed in Europe and would have to depend on very small, untested armies to go up against battle-hardened jihadists. Frankly, I think the Islamists would have little trouble with the small armies of Europe. My point is this. Will Europe ask the US for help, and would the US help Europe? I'm afraid many here in the US would say no if Europe even asked. One wonders whether Europe would even ask.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 15, 2005 09:20 PM (q9AWQ)

18 Who cares! She's an actress for God's sake (though a very good one). None of them actually ever truly leave. They're extended fantasy vacations people! The few who actually spend the most time overseas don't change their citizenship, incorporate themselves in some low-tax sheltered state like Delaware to avoid high European taxes, and live there like pretentious royalty with tons of(non-taxed) cash to spend. Outside of a few Euro capitals, major cities, and cafe circles most Europeans can't stand them either. What they say is more often empty obligitory posturing that they think will endear them to a European audience (yes, everyone's an audience to them). Remember the Dixie Chicks - who saved their attempt to be hip, "progressive" and controversal for a European (and safe) audience. Real gutsy - right.

Posted by: hondo at September 16, 2005 12:22 AM (4Gtyc)

19 Hondo, You cut through all the shit and said what I wish I had. You are spot on right.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 16, 2005 10:07 AM (q9AWQ)

20 She got way weirded out on the Daily Show the other night when Stewart asked her personal questions about whether her hubby/crappy lead singer of a crappy band sings to her to woo her. If she's going to move to Europe she better adopt some raunchier sensibilities. The Euro's are all about the detailed sexpose's-you ever watch BBCA? Every show involves a sex therapist, an unattractive couple with large noses, or a kinky fairy dressed with a whip. I say suck it up Gwynnie.

Posted by: Wittysexkitten at September 16, 2005 02:10 PM (1Mph/)

21 I can tell you one thing -- if she went to Spain at 15 she sure didn't learn about the "multicultural nature of the globe" there! Given her current age, it means I was living in Spain a few years before she was. One thing I wouldn't have called it is multicultural. In fact, given the amount of blatant racism still demonstrated there, it still isn't.

Posted by: Don Miguel at September 16, 2005 04:53 PM (+KixN)

22 Alec Baldwin threatens to move to Canada, and it makes front-page news; Gwyneth threatens not to return to the U.S. and virtually nobody notices. Given that Baldwin had not even seen the A-list in years when he made his statement, what are we to surmise about the current state of Paltrow's career? [/snark]

Posted by: The Bostonian Exile at September 17, 2005 05:31 PM (snsKa)

23 Bush should leave America so the rest of us can have it back

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 12:30 AM (VhNDM)

24 Jesusland: America is the big brother, watching out for the others. The little brothers think America is sometimes overprotective. Little brother gets into trouble, big brother bails him out. Sometimes big brother starts kicking ass without thinking things through. But if it weren't for big brother, little brother would be dead. Little brother doesn't forget this. But little brother thinks he's always right, and that pisses big brother off. Maybe you are right. The brothers seem to be drifting apart.

Posted by: Bruce Michielsen at September 23, 2005 03:31 AM (7GWni)

25 One more thing Jesusland, I don't at all believe that Europe wants America (the coalition) to get kicked out by the islamists, and I believe most Europeans also sympathized with the British when they trashed the Iraqi jail the other day to rescue those SAS guys. It's just not as simple as all that.

Posted by: bruce at September 23, 2005 12:21 PM (7GWni)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Terrorists Shoot Down U.S. Plane in Iraq

A terror organization in Iraq, Jaish al-Rashideen, has posted a video in which it claims to have shot down a U.S. airplane. Images from the video below. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 10:45 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Oh my god I hope the tiny pilot is OK. I hope they don't smurf his head off.

Posted by: Howie at September 15, 2005 10:53 AM (D3+20)

2 Oh! the Humanity! I can barely look at all the broken G.I Joe's laying around dying at the feet of the mighty Mujahadeen.

Posted by: dave at September 15, 2005 10:54 AM (CcXvt)

3 Note there is no damage to the tiny plane except there is some duct tape holding the wings on which probably come off on landing anyway so they don't break. I think it ran out of fuel or charge and just got picked up.

Posted by: Howie at September 15, 2005 11:03 AM (D3+20)

4 I guess they got tired of looking in awe at the glass Coca-Cola bottle that used to sit on that pedestal.

Posted by: JohnMc at September 15, 2005 11:30 AM (y+I+a)

5 Is this part of the terrorists' shock and awe campaign? Because I'm in shock at how lame and awful they are. Does making fun of terrorists count as making headway on the war on terror?

Posted by: lawhawk at September 15, 2005 11:39 AM (AcoYr)

6 That aircrsft looks much more like a UAV. Are you sure your arabic translation? It is more likely mechanical failure than a shootdown.

Posted by: raver dave at September 15, 2005 11:51 AM (XTKFt)

7 Yeah it looks like a UAV. I guess liberals will be disappointed that a pilot wasn't killed or captured.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 15, 2005 12:18 PM (0yYS2)

8 They "shot" it down? Where's the damage from what ever they shot it with or from the, surely, "crash" landing? Here it is to scale In other news, the Islamofascists have finally developed, after decades of research and development, their own version of the UAV.

Posted by: Oyster at September 15, 2005 12:39 PM (fl6E1)

9 No, it's a UAV. They do claim they shot it down. But, that's kind of the whole point of the post.......

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at September 15, 2005 12:41 PM (JQjhA)

10 When I was a kid, I'd put firecrackers on my model planes, maybe that's what they're doing.

Posted by: Tim at September 15, 2005 12:42 PM (QrELf)

11 Can't you all see, this war orchestrated by KKKarl Rove is not worth all this loss of plastic and metal! Pounds and pounds of government products that could have supported the leeves in NO. Bush and Company are the biggest murderers blah blah blah...

Posted by: Wine-aholic at September 15, 2005 12:50 PM (Wsn+K)

12 Rusty, you should have titled your piece, "Terrorists shoot down model airplane, or maybe they went to Wal-Mart and bought one". Because this ain't no airplane.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 15, 2005 05:25 PM (q9AWQ)

13 did the brave lions of Allah shoot it down with a slingshot???....

Posted by: THANOS35 at September 15, 2005 05:34 PM (FMsU7)

14 I think we have some images of the pilot of that "plane". Wizbang has more

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004955.php

Posted by: packetninja at September 16, 2005 08:21 AM (1uomX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

CAIR Censors 'Indecent' Photo of Woman's Hair

Remind you of something?
more...

Posted by: Rusty at 09:47 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Wow. To be fair, Stalin had better airbrushers. Just imagine what the Soviet Union would have been able to accomplish with Photoshop! Cheers, Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at September 15, 2005 10:12 AM (y1hCN)

2 I could train my cat to do a better job than CAIR did. They left her whole face untouched. A crime, I say!

Posted by: Wine-aholic at September 15, 2005 10:19 AM (Wsn+K)

3 Well I for one applaud, they did an excellent job of getting rid of the mustache. The photochop was needed because it's hard to get a Walrus to wear a headscarf.

Posted by: dave at September 15, 2005 10:27 AM (CcXvt)

4 Dave, ROTFLMAO

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 15, 2005 10:39 AM (q9AWQ)

5 Oh, but there's more. I saved the full photo from jihadwatch and opened it in photoshop. After zooming in it's apparent the guy to the speaker's right also has a photoshopped turbin. I'd bet money on it. You can see a light halo of reflected light at the top of everyone else's dark head, scarved or unscarved, (except the woman in question of course) but not his. It's too black.

Posted by: Oyster at September 15, 2005 10:42 AM (fl6E1)

6 Oyster, I meant to save the original huge image from CAIR's server. If you have it, can you send it to me.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at September 15, 2005 10:57 AM (JQjhA)

7 Oyster, I think the halos are compression (jpeg) artifacts. If that turban was photoshopped, they obviously split the work between two staffers.

Posted by: a4g at September 15, 2005 11:41 AM (JaHnZ)

8 Not only are 'slamotards incompetent at warfare, economics, civilization, etc., but they can't even do photoshop; I mean damn, they left her entire face!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 15, 2005 12:25 PM (0yYS2)

9 Why don't the Islamo chicks just shave their heads and go around sporting the Fester look. Do I have to do all the thinking for these Kabbab Heads?

Posted by: Filthy Allah at September 15, 2005 12:26 PM (5ceWd)

10 a4g: I think you may be right. With zooming in and changing the brightness and contrast one can just barely make out the folds of the turbin pixel by pixel. Sorry for the false alarm. I'm an idiot. Don't ban me. ;-)

Posted by: Oyster at September 15, 2005 12:26 PM (fl6E1)

11 The lady is probably of the Hindu religion (her saari, plus she's standing close to a Sikh dude), but they doctored the photo to conform her to islamic standards. If that's not revealing of their mindsent then I don't know what is.

Posted by: Carlos at September 15, 2005 02:20 PM (8e/V4)

12 and Americans are rascists and sexists???....Muslims are some of the biggest and worst rascists i know and we all know how islam treats women....and yet no one, no one in government or any of these feminists groups and the black support groups say anything about Islam....God forbid, their tongues would fall out one would think by their absolute silence....Make me laugh, CAIR

Posted by: THANOS35 at September 15, 2005 05:42 PM (FMsU7)

13 i just checked out the original pic and it looks like some kid took a black magic marker and drew on the hajib...is this the best that CAIR could do???....they could have paid my 4 year old step daughter to do a better job at drawing a really cool looking hat...Make me laugh, CAIR

Posted by: THANOS35 at September 15, 2005 05:47 PM (FMsU7)

14 Are they aware of how stupid they look? Ok, how stupid they are.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 15, 2005 05:52 PM (q9AWQ)

15 Reminds me of my photoshop work... Rusty, what are you saying?

Posted by: California Conservative at September 15, 2005 06:30 PM (f2ERQ)

16 What I don't understand is with that mindset why is the speaker wearing a nice suit and tie. All I want to know is (any Arab/Muslim help me out here) with all that excess clothing baggage on your women, at home, in private .. are they "hot"? I'd hate to think with all that coverage that their .. what can I say .. yuck. If so, I can understand covering them up, and have a newfound sympathy you.

Posted by: hondo at September 16, 2005 12:38 AM (4Gtyc)

17 Burn the hijabb. Women should not be put under headscarves because their men are superstitious about pheremones coming from their scalps.

Posted by: RepJ at September 16, 2005 09:13 AM (XAq/v)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Seven to be Deported from Britain Named

The British government has announced the impending deportation of seven foreign nationals. The men were arrested in a nation-wide terror crackdown. No names were mentioned--possibly because of British laws restricting certain press freedoms in legal matters--but it is almost certain that the seven to be deported were those accused of plotting to use WMD against civilians in the U.K.

The plot was said to have used ricin, cyanide, botulinum and other explosives to cause mass casualties in that country. Eight men were later arrested in the plot. Charges were eventually dropped against four, and four others were later acquitted. One man, the Algerian born Kamel Bourgass, was convicted and sentenced to life.

The seven men to be deported were all connected through London's radical Finsbury Mosque. Some media are now claiming that all seven to be deported are Algerian, thus Khalid Alwerfeli is the only one of the accused plotters who doesn't face imminet deportation:

Samir Asli--Algerian
Khalid Alwerfeli--Libyan
Mouloud Bouhrama--Algerian
Mouloud Sihali--Algerian
Sidali Feddag--Algerian
David Khalef--Algerian (convicted terrorist in Algeria, but has assylum)
Mustapha Taleb--Algerian
Kamel Merzoug--said to be Algerian (Entered UK on false passport)

Guardian:

Britain on Thursday ordered the deportations of seven men detained as threats to national security, including some accused in a terrorist plot to spread the poison ricin.
The men were being held in London and Manchester under the government's powers to deport people ``whose presence in the U.K. is not conducive to the public good for reasons of national security,'' the Home Office said.

It's time the US started deporting radical Muslims, too. As non-citizens, they have no 'right' to be here. They are our guests and have overstayed their welcom. Please e-mail if you have any further details.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:09 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

185kb generated in CPU 0.2363, elapsed 0.3847 seconds.
136 queries taking 0.3313 seconds, 509 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 169380
Files: 426
Bytes: 1831.8M
CPU Time: 281:10
Queries: 17279305

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76627

Feeds

September 17, 2005

September 16, 2005

September 15, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds