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

August 12, 2005

Sheehan: Secret Service Out To Kill Us

Tinfoil alert. I guess since Sheehan's son died in the War that we're not allowed to institutionalize her? The Astute Blogger sends us word about Sheehan's latest moonbat statements:

Cindy says that the protesters will be killed if they stay the night.
Â“WeÂ’re not letting them intimidate us. If we get killed out here, know that
the Secret Service killed us.Â” [MORE HERE]

Since I saw Cindy on MSNBC this morning, I'm going to presume that the Secret Service hit squad missed their target. By the way, the MSNBC story was very flattering to Sheehan. No mention of her antisemetism, paranoia, and false alliby that her protests are about the President's alleged lack of concern.

Greg Hays is photoblogging the Cindy Sheehan protest from Crawford.

NoDNC and T. Longren have the propaganda angle covered.

Very Small Doses presents a Cindy Sheehan media timeline here.

Point Five, Confederate Yankee, and Bespoke Memetics have the parody angle covered.

PS-Due to an Instalanche, LGF, and Michelle Malkin link all within 48 hours I've been overwhelmed with e-mails. Sorry if I haven't got back to you. I now understand why Glenn Reynolds never returns my phone calls.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:51 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Yet another white knight that the radical left expects to lead them to victory, who devolves into a raving YYYEEEEAAARRRGGGHHH lunatic. When do we get to fight a worthy opponent? Or do we have to spend our blogging time swatting flies?

Posted by: a4g at August 12, 2005 12:15 PM (Wekol)

2 First, Venom, this horse can't die until the one's who gave it life kill it. (and I don't mean kill her so don't misconstrue that) That's not going to happen until they find someone new whose blood they haven't sucked dry yet. Then they'll just leave her at the side of the road and "moveon". Second, the new Iranian President may be a case of mistaken identity, but not a "conspiracy".

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 12:40 PM (fl6E1)

3 Hahaha, I love how it's casually dismissed as simply mistaken identity when everyone was so, well, venomous not too long ago. C'mon, I know it's all fun to show the online diaries for the world to see, but let's face it: the "blogosphere" has a lot of growing up to do if the majority of people are going to take it seriously. A reference source it is not, and while I know someone will chime in and say "it's not meant to be a source of refernece," all I can say, then, is that some people sure are wasting a lot of time doing "reseach." I mean, if it's just a mistake, then why were so many people's panties in a bunch over Rathergate? Sure he fucked up (to put it mildly), and paid the price by falling on his sword. I'm sure we'll see a lot of bloggers give up their blogs as their pennence for making a "mistake." I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? By the way, kudos to the CIA for doing some legit research instead of jumping on the first rumor to hit them. On the other note, you could be right, Oyster. Not until every neocon and every leftie have extracted whatever they can out of this woman will they leave her alone. Both are guilty of the same thing.

Posted by: Venom at August 12, 2005 01:01 PM (dbxVM)

4 What, praytell, are the neocons, (is that the same as Joooooos?), "extracting" from this shameless propaganda whore who desecrates the memory of her heroic son? For we the few, the proud, the sane, she is a passing amusement, as she can only hurt the leftard moonbat cause and makes a good distraction from whatever main course the media buffet has been serving ad nauseum. I for one say we should give her all the airtime she wants, because she's obviously a Rove plant, since everything she says or does only strengthens the President's position. And Oyster is always right.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 01:10 PM (0yYS2)

5 Why is it that whenever someone disagrees with a neocon position, the neocon automatically assumes it's something Jewish-related? Give it up, or at the very least, loosen the tinfoil. And what are neocons extracting from Sheehan? Why, Clueless Maximus, the same as the lefties: shameless promotion for their own ideals. Admit it, no one on other side of the issue actually cares that she lost a son in Iraq - it's all about how they can play her against the other side. That is the real tragedy in all of this. Both sides should let her protest and stop making judgement calls on her. Until you've lost a child in conflict, you won't know what she's going through or her motivations.

Posted by: Venom at August 12, 2005 01:29 PM (dbxVM)

6 i dont give a flying flaming fuck if it is mistaken identity, but as he has made very early on,the new President of Iran is definitly a big mouthed, egotistic, eager to start up a shitstorm, idiot....Iran is supplying the terrorists in Iraq with shape charged explosives and im sure that the Iranian Pres is sending them with love....yea, i understand he is really just a figure head and im sure he knows this as the madmullahs really are the true power behind the throne in Iran, but it makes him a really nice juicy target for a bullet to his head when he acts and talks like a bigshot in charge......and that bullet might just come from his own people if he gets to big for his britches....after all, the mullahs do not share power

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 01:43 PM (IJ51c)

7 oh, and for Cindy...lemme play a violin for ya while you cry us a river...she is definitly ready for a nice padded cell up here in NJ, right in Gray Stone

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 01:47 PM (IJ51c)

8 Cindy obviously has deep emotional and psychological troubles. I hope somebody that cares for her will do the right thing and have her intsitutionalized.

Posted by: tyler at August 12, 2005 02:03 PM (Y9Lwb)

9 Venom, I take umbrage at your implication that the "right side" is using her for the same purpose. Most of those on the right, myself included, feel sorry for her because of the obvious way the anti-war movement is exploiting her. Dan Rather's retirement was already planned. And he did not give up being a personality. He's still spouting. And you're not allowed to use the "tinfoil" inference. That's only for us nazi-neo-cons to use when referring to the libs. Get your own saying ;-)

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 02:18 PM (fl6E1)

10 Aw, but tinfoil is such a universal household product - and it fits so many heads on both sides of the spectrum.

Oyster, maybe you do feel sorry for her for the way the left is exploiting her (but, oddly enough, not for losing a son), but judging from the comments here I'd say you're in the minority. I mean, look at this thread alone - most would prefer to ridicule her (which is, you must agree, a form of self-serving propoganda in itself). And Thanos, sure, the new president of Iran is definitely a theocratic fascist, but that obvious observation wasn't the point being made. It was simply the lack of acknowledgment by those that were oh-so-certain he was a hostage taker a while ago that they were, it seems now, pretty wrong. And the accompanying point that it's pretty hypocritical for bloggers who so love to call for resignations by the MSM when they fuck up, but then offer nothing similar when they fuck up. And what's with the violin crack? Have you given up playing with yourself to play a violin? Bravo. Thanks for missing the point again, btw.

Posted by: Venom at August 12, 2005 02:39 PM (dbxVM)

11 I feel like flying down there and smacking this loonie.

Posted by: FIlthy allah at August 12, 2005 03:40 PM (5ceWd)

12 Not for losing a son?!!! Are you kidding me? You, sir, are far too judgemental and way too quick with unfounded accusations. I'm not going to beat you up too bad for that because you don't know why I can empathize with her in that regard. I'll just leave it at that and ask you to read my previous comments on the matter before you stick your foot in your mouth again.

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 04:27 PM (fl6E1)

13 Hmmm, something smells... "greggy" in here, or is that just my imagination? At any rate, it look like the village has a new idiot. Welcome, Venom!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 04:43 PM (0yYS2)

14 yea, seems like another greg clone....insults you when you expose his bullshit and than trys to move the goalposts when he knows he is wrong...nice try venom but youll have to do better, close but close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 04:55 PM (IJ51c)

15 Mistaking the mullet headed president of Iran for a terrorist A BIG DEAL. Big deal why? Damn these liberal will make a big thing out of nothing. What has it got to do with anything? We all know the president of Iran is an Islamofacist. If he wasn't the mad moolas would have the military (that they are in charge of) remove him. Maybe he was a hostage taker, maybe not. Who cares and why does in matter. The mad moolas are for anyone against America. Like Venom, Colon Babaler, etc:

Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 08:42 PM (CBNGy)

16 Why is it that moonbats always find something irrelevant and idiotic to latch onto when there are bigger fish to fry? The fact is, the president of Iran has already said he's going ahead with nukes, he doesn't care about anyone else. Sounds just like Saddam with the UN sanctions. And Oyster, you really shouldn't let a nitpicking leftist get to you, dear. I have a son in Iraq and I'm absolutely outraged what Cindy Sheehan, Moveon.org, and the rest of them are saying about Iraq--among the cracks about BushitlerRovianConspiracy that it's a war about Israel. Who's making this all about the jews again, Venom? Excuse me, but I'm always hearing the leftists talk about "peace" and "money for jobs not war" and who say "kill more jews for peace". Cindy Sheehan is spouting anti-semitic rhetoric like this: Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Pretty extreme. Even her own family is separating themselves from her message and is denouncing what she's doing.

Posted by: Cao at August 14, 2005 11:08 AM (RyucI)

17 Gee, thanks for the "welcome," Clueless Maximus...incidentally, where the fuck have you been? I've been posting here for almost a year now/ These days, I choose to let the moronic neocons wallow in their self-indulgent nonsense, but I actually feels some amount of pity for this mother, and decided to give my opinion (which was that since none of us can really empathize with her, we ought to just ignore this "story."). Thanks for missing the point, smart guy. Thanos - moving the goalposts? See, you're missing one of the fundamental rules of a debate: you can't accuse someone of "moving the goalposts" when it's been pointed out to you that you've done it. Pot, please meet kettle. Cao - I don't really read Sheehan saying anything anti-Jewish. Being anti-foreign-policy-as-it-pertains-to-Isreali-relations doesn't really make one anti-semitic, unless you're looking for that angle from the get-go. Look, I never said this woman wasn't being exploited by the left. Definitely she is. I'm saying two things: 1) She's a woman who's lost a son in combat and until you're a parent in that kind of circumstance, you can't possibly have any idea what's going on in her head; and, 2) Let this topic go. There will always be anti-war protesters, and if everyone gets their panties in a knot each time one makes the news, well, you'll never have any time to enjoy life.

Posted by: Venom at August 15, 2005 10:05 AM (dbxVM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Instapundit Having Second Thoughts About "Gay" Marrage?

This story has apparently inspired at least a few second thoughts about same-sex marriage from libertarian-minded Megan McArdle, posting for Glenn on Instapundit:

Seriously, I find it difficult to phrase an objection to this that does not basically hew to the anti-gay-marriage line: i.e. marriage in the west has traditionally been between two people who want to have sex with each other. The objection to this argument is the same one that pro-gay-marriage forces employed against those who claimed that marriage was for child-rearing: we allow all sorts of people who cannot have sex with each other (certain classes of parapalegics, for example) to wed, so how can you exclude these people on this grounds? I think it's funny, but if this sort of practice becomes more than a stunt, it seems very likely to me to weaken an already ailing institution.

Well that's the point. Now consider the unspoken consequences of that ailing institution: more family disruption leading to greater social upheaval, crime, and perhaps most importantly an IQ deficit created by poor early childhood parenting. Yes same-sex marriage isn't the whole problem, but it can't help. And it could hurt, quite a bit. (See Institute for Marriage and Public Policy)

(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia, Anticipatory Retaliation and The Jawa Report)

Posted by: Demosophist at 11:09 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

There's your "extreme circumstances"

Life News:

Pro-abrotion Sen. Barbara Boxer of California says she will filibuster the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court if he does not say he is in favor of upholding the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized unlimited abortions.

Anybody want to lay odds Frist doesn't have the balls to stand up to her?

Oddly enough, when I did a Google news search, the only two direct hits I got were Life News and Outside The Beltway. Seems that the rest of the MSM are going to give Boxer a pass on this. Go figure.

Posted by: Drew at 10:13 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

Bomb Makers Blow Themselves Up

(Istanbul, Turkey) I suspect this probably happens much more regularly than is reported.

From the Turkish Daily News:

Turkish police said on Tuesday that two men killed in a blast in an Istanbul flat were Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) members in the process of making a bomb.

An additional five people were injured.

From a fundamental Islamist perspective, would a man be given martyr status and 72 virgins if he never completed the suicide mission because he blew himself up while making a bomb? Islamic scholars must surely be searching for an answer.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 02:05 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

Firey Coals

A commenter (Chris Hanson) on Confederate Yankee asks of the supporters of Cindy Sheehan:

"...what happened to your moral compass?"

This is becoming depressing for me. It was fine, for awhile, just to be on the "right side of history," but as these events have progressed and the original issues about the war have receded-- the stakes in Iraq becoming clearer and more obvious with each passing day--the manner in which the Left has chosen to destroy itself for what a friend of mine appropriately calls a "lust for peace" has surpassed any conception of foolishness that I might have thought possible. The spectacle of this mother placing her grief at the feet of such a self-destructive and destructively inclined movement isn't really resolved by any sort of anger I can manage to whip up against her. It's just plain sad, and sad in a way that transcends the sadness anyone must feel about the death of any individual (including a loved one). It's the sadness of discovering that good intentions not only don't equate to good judgment, but can easily transform into very very bad, even vicious, intentions. Why are we pulling apart, instead of together?

I read the other day about James Wolcott complaining that people like Roger L. Simon have "betrayed the Left" in their support for the war, but to me it seems precisely the opposite. For whatever moral legitimacy I had once ceded to the Left for the sake of its intention to support the misfortunate, or to serve as a brake on unfairness and selfishness, has been replaced by moral and political skepticism. And I don't imagine I'm alone. How could any movement that claims to take such ideals seriously, so seriously and wilfully betray them? How could any movement willing not just to argue for, but to insist on, the moral equivalence between Camp X-Ray and Auschwitz, or who reserves any esteem for our own generation's "Lord Haw Haw", or any one of a dozen or so similar travesties I could recall were I so inclined, ever again be entrusted with the public good? As Marc "Armed Liberal" Danziger asked recently: Why do you so hate the poor? This is a cataclysm. If you don't see that, you're not paying attention.

And just to put the final touch on what has to be yet another disillusioned flower child's naked lunch, it seems to me that George Bush's response to this crowd surging to press Mrs. Sheehan's grief in his face like a cream pie (while her own family recoils in shame) has simply and unambiguously canceled a wave of hatred... with generosity, tolerance and understanding. Which, frankly, makes me feel a little more optimistic about the long term. more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:13 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 782 words, total size 5 kb.

1 It's unfathomable, but nothing new. This is the one way that Iraq is like Vietnam - the ultimate betrayal of country and abandonment of morals by the Left. It seems to be some type of mental breakdown, an inability to face reality leading to a retreat into a fantasy world with its own wacky internal logic.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 12, 2005 12:52 AM (RHG+K)

2 Well spoken... and yet, your wisdom will continue to fall upon deaf ears, until history once again forces their silence from shame, as it has done so many times in the past.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 12, 2005 06:07 AM (0fZB6)

3 As to the Sheehan reference: Even before that letter came out I had misgivings about how the family may have felt. They were largely silent. But when her husband said, "...we try to continue to support her," I knew that was spoken by a man at wit's end. I'm not surprised by the letter sent by her family. The husband's words said it all beforehand. He undoubtedly loves his wife, but he is frustrated. The Michael Mooreites, Code Pinkers and antiwar.com'ers should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting this woman.

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 07:04 AM (YudAC)

4 Sadly, this is nothing new. And it goes back further than Vietnam -- I read a bit last night about a group of weeping mothers trucked around the country during the late 1930s to support the "America first" movement.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at August 12, 2005 07:06 AM (1j9aH)

5 Confederate Yankee & Robert: Actually it goes back at least to the Copperhead movement during the Civil War, but I had hoped that we might be better able to pull together this time because we were actually attacked. Yes, we weren't attacked by Iraq, but as many have observed we weren't attacked by Germany either, nor by any countries in N. Africa which we invaded during the early days of WWII. The Belmont Club observes that every time it appears that an enemy has managed to obtain and "asymmetrical weapons advantage" (the bomber, the torpedo boat and submarine, etc.) the first impulse is always appeasement. As things unfold it becomes clear that the apparently invincible weapon can be defeated with countermeasures and the tables are turned.

Posted by: Demosophist at August 12, 2005 09:45 AM (IbWE6)

6 The left has always proclaimed their sympathy for, and solidarity with, the downtrodden, but when the curtain is lifted, it reveals the truth; cynical manipulation of real problems in order to further their radical agendas. No leftist organization has ever really been dedicated only to helping the helpless, but has only carried out good works as propaganda cover for their real intentions. The ACLU exists solely to manipulate the fight for Constitutional rights and use the Constitution against the very people and society it was meant to protect. The UN has become a country club for terrorists and dictators. Amnesty International, Greenpeace, et al; name any leftist organization, and it won't be hard to find their true agenda, which universally boils down to one thing, anti-Americanism.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 04:52 PM (0yYS2)

7 Amnesty International, Greenpeace, et al; name any leftist organization, and it won't be hard to find their true agenda, which universally boils down to one thing, anti-Americanism. Well, there are people on the left who aren't in that camp, but most of them I know voted for Bush this time around. The Left has never taken the accusation of anti-Americanism very seriously, and I think it's going to either hurt them, or hurt the country, very badly before this is over. There is, of course, an institutional reason for the anti-Americanism that goes back to the "Why no socialism?" literature, of people like Louis Hartz and even Friedrich Engels. And you're right, it has little to do with any serious concern about the poor. But just because that's the case doesn't mean their opposition has the answers, or cares about the issue. And if they don't learn to deal with it and care about it, the door will be left open for these n'er-do-wells to work their stuff.

Posted by: Demosophist at August 12, 2005 06:00 PM (IbWE6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 11, 2005

NARAL Withdraws Anti-Roberts Ad

Considering this ad was pretty much a full-fledged lie it only makes sense that the venomous NARAL is withdrawing it.

Abortion Rights Group Withdraws Roberts Ad (AP):

WASHINGTON - After a week of protests by conservatives, an abortion rights group said Thursday night it is withdrawing a television advertisement linking Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to violent anti-abortion activists.
"We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
"Unfortunately, the debate over that advertisement has become a distraction from the serious discussion we hoped to have with the American public," she said in a letter Thursday to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who had urged the group to withdraw the ad.

Serious discussion? The ad said that Judge Roberts was pro-violence. NARAL was serious about that?

Specter, himself an abortion-rights supporter as well as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will question Roberts next month, earlier Thursday had called the ad "blatantly untrue and unfair."
[...]
The original ad has been airing on broadcast television in Maine and Rhode Island and on CNN.
[...]
Conservatives and Roberts supporters have been calling all week for NARAL to pull the ad.
NARAL had planned a $500,000 campaign to show the ad for two weeks.
"This ad grossly distorts the record of John Roberts from start to finish," said former Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "It has only one goal: to associate John Roberts with violent extremists."
Senate Democrats have not taken a position on the ad.

When was the last time Democrats stood up for decency?

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, told The Associated Press that ads for and against Roberts won't sway senators weighing the confirmation.
[...]

Basically, NARAL was probably on the verge of a lawsuit and decided to pull it. Also, I'm sure a few liberals chimed in and told NARAL that the ad wasn't going to do any good.

Originally Posted at Conservative Thinking

Posted by: Chris Short at 08:30 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

1 We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record,"That's rich. Forget apology. It's simply your fault that you don't agree with our view on the matter. I actually caught a NARAL shill being interviewed by Hannity last nite, and it was actually entertaining listening to the guy slip and slide around the issue, and claim that everything asserted was factual. Everything stated was factual. That's like stringing together a bunch of words and calling it a sentence even though it's nothing but pure gibberish because all of the rules of grammar were thrown out the window. I'd say this was shameful, but these folks have no shame.

Posted by: lawhawk at August 11, 2005 09:07 PM (CNQep)

2 Too bad, it was doing them serious harm.

Posted by: traderrob at August 11, 2005 09:18 PM (3al54)

3 'miscontrued'? Like the ad was nuanced? I suspect there was a warning shot fired across NARAL's bow. Dirt flies two ways- and they backed down pretty quickly.

Posted by: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred at August 11, 2005 09:21 PM (dHZc2)

4 Hey Lawhawk, did it sound like this? `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.

Posted by: kstumpf at August 11, 2005 09:33 PM (Kv4B9)

5 The ad wasn't totally false and fabricated-- we "misconstrued" it. Lying sacks of marxist leninist filth.

Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 09:34 PM (8e/V4)

6 The nutcases on the Left are killing the Democrats. I imagine that someone high up in the Democratic Party called the NARAL dogs off as soon as they realized they were looking like the fools they are. In one sense it's sad to watch the demise of the Democrats, but it sure is fun to watch them cut off their noses to spite their faces. Were none of this true no one would believe it. You just can't make this stuff up. It's that incredible. It's as if they get up every morning and do their best to see how much more damage they can do to themselves. The Cindy Sheehan spectacle is a case in point. Unbelieveable!

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 09:35 PM (DDXXI)

7 I have determined the Lefties are trapped behind the looking glass. In their honor I post this piece by Lewis Carrol. (Substitute Jabberwock with the term Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.) "Beware the Jabberwock,(Vast right wing conspiracy) my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird,(President Bush) and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!(Vice President Cheny)" He (Valiant Moonbat Warrior)took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought -- So rested he by the Tumtum tree,(CNN Center in Atlata) And stood awhile in thought. And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock,(VRWC) with eyes of flame, Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came! One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?(VRWC) Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He (Howard Dean)chortled in his joy.

Posted by: kstumpf at August 11, 2005 09:42 PM (Kv4B9)

8 Yes I misspelled Atlanta and possibly the VP's last name. I apologize.

Posted by: kstumpf at August 11, 2005 09:45 PM (Kv4B9)

9 "We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record," Sounded just like Durbin's "apology", huh? Is this the new standard by which they don't admit when they're wrong?

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 07:09 AM (YudAC)

10 "...to associate John Roberts with violent extremists." "Violent extremists"? Sounds like a good name for pro-abortionists.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 12, 2005 07:56 AM (x+5JB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Deport. Radical. Foreign. Muslims. Now.

Should we be following the example of the Brits and deporting foreign nationals that support jihad? Steve Chapman says no. Stephen Green the Vodkapundit says yes. Dale Franks of the QandO blog agrees, and takes Chapman to task. And Goldstein agrees. All four are important essays. Read them all.

Which side is right, though? more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:42 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 1311 words, total size 8 kb.

1 The Brits may have to pay for this Islamist's heart surgery: http://myerskatt.blogspot.com/2005_08_07_myerskatt_archive.html#112377655056924533

Posted by: kitty at August 11, 2005 06:32 PM (uBiDV)

2 They won't be deported just like Atta wasn't. And I predict that some of these people will in fact commit another major act of terror. However, that doesn't change the fact that they should be deported as soon as humanly possible, starting right now!

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 06:35 PM (DDXXI)

3 Kitty, Bakri was arrested in Lebanon today, sparing the British taxpayers..... http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/111483.php

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 11, 2005 06:37 PM (JQjhA)

4 Excellent! Will update my post on KittyLitter.

Posted by: kitty at August 11, 2005 06:49 PM (uBiDV)

5 if these imams are calling for jihad, the death of citizens in the host nation they are living in, than yes, they should be immediatly and without any sort of delay, deported back to any Middle eastern country of their choice...its ridiculous that someone who calls themselves a person who teaches their faith as one of peace and than tells his followers to go out and commit murder in name of their faith should even be given a second chance to stay...out they should go, like the vermin they are

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 06:50 PM (IJ51c)

6 I disagree with deportation. It's expensive and they're free to agitate elsewhere. I envision the renovation of Alcatraz as a new radical Islamist mecca.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 11, 2005 07:43 PM (RHG+K)

7 Rusty, to the contrary, we're WELCOMING radical muslims into the U.S. thanks to the United Nations. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050811/ts_nm/iran_bush_dc

Posted by: Jason Smith at August 11, 2005 07:45 PM (TwSjW)

8 You know, I'm down with deporting foreign nationals that "support jihad" if that makes us safer. Aren't you, after all, basically talking about terrorists? What I find troubling about your essay is this: Deportation, along with virtually every other policy you have advocated on this site, does not seem to lead to greater security. A multitude of analysts argue we are actually less safe now. The problem(s) here seems to be the right wing interest in appearing strong or in seeking revenge. 9/11 made lots of Americans want to strike out at someone, and that's understandable. But we should make policy based on rationally expected outcomes, not our desire to get even. Will deportation keep determined terrorists from striking? Probably not. Our borders are easily trespassed, and Al Qaeda terrorists are very adept at avoiding authority. I won't continue with this here... you get my basic point I'm sure... but consider this: If it was clearly known that America would have been safer after 9/11 by doing nothing, than by pursuing any of the policies it did following the attacks... what would you have advocated? I'm tempted to think that you would have supported current policy anyway. And that's a problem.

Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at August 11, 2005 07:50 PM (zxWKA)

9 how would doing nothing have made us safer from the terrorists from attacking us again, Proffesor???....do you understand the terrorist mind, the Middle Eastern mind???.....these arent just school yard bullies we are dealing with here....you know, school yard bullies will mostly give up on picking on you if you ignore them long enough as they want you to resist, it gives them a rise in their ego's....terrorists and especially the Middle eastern type will see this as you being weak and afraid of them and that you would do anything to make them leave you alone....kidnappings lead to ransoms, bombings lead to blackmail....so, Profesor youre saying that the USA should cower in fear, make payments, give terrorists anything and all they demand, just for peace,eh???....thats the cowards way out and that leads to just making the terrorists braver and wanting to pick on you even more, thats what gets the ego up of the Middle east, doing NOTHING to defend youreself and youre position....if the USA was all like you, Profeesor, we would all either be dead or slaves....youre a real patriot alright, Professor...yea, like Benedict Arnold

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 08:04 PM (IJ51c)

10 Safer by doing nothing? Or safer by being nothing, a deep part of our Jacksonian souls cries for vengance, ruin and American built portable Suns burning over islamobastard warrens. You call for us to destroy our essence and pretend to be French. Professor, profess no more, you do not, will not, know us, speak our language no more.

Posted by: Norden at August 11, 2005 08:10 PM (L6YIl)

11 Deport their American and Freedom loving butts to ANtarctica!

Posted by: William Teach at August 11, 2005 08:25 PM (Pzlrt)

12 Antartica is reserved for oil drilling, Mars for agriculture, Venus for Detuerium mining... Mecury is available for Professors without a language.

Posted by: Norden at August 11, 2005 08:34 PM (L6YIl)

13 Gets kinda hot on Mercury Professor.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 09:20 PM (DDXXI)

14 However we deal with the issue, one thing is clear. Our constitution was not meant to be used as a virus, to destroy us from within.

Posted by: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred at August 11, 2005 09:24 PM (dHZc2)

15 "But we should make policy based on rationally expected outcomes, not our desire to get even." - Peter Von Nostrand Peter. Revenge IS a "rationally expected outcome", unless you believe you are dealing with a people too weak to defend themselves. Peter. Punishment IS a "rationally expected outcome", unless you believe you are dealing with a people bereft of morality and justice. Peter. Death IS a "rationally expected outcome", unless you believe you are dealing with a people who value forgiveness above survival. Our enemies made a mistake on a par with the one made by Imperial Japan in 1941. GIGO. They thought that all Americans were weak, like Peter Von Nostrand. It turns out it wasn't so (though you still seek to increase the ranks of the sheep). The defeat and utter subjugation of the backward and militant Japanese feudal society was a "rationally expected outcome", which came to pass. We can rationally expect nothing less in dealing with our current enemy. Maybe Mecca should not be made to glow for a thousand years as a reminder to Islam of its transgressions. But it is instructive and beneficial for Muslims to hear it openly discussed.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 11, 2005 09:24 PM (RHG+K)

16 Rigtwing efforts to deport jihadis is useless given the Left's goal of erasing our borders. We really do need to defeat the Leftist enemy within before we can even begin to make a dent on the jihadis.

Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 09:39 PM (8e/V4)

17 We'll shade Mecury,a little, if the islamopigs behave.

Posted by: Norden at August 11, 2005 10:05 PM (L6YIl)

18 It looks like greg won't be missed, because the village has a new idiot now. The sad thing is that he has his own blog, but nobody ever visits it except for me and people who end up there by accident. I only visit to taunt him, but it's all echoes in there, and you can't get around for the cobwebs. I have a question perfesser; hemp or nylon?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 10:51 PM (0yYS2)

19 It appears that nobody wants to seriously address my hypothetical. Rusty?

Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at August 11, 2005 11:05 PM (zxWKA)

20 Peter, that's the trouble with hypotheticals. If they rely on preposterous assumptions, nobody takes them seriously. And rightly so. But don't go away mad, here's a helpful tip for your blog. If you're going to invent playmates for yourself to comment with, use more imagination with the handles. Lots of people know that "Dr. Von Nostrand" was an alias used by the character Kramer on "Seinfeld". If your only comments come from "Art Vandalay", well, geez man, that was the character George's alias. You need to explore a new paradigm. Maybe a comment signed by "Phoebe" or "Joey" would be more believable.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 11, 2005 11:21 PM (RHG+K)

21 "It appears that nobody wants to seriously address my hypothetical. " I tried to get this loser to debate me several times, but he fled the field without firing a shot, then declared victory when I no longer felt like chasing him. Spill it Rusty, dish us some dirt on this waste of elemental compounds if you know him. I bet he gets picked on by kids at the mall, right?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 11:50 PM (0yYS2)

22 It is interesting what we've discovered in this little exercise: We've discovered that hypotheticals are lost on the Jawa audience. We've discovered that Bluto, counter to Rusty's assertion that national security is the primary reason for the state, is far more interested in revenge. We've learned that Phano doesn't know who Benedict Arnold was. We've discovered that Improbulus continues to search the Internet far and wide for a friend... in vain... And we've learned that Norden speaks a language that is yet to be identified. Hmmm... what else can we discover... certainly not a serious answer to the hypothetical "what would you advocate if doing nothing would give you more security than doing something"...

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 12, 2005 12:13 AM (REz6/)

23 We shouldn't deport them. We should hang them here. Publicly. On every single channel. Daily.

Posted by: Misha I at August 12, 2005 12:38 AM (IhKPT)

24 Von Nostrand, you pinhead. There's just no other way to put it. You are a stupid, bullheaded person without reading comprehension skills. I did not say I was interested in revenge for its own sake. The possibility of revenge and retribution is useful for keeping people in line. If they believe their intended victim is too weak or fearful to exact revenge, then they are emboldened. That is a very simple concept. Next time I respond to one of your natterings, if there is a next time, I'll use the Gunning-Fog index to keep my post at the fourth or fifth grade level, though that's certainly no guarantee you'll understand.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 12, 2005 01:04 AM (RHG+K)

25 Bluto. In other words, you answered the hypothetical by violating the perameters I had set. In other words, you didn't answer it. Next?

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 12, 2005 01:08 AM (REz6/)

26 I have to wonder if there is some coordination among the Wormtongues. They seem rather evenly distributed in the news groups critical of the left. I've noticed them showing up after some absurd leftist idiot like Greg gets shredded and retreats. Ever so "reasonable" they are. "League of Grima", perhaps? Sauron = Soros?

Posted by: Phillep at August 12, 2005 01:49 AM (zNjIG)

27 "parameters" That said, von Nostrand is still pompous. Not to mention an "officious prick". Your perameters(sic) are an excercize in, well, stupidity. "If it was clearly known that America would have been safer after 9/11 by doing nothing, than by pursuing any of the policies it did following the attacks... what would you have advocated?" Nothing? Should we do nothing? Doing nothing is what got us here. So your question was answered before 9/11. I'll tell you what. Here's a parameter. You stay in your little do nothing circle and we'll do our best to save your sorry ass.

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 07:23 AM (YudAC)

28 exercize ;-)

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 07:25 AM (YudAC)

29 If it was clearly known that America would have been safer after 9/11 by doing nothing, than by pursuing any of the policies it did following the attacks... what would you have advocated? Hypothetically speaking, I would have supported sitting around and doing nothing. But, as has been pointed out, this hypothetical is implausible to the point of being dismissable. Hypothetically speaking, the response to 9/11 that would have rendered us most safe from further attacks would have been to use our psychic mind ray satellites to fry the brains of every anti-America, terrorism-nclined individual on the planet. And I'd have advocated that, too. I'm tempted to think that you would have supported current policy anyway. How charitable of you. You're free to believe that, and we're free to reiprocally believe that too many of you on the Left would continue advocating doing nothing even when it's proven that current policy, if imperfect, is still better than that nothing.

Posted by: Brian B at August 12, 2005 09:51 AM (CouWh)

30 Professor Pete, tell ya what i know for a fact...youre arrogant and ignorant, and we know those two go hand in hand for leftists like you who when you know youve lost the arguement, you move the goal posts....nice try, loser...now go pick up youre toys

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 09:54 AM (IJ51c)

31 1. Every Saudi-funded mosque in the US needs to be monitored. 2. Every Islamic center and Islamic Studies program needs to be monitored. 3. The FBI needs to go to every mosque and make it clear that incitement to violence will not be tolerated. 4. Radical "religious" leaders who preach violence must be deported. If naturalized citizens, they should be warned to stop and if they don't, citizenship should be revoked so that they can be deported. 5. No religious visas should be issued to citizens of any country which does not reciprocate. 6. Radical mosques hosting preachers of violence need to be shut down and closed. Change the law if needed. Freedom of speech does not mean license to call for our destructoin. 7. If it takes a presidential Declaration of Emergency to do this, then do it.

Posted by: Scott in CA at August 12, 2005 10:33 AM (WzxC8)

32 "I disagree with deportation. It's expensive and they're free to agitate elsewhere. I envision the renovation of Alcatraz as a new radical Islamist mecca." Screw that! My tax dollars are already paying for gourmet meals, at club GITMO, for these f**kers. If they want to meet their "god", I'm eager to help them. A bullet in the brain is affordable, and suprisingly effective.

Posted by: Princess Kimberley at August 12, 2005 11:30 AM (8sXP/)

33 I like it that the prof thinks the best way to get a bully to stop is by continuing to pay his extortion. I hope the guy doesn't have any kids.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 12, 2005 11:31 AM (jPCiN)

34 Thanks for answering Brian. I don't like hypotheticals very often either, but in this case I thought it might be useful. Oyster, anyone who thinks that "nothing" was done about terrorism before 9/11 is simply ignorant, unless by "nothing" you mean that no countries were invaded counter to the will of 90% of world opinion. Aside from that... you couldn't just answer the question... you couldn't bring yourself to do that, could you. Of course doing nothing isn't an option. The point of the question was to force you to come to grips with the fact that many of you advocate policy based on revenge and the need to look strong, rather than the rational goal of producing more national security, which may require much more subtlety and a hell of a lot more creativity than that. The question should have also forced some of you to realize that those who argue against the war in Iraq are actually acting in a patriotic manner. We, after all, don't want to be blown up either, and are just as interested in national security (perhaps more so) than you are. Funny thing, you guys are already on to tarring the left for your own invented hypothetical nuclear explosion that hasn't happened yet! It's as if you're admitting that your approach will fail, and that it is likely to produce what would be the single greatest calamity in American history. And you have the nerve to suggest that the anti-war position is unpatriotic. Shame.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 12, 2005 12:05 PM (REz6/)

35 Oyster, anyone who thinks that "nothing" was done about terrorism before 9/11 is simply ignorant, I suppose a more accurate response by Oyster would have meen "nothing effective". Your mileage may vary. The point of the question was to force you to come to grips with the fact that many of you advocate policy based on revenge and the need to look strong, rather than the rational goal of producing more national security, Actually, I think the argument's also been put forth in this thread that the one actually is a means to the other. which may require much more subtlety and a hell of a lot more creativity than that. Or may not, on a case by case basis. I'm inclined to think the two approaches are not as mutually exclusive as you think. The question should have also forced some of you to realize that those who argue against the war in Iraq are actually acting in a patriotic manner. Some are, some aren't. For your assertion to be true, it would also have to be true that ALL those opposing the ware share the same motivations, goals, and act to accomplish those goals in the same manner. I submit that the Antiwar movement is not nearly that homogenous. Some members of it fit your best idealistic description. Some fit our worst demonized description. many fall somewhere in the middle, on both lines of the patriotism boundary. Funny thing, you guys are already on to tarring the left for your own invented hypothetical nuclear explosion that hasn't happened yet! It's as if you're admitting that your approach will fail, and that it is likely to produce what would be the single greatest calamity in American history. Rather, we're preparing for the worst, regardless of whether we believe it will happen or not. Realistically speaking, There's no guarantee nothing like this will ever happen, regardless of the course of actions we take. Even if we're right, it's possible we're not right enough. But that can be said of everyone, no? And you have the nerve to suggest that the anti-war position is unpatriotic. Shame. Again, the use of the definitive article is the weak point in that admonition.

Posted by: Brian B at August 12, 2005 12:57 PM (CouWh)

36 Nostrand: Again you put words in everyone's mouths because you disagree with a few. And add to that the fact that you do it in an "I'm morally superior" manner simply causes others to reject you. Your question was shortsighted and senseless. Period. To answer it in the manner "you" see fit, or at all, is to lend it legitimacy. You can take my statement that we did nothing as literally as you want, if it makes your argument fit better. 'kay? Take every bit of text on the web and replace the words Muslim and Islam with Christian and Christianity and take your current stance. I think you'll find "you" would have very few friends. Your lefty friends would flock to our side in a stampede. They eschew Christian morals and don't want them "pushed" on them, and yet, they wish to allow those within their midst who will push harder even stricter and more harmful dogmas on them. What hypocrisy. To answer Rusty's question which, is very legitimate: How do I feel about deporting these goons? I think if they can make a law that makes it okay to deport them then it should be enough to lock them up. If it's cost some are worried about, they're costing us money anyway, here or abroad. And they're no less a threat somewhere else.

Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 01:14 PM (fl6E1)

37 Oyster. I'm sorry. But my position is morally superior, no matter whether your top priority is national security, or reducing violence elsewhere. "Take every bit of text on the web and replace the words Muslim and Islam with Christian and Christianity and take your current stance. I think you'll find "you" would have very few friends." What on earth are you talking about? Nevermind. Don't answer. I'm out.

Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at August 13, 2005 01:55 PM (JVdjp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Gee, Thanks, Cindy!

Cindy Sheehan gives us a shout-out:

Cindy Sheehan, the woman whose soldier son was killed in Iraq and who is now camping by a road in Crawford, Texas demanding a meeting with President Bush, on Wednesday thanked a group of antiwar bloggers for supporting her, saying that without the Internet, America would be a "fascist state."
"This is something that can't be ignored," Sheehan said during a conference call with bloggers representing sites like democrats.com, codepink4peace.org, and crooksandliars.com. "They can't ignore us, and they can't put us down. Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn't know anything, and we would already be a fascist state."
"Our government is run by one party, every level," Sheehan continued, "and the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government." Sheehan also called the 2004 presidential election "the election, quote-unquote, that happened in November."

Read the rest

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:37 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Keep it coming, Cindy!

Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 06:29 PM (8e/V4)

2 I don't have time to read that, is she talking about the Governor's race in Washington?

Posted by: slickdpdx at August 11, 2005 06:39 PM (MjGRu)

3 yea, with the internet we can keep an eye on people like Cindy who try and spread misinformation and propaganda for the left....and it makes me laugh every time when someone who is on the leftists side makes the same old sorry excuse about the MSM being a tool for the White House when we all know and see every day that it is a tool for those on the left with all the lies and distortions it spreads....same old some old...oh boohoo, cry me a river Cindy

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 06:56 PM (IJ51c)

4 I believe Cindy is trying to get a job at Indymedia. Cindy, better put on your tin foil hat, and do watch out for those cellphone towers.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 06:59 PM (DDXXI)

5 This woman makes me sick. I think she is actually glad her son died. She is basking in the lime light. Her 15 minutes of fame. How low can you go. I understand her relatives do not feel the way she does. In fact they feel she is misbehaving and just playing to the leftist anti government crowd. Shame on her. She defiles the memory of her son. In addition. She already has met with the president some time ago and was kissing his ass then. I guess she didn't get enough attention that time. Just because your son is a hero doesn't mean your not a bitch.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 08:11 PM (CBNGy)

6 As the parent of a service member I can't think of many more things to do than she has done to dishonor her son. What a disgrace to his memory!

Posted by: Don Miguel at August 11, 2005 10:11 PM (UAn5X)

7 Don't hate the messenger, just the message. Despite not liking her message, you should remember this women has experienced a terrible loss, and as such has been manipulated into changing her story. I despise those whom would prey on someones vulnerability after such a loss, and use it to further their own agenda. may she find peace.

Posted by: dave at August 11, 2005 10:27 PM (DO6vD)

8 For someone in the throes of agony, she sure loves propaganda whoring for the camera. Can anyone else smell that? Smells like a book deal in the wind to me...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 10:48 PM (0yYS2)

9 I think this stopped being about Cindy Sheehan's son and began being about Cindy Sheehan some time ago. One can sympathize with the grief, but only short of the point at which that grief becomes mere mindless hatred. She is dishonoring the memory of her son, and cheapening the his sacrifice. Furthermore, she is playing into the hands of those who have more sympathy for his muderers than for the fallen soldier himself.

Posted by: DWC at August 12, 2005 09:00 AM (Suv/B)

10 maybe they will give her a reality show, and i say reality with LOTS of sarcasm concerning Cindy

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 09:56 AM (IJ51c)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Happy Blogoversary to My Blog Son

They just *sob* grow up so fast.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:46 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Bin Laden's True Ambitions

Read the whole comic strip here.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:35 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Omar Bakri Arrested in Lebanon

Omar Bakri, the radical British imam who fled that country on news that he was top on the list of pro-terror clerics to face treason charges, has been arrested in Lebanon. The Independent:

The Islamic extremist cleric who fled Britain at the weekend, Omar Bakri Mohammed, was arrested by security forces in Beirut today.
Lebanese security officials refused to say when and where Bakri was arrested.
Prosecutors and police in Britain are considering whether to bring terror-related charges against the so-called "Tottenham Ayatollah".
It was unclear whether the arrest was linked with his activities in the UK.

Evan Kohlmann of the Counterterrorism blog notes that in an interview he once had with Bakri, the cleric had issued a threat that if he was ever arrested there might be violent consequences. He also notes, though, that Bakri was under the impression at the time that the British would never have the backbone to arrest him. I guess times have changed, eh?

Posted by: Rusty at 04:09 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, Cindy Sheehan

What do all of these people have in common? Drudge:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Ken Summers posts this from Melanie Morgan, of KSFO:

The letter came from Cheri Quarterolo, a regular listener of KSFO Radio. Cheri is Casey Sheehan's Aunt and godmother. I have confirmed that the letter represents the entire Sheehan side of Casey's family.
Many of the relatives do not want their names made public, and will not be making further statements. But Mrs. Quarterolo confirms that Cindy's actions have been extremely hurtful. "We're coming unglued. We can't walk down the street without people stopping us and telling us that they agree with Cindy. We do not."

Mrs. Qarterolo is Drudge's source and has also personally confirmed this to Ken at It Comes in Pints.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:51 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

Favorite Right Wingers

John Hawkins, of Right Wing News, ranks right-wing bloggers' favorite, er, right-wingers here. Since I was one of the bloggers polled by John Hawkins, I thought I'd share with you my personal unranked list of favorite people on the right. I chose my favs late at night, with little caffeine in me, and on an empty stomach--that explains why that guy is on the list. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 12:22 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

Who is the Idiot that Refused to Pass on Atta's Name to the FBI? (UPDATED)
By now, most of the readers of The Jawa Report have heard of Able Danger. According to The New York Times, the secret military intelligence team known as Able Danger, compiled a dossier on four of the nineteen 9/11 suspects in 2000--including the mastermind, Mohammed Atta. The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI and that the suspected terrorists be deported. Unfortunately, that information was not shared. In fact, a doctrine first developed in the Carter administration and later extended by a clarification made by Clinton Administration official, and later 9/11 Commissioner, Jamie Gorelick, that put a 'wall' between intelligence operations and police activities.
I do not blame the Clinton Administration for 9/11, nor do I think it was preventable in any meaningful way, but the so-called Able Danger revelations do raise some interesting issues.
The first is the most obvious, and that is the silliness of ever erecting a barrier between law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. In hindsight this was stupid. Some things are so stupid, though, that to need hindsight to see their stupidity one must first find a group of morons, take out the brightest of the bunch, and then find the dullest bulb in the pack. That it was enacted by Democratic Congress intent on reeling in the perceived excesses of the CIA is no excuse for this piece of legislation. Just. Plain. Dumb.
But it also raises another important question: Who was it that refused to turn over the Able Danger documents to the FBI?
I do not personally blame the individual who refused to turn over Atta and his al Qaeda co-conspirators to the FBI. That is, it's not their fault for being a brainless bureaucrat. They were just following policy. But policy or no, there was an individual who had to look at the documents and make a decision not to share this intelligence with those that could do something about it. Who was this person who made the decision to follow policy? more...
Posted by: Rusty at 11:09 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 1734 words, total size 12 kb.

1 sadly, by all chances we will probally not find out any time soon, maybe when this person is on their death bed, than they will come out and admit it....but im sure the left has their conspiracy theories on who it is....i would bet that Rove is numero uno suspect

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 10, 2005 10:42 PM (IJ51c)

2 >>>"...because of concerns about pursuing information on "U.S. persons" Â— a legal term that includes U.S. citizens as well as foreigners admitted to the country for permanent residence Â— Special Operations Command did not provide the Army information to the FBI. oh...my...god. Liberalism is going to get us all killed.

Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2005 11:04 PM (8e/V4)

3 "...the 9/11 Commission never bothered to ask the Pentagon about its intelligence missions -- or simply disregarded evidence relating to it." We know it's not the only thing the 9/11 Commission either disregarded or didn't ask. Any time you get a bunch of angry people together with pre-conceived notions you get zip in return. I understand that, originally, the idealism of trying to protect our liberties was the motivation behind witholding information, but for four years now there have been people who had this information and kept it under wraps for political purposes. What other reason could there be?

Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 06:11 AM (YudAC)

4 I've been reading a book called "Ghost Wars, From the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan to September 10th, 2001". It's a strictly objective, analytical work, and it details so many missed opportunities to do the right thing, but because of politics, policy, or law, terrorists were given a pass time and again. It's not light reading, but it's worth it. But one warning; you can't read much at a time, because it will make you physically sick when you realize the magnitude of incompetence and stupidity that exists in our government.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 08:25 AM (0yYS2)

5 The speculation that Sandy Berger was behind the withholding of the Able Danger information is strongly reinforced by his theft of the documents to protect his "reputation". It is truly frightening that Sandy would have been Secretary of State in a Kerry administration. Where the Clintons ran their administration according to poll results and were afraid of adding to the Waco fallout, ignoring a problem does not make it go away, except for the short term. When the Somalia aid effort went badly, President Clinton immediately ordered withdrawal regardless of the humanitarian consequences. The public should hear no more about it; everything is OK. The Left compares presidential approval ratings from the Clinton administration to the current Bush administration as if it is an indicator of effectiveness. President George W. Bush is doing what is right whether or not it is popular. We are seeing in Iraq/Afghanistan the equivalent of the early days of the fall of the Soviet empire that started during the Reagan presidency. If the United States is not demoralized by the fifth-column Left and finishes this task, the Middle East will be a much different and better place in five years.

Posted by: MikeG at August 11, 2005 08:46 AM (yQulH)

6 Yep

Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 08:57 AM (D3+20)

7 Check out the latest at Fox. Fox seems to be the single MSM site to have any interest. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165414,00.html

Posted by: Kstumpf at August 11, 2005 11:25 AM (GImrl)

8 The other MSM outlets are just waiting for instructions on how to spin this as part of BusHitlers devious plot to help the Joooos take over the world. Are you afraid of the discussion? What are you trying to hide?

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 11:52 AM (jPCiN)

9 Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "following policy" akin to "just following orders?"

Posted by: BorgQueen at August 11, 2005 12:34 PM (AxlwF)

10 Good. Grief. This is really, really, really bad. Liberalism really is a mental disorder...I tremble for the future of this land.

Posted by: Labosseuse at August 11, 2005 12:48 PM (Xjv2p)

11 a little off topic: 1...Robert Bork for Supreme Court Justice 2...Destroy the Iranian Mullaocracy-now 3...Secure our borders and deport illegals

Posted by: chuck at August 11, 2005 01:06 PM (oW1VQ)

12 Here is a memo issued by Jamie Gorelick on April 14, 2004 that's interesting. Also, the commission admitted they were told of Able Danger during a trip to Afghanistan last year, but now they're saying that Atta's name wasn't mentioned. Their story keeps changing. So now guess what they're doing? Staffers are searching the National Archives for information! Whatcha wanna bet they should be searching Sandy Burglar's laundry instead?

Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 01:54 PM (fl6E1)

13 More on Bergler and Clarke and the mood in summer 2000 http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/497 Cheers.

Posted by: AJStrata at August 11, 2005 01:56 PM (67DAA)

14 Another question; I've been reading that Mohammed Atta, et al were here on non-immigrant visas and were in fact not protected by the law that said they could not be survielled. That the FBI did indeed know about them but didn't go after them for other reasons. One being that Able Danger was mining all sorts of information illegally at the time, i.e. tapping phones and monitoring other communications without warrants. Got any ideas? I don't have a clue. But it still doesn't answer the question of exactly what Sandy Berger took from the archives during the 9/11 investigation and why. If it was to protect someone other than just himself, you know good and well it wasn't to protect the current administration.

Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 02:43 PM (fl6E1)

15 Deliberately blocking the Able Danger report from being acted upon by the FBI (and CIA) sounds like a treasonous offense to me.

Posted by: Ron at August 11, 2005 02:46 PM (wO/DS)

16 Someone, please tell me why every member of the Clinton Administration has not been chased around a strip mall parking lot and finally bitch slapped behind the dumpster next to taco bell???? Dear Lord. Please send every one of these degenerate liberals a blistering case of rectal warts. Amen.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at August 11, 2005 03:43 PM (5ceWd)

17 Where is that dumn ass Professor Von Nostrand? I'll bet he has a "serious leftist position" on this subject.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 03:44 PM (DDXXI)

18 Yesterday, the commission said they never heard of Able Danger, today, the said, why yes we have, after Weldon said he had multiple witnesses. I doubt the Pentagon was the blocking force. Remember, Gorelick made the wall so all things cleared through her. http://snookerswamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/now-911-commission-had-heard-of-able.html I have another post that might interest you. Dug up an oldie from FrontPage that may explain alot. http://snookerswamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorelick-wall-was-it-just-coincidence.html I got a name from an anonymous email source that said he was one of the 'fixers' of the final report -- Dietrich Snell. Don't know anything yet, other than he was involved with the 9/11 commission, may try to google up something tonight. Soemthing is begining to stink, real bad. I guess when you know people who died, you really want to get to the bottom of it all.

Posted by: bill at August 11, 2005 03:58 PM (7evkT)

19 Lying about national security issues. Obstruction of a Federal investigation. Theft and destruction of evidence. Knowingly and deliberately covering up a serious breach of intelligence protocol. Disseminating propaganda helpful to the enemy. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy. All these are descriptive of various acts committed by Democrats before and since 9/11. In the America of our fathers and grandfathers, people would go to prison, or the firing squad. Today, they get to run amok in the government and media and the Republicans, who don't seem to understand that they are in the majority, do nothing. Dammit, dammit, dammit. How long will We, the People, put up with this? How long before we have to rise up in open revolt in order to see justice? Our government is either impotent, or incompetent, or both, but either way they are all complicit, Democrat and Republican alike. Mulsims are living among us, and they're building bombs, chemical, and biological agents in their basements. They're preparing to unleash terror within our nation, and our idiot "leaders" worry about nothing more than the next election. The Republicans only want to keep things under control enough to win, but don't want to actually do anything about islam, and the Democrats want as many of us as possible to get killed, because that would make good campaign propaganda. We are under attack by uncivilized savages the like of which the world has not seen since the dark ages, and the government does NOTHING, because they don't want to offend the cavemen. I'm sick of it all, and I know a lot of other people are too. If these morons in Congress don't do something soon there will be hellish retribution, and when it starts, it won't end until the streets run with the blood of muslims and their treasonous liberal lackeys. If it gets to that point, even Congress won't be safe. The last two times the people of this country had a major disagreement with their governments, in 1776 and 1860, hundreds of thousands died. The first time sundered an empire and created a nation, the second almost destroyed the nation, and nobody can say what the third time will bring, but I believe it's coming, and soon, if something isn't done. Hang the traitors, hang the terrorists, expel the muslims and illegal aliens, and bar them reentry upon pain of death. We need bombs falling on Iran and North Korea until nothing is left of their cities but ashes and embers. Cut off all Chinese imports and get our damned economy working again. I'm sick of this crap, and everyone else should be too.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 05:05 PM (0yYS2)

20 Hell yeah Improbulus.

Posted by: Labosseuse at August 11, 2005 08:20 PM (Xjv2p)

21 I don't blame Clinton for 9/11, I blame the terrorists, who would have found another way to attack us. I used to not blame Clinton for allowing 9/11 to happen (if y'all see the distinction), but, in light of this new information, I have flip flopped, and do indeed blame him. His rules. He could have stopped, or at least put on hold, that attack. They would have tried something else, but, maybe we would have stopped that, too.

Posted by: William Teach at August 11, 2005 08:29 PM (Pzlrt)

22 Sandy Berger did it with the good graces of Clinton. Clinton main focus was getting a BJ. Not protecting or leading this nation. The withholding of information with his permission is dereliction of duty on Clinton's part. Damn shame we didn't impeach the self centered idiot. Now they wish to run his lesbian wife for his old job. Stupid liberal assholes. It's not the conservative leaders that are going to get us killed it's the dumbass liberal leaders.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 08:40 PM (wJPgF)

23 Improbulus for president. Hey: Were are all you hate Bush, Hate Republicans, Hate America, muslim hugging liberals assholes on this one. Mighty quite out there. Ha, ha. What a bunch of sissies.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 08:50 PM (wJPgF)

24 IM is right on target with his post...its brutally true what will happen in the US if another attack by Muslim terrorists happens with the loss of thousands if not millions of Americans lives....American civilians will have had enough of the government doing nothing to protect us from a growing threat within our borders{Muslim radicals and liberal leftists}...i for one am ready to protect myself from those who would gladly try and kill me and my family

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 10:17 PM (IJ51c)

25 If people want to gaze upon a "face", try State Dept. official Barbara Bodine. As ambassador to Yemen, she refused to let special agent John O'Neil back into that country to continue the Cole bombing investigation. O'Neil was the subject of Frontline's documentary "The Man Who Knew" and had been doggedly scrutinizing terrorists and the Al Qaeda network for at least ten years before anyone else was aware of them. See: www.unknownnews.net O'Neil was eventually hounded out of the FBI and ironically procured a new job as security head of the World Trade Center just before it was hit. As for the above documentary, there are two versions it seems. The original, longer one that aired soon after 9/11 and a later shorter version. To my memory, the latter curiously seemed to have had several negative mentions of the Saudis "toned down", if not excised.

Posted by: RJ at August 12, 2005 12:32 AM (4sKd/)

26 Here's the complete link for the above 'face' mentioned: www.unknownnews.net/cdd052402.html

Posted by: RJ at August 12, 2005 12:45 AM (4sKd/)

27 "Where is that dumn ass Professor Von Nostrand? I'll bet he has a "serious leftist position" on this subject." Probably having lunch with Art Vandelay.

Posted by: Tongueboy at August 12, 2005 10:37 AM (nug4S)

28 RJ: Excellent.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 09:04 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Cindy Sheehan: Antisemetic Moonbat (UPDATED)
Jawa Report contributor and Paduan Learner, Trader Rob of Exposing the Left, digs up this usenet post from Cindy Sheehan:
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. [READ THE REST]
Trader Rob calls this remark borderline anti-semetism. I dunno, call me an out there if you will, but there is something about, you know, believing there is a secret group--a cabal if you will-- of Jews pulling the strings of power behind closed doors involved in a deep plot to conceal the real reasons we went to war seems something more than borderline. But that's just me.
UPDATE: Via Rob at Say Anything, I learn that Phil Hendrie weighs in on Sheehan.
UPDATE II, 8/11: A reader sends this transcript from a recording of a Sheehan speech he attended:
"It was the unstated threat. Iraq wasn't going to attack America or nuke America. But Iraq was a threat -- to Israel. That was the real threat and had been for fifteen years. But for the US government this was the threat that couldn't speak its name. Europe doesn't care much about that threat. And the US government didn't think they should lean too much on it, because going to war to protect Israel wouldn't be popular.
Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
I suspect we may update this post later. Call it a hunch. more...
Posted by: Rusty at 11:00 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

1 This woman is a pathetic, and pitiable...tool. It takes a dark soul to mine partisan gold from a mother's grief. The number of dark souls on the Left becomes more apparent every day.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 10, 2005 07:01 PM (RHG+K)

2 One really doesn't know what to say, except, just where in the living hell is her husband?

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 10, 2005 07:18 PM (DDXXI)

3 Actually, her idiotic remarks only serve to lessen her message and credibility- and hence, the credibility of the left. Fine by me.

Posted by: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred at August 10, 2005 07:42 PM (dHZc2)

4 And I didn't think you could sink any lower. Congratulations.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 10, 2005 07:49 PM (REz6/)

5 Von Nostrand is Greg or perhaps an evil reincarnation of Greg. All the Lefties don't believe in God, but they have no problems believing in such nonsense. Perhaps he is possesed by Greg. Hmmm...

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 10, 2005 07:53 PM (DDXXI)

6 Von Nostrand is possessed by Kramer.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 10, 2005 08:11 PM (RHG+K)

7 Yeah, I guess the fact that she lost a son excuses her antisemetism and relentless political activism. Let's not pick on her, that's just mean! /sarcasm

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 08:54 PM (JQjhA)

8 Speaking out against Israel is NOT anti-Semetic. Israel is a country who's policies are becoming more extreme. Besides, Arabs are Semetic, too. Look it up.

Posted by: LT at August 10, 2005 09:22 PM (9sQW4)

9 LT, speaking aginst Israel is not anto semitic. You are right about that. Blaming Israel for the war in Iraq is idiotic, at best. Further, when you talk about Israel, you have to talk about the neighborhood. Do you really want to play the comparison game? Lastly, it is true that Arabs are a Semitic people. Nevertheless, for the past couple hunderd of years, the term anti semitism has meant the dislike or hatred of Jews. Every dictionary in the worlddefines anti semitism in that manner. Thus, your point, while merely annoying, is also irrelevant. It does however, speak volumes about you.

Posted by: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred at August 10, 2005 09:29 PM (dHZc2)

10 Of course speaking out against Israel is not-necessarily antisemetic. It only usually is. And when you believe in a secret conspiracy that puts Jews in the center of world wide policy decisions....er, calling the ghost of Julias Streicher? You there Julias? Anyway, the idea that Arabs can't be anti-Semetic is a stupid red herring. The term 'anti-Semetic' has a specific meaning and always has. It has never been applied to ALL Semetic peoples, but only to Jews. The "Arabs can't be anti-semites because they are a Semetic people" is an excuse for Arabs to be, well, antisemetic and get away with it.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 09:31 PM (JQjhA)

11 hey Cindy, where is the smoking man, at???

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 10, 2005 10:44 PM (IJ51c)

12 Actually LT, Semitic is the group of languages native to that part of the world, Hebrew and Arabic both being Semitic languages ..along with Amharic, Modern Hebrew, Akkadian, Arimaic, Phoenician, Punic and those are further divided into North West, East and South West Semitic languages. How Semitism applies to Jews (of which I am one) is found in any worthy dictionary, to wit: "a Semitic expression or idiom//ideas, cultural ideals, etc. thought of as ESSENTIALLY Jewish. [fr. Mod. L. semiticus]" It would follow that anti-Semitism applies to against or anti Jewish cultural ideals, ideas, idioms, expressions .. not to the idioms, expressions, cultural ideals, ideas of the other speakers of Semitic languages. ((It sure ain't a race issue, dearie.) You can thank good ol' ENGLISH dictionaries for the meaning attached to Semitism and anti-Semitism. Call Mr. Webster or Oxford and tell them they are wrong, will you?

Posted by: Bubbe at August 10, 2005 11:02 PM (cbAi4)

13 >>>Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. Lady, I hope it hurts. Now go home and stop making a damn fool out of yourself.

Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2005 11:17 PM (8e/V4)

14 Sorry Rusty, but I've seen far worse from you on this very "anti-muslim, relentlessly activist" site. And regardless of whatever conspiracy theories Sheehan may believe (the quote you provide doesn't actually suggest that she holds any... as if I care), it is just ridiculous for you to suggest that any sort of criticism of Israel, or American policy towards Isreael, equals anti-semitism. Just as criticising the U.S. government does not equate to "anti-Americanism." Criticising a state is not the same as criticising a people. And, once again, you should know this.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 10, 2005 11:29 PM (REz6/)

15 Hey Rusty, do you really know this idiot?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 08:31 AM (0yYS2)

16 I would be willing to put up money that Mrs. Sheehan didn't hold these particular views before groups like codepink got her ear. I am often inclined to ignore the statements by grieving relatives as they are too easily influenced by overwhelming emotion. Obviously, I do not agree with her assesment of the situation.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 08:56 AM (jPCiN)

17 Look folks, Israel is a nice boy living in a housing project neighborhood full of crackheads. Sometimes they have to take rather extreme measures to survive. Fine with me. Personally, they should have implemented the Alon plan and "transfered" the Arabs across the Jordan years ago. Israel will never, ever be secure until it controls everything west of the Jordan. And if anyone out there really, truly believes that a "Palestinian" state will live in peace with Israel....well fine, you're entitled to your delusion.

Posted by: Scott in CA at August 11, 2005 10:18 AM (MKTwl)

18 Peter von Nostrand said: "And I didn't think you could sink any lower. Congratulations." "Sorry Rusty, but I've seen far worse from you..." Which is it? And just how pompous can one get?

Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 11:33 AM (fl6E1)

19 In case you missed it, evidently her family is sick of her shit too... From Drudge: FAMILY OF FALLEN SOLDIER PLEADS: PLEASE STOP, CINDY! Thu Aug 11 2005 12:56:21 ET The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan's anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the president's Crawford, Texas ranch. The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey's aunt and godmother: Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. Thanks ÃƒÂ Cherie In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement: The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect. Sincerely, Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

Posted by: disgruntledinca at August 11, 2005 02:55 PM (IpG/2)

20 Cindy Sheehan the new poster girl for the liberal hate Bush bunch. Now we must figure a definition for a Sheehan. Sort of reminds me of shenanigan. Any more? You have just been sheehaned. Meaning to want attention at any cost.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 09:00 PM (wJPgF)

21 I'm sick of this "story." Is it a publicity stunt? Yes. Is it being exploited by anti-war activists looking to further their own agenda? Yes. Is this a desperate attempt by a grieving mother who wants some answers from the man who sent her son to Iraq? Yes. Do neocons and lefties have so little to do that they have to "dig up" usenet stories and weigh in with their own abstract theories? Yes. Left and right, I think it's pretty dumb to try and explain this woman unless you've been in her position. I don't care if you've served, I don't care if you know someone who's enlisted, I don't care if you've attend pro-war/anti-war rallies with people in her position. Unless you've lost your son/daughter in combat, you won't know where she's coming from. Maybe you've lost a family member and you had some pretty strong emotions as a result - but unless you've lost you're own child, I doubt you can really weigh in with any kind of valid opinion. Because when a parent loses a child, all bets are off. The bond between a parent and a child is, obviously, incredibly unique. And the most vocal war supporter can find themselves looking for answers they thought they knew and question the reasons why their child was sent into conflict, and the most rabid anti-war activist can suddenly find themselves looking for revenge on those that killed their child. I say again: even though you think you know how it feels, you don't. And no amount of exchanging opinions and insults is going to change a thing in any of this. So, let's stop talking about this non-story. Enough's enough. There's my fucking two cents, let the bashing begin.

Posted by: Venom at August 12, 2005 10:45 AM (dbxVM)

22 See I told you guys that sometimes Venom makes sense. He is finished with this story. So he wishes for everyone who contributes to the Jawa Report to stop talking about it. As you will see he would rather everyone focus on the maybe mistaken idenity of the president of Iran. Was he a hostage taker many years ago or not? Like this story ended months ago and who gives a shit. This in his mind is more important than the mother of a dead US Serviceman demonstrating at the President's home. See what I mean. Sometimes he makes sense and then the liberal, moonbat takes over and it's looney tunes time.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 09:17 PM (0zyYw)

23 "he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel." While I'm sorry for her loss, Ms. Sheehan is so wrapped up in her 15 minutes of fame, she can't (or more likely WON'T) realize how she's being manipulated by the greif pimps at MoveOn, Michael Moore, Code Pink(sounds like an association of porno actresses)and the other usual suspects. It's interesting how the left is realy starting to show their true anti-semetic colors. I wonder how many of them beleive that Pres. Bush is linked to the good old-fashioned Jewish banking conspiracy? How I wish there was such a thing. Too bad my great-great grandparents weren't let in on the ground floor of such a money laundering racket! OY, I should only be so lucky!! :-)

Posted by: Maddaddy at August 18, 2005 07:51 PM (UTcMx)

24 For more about how Cindy Sheehan has lied about the PNAC Neocon/war for Israel in her email sent to ABC's 'Nightline' on her behalf, scroll down to the 'Rhetoric' paragraph of the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan

Posted by: dontcowerfromthetruth at October 11, 2005 11:30 AM (sncSf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Joining the Debate
For those of you who may be wondering, IÂ’ve been pointedly ignoring the comments that Bush made the other day about intelligent design and evolution. However, over the past few days, IÂ’ve seen a LOT of conservatives writing about it. IÂ’m sure there are a lot of liberals writing about it as well, but I donÂ’t read them.
It seems that nearly everyone who is talking about this issue falls into one of two camps. There is a group that thinks that there is a conflict between intelligent design and evolution and another group who thinks that they could co-exist and be taught side-by-side. However, I propose with this post to start a third group. As far as I know, this group consists solely of me, so IÂ’m probably so far off base with this that itÂ’s not even funny. However, this is my proposal.
Neither.
ThatÂ’s right. Neither of these two methods should be taught as fact in any school system. HereÂ’s why: more...
Posted by: Drew at 05:24 AM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 817 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Well, this post displays a sufficient level of ignorance that I never have to pay attention to anything Drew ever says again about evolution.

Posted by: hermetic at August 11, 2005 07:32 AM (hrQvk)

2 Yeah this is such an important topic for debate right now while there are thousands of jihadis building bombs in their basements and planning on killing us. Consdiering that fundamentalist Christians are about the only ones to consistently have the balls to stand up to islam, I say let them win this damned trivial argument so we can stop wasting time on it. I'm an atheist, but damn, it's not like it matters really, when people are trying to kill us.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 08:18 AM (0yYS2)

3 Actually, Drew, you've just sided with the ID and Creationist people. They also want neither taught as fact. Both are theories, and should be taught as such. Evolutionists are the ones insisting that Evolution, and Evolution alone be taught as a fact and the sole explination for origins. Welcome aboard.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 11, 2005 08:22 AM (1NhnZ)

4 Or, just work your ass off, live a little more modestly and keep your kids out of public school. The cost to send your 10 and 12 year olds to Catholic grade school ($650), and your 14-year-old to Catholic High school ($850). The cost of not having your kids listen to a bull dike driving an 85 Volvo with a Kerry/Edwards sticker and a Darwin pin attached to the rear end.... Priceless.

Posted by: Brad at August 11, 2005 08:40 AM (6mUkl)

5 I have to agree with Drew. Neither side should be taught as truth. The kids need to be informed that nobody knows and there's just speculation.

Posted by: tyler at August 11, 2005 08:42 AM (Y9Lwb)

6 I guess I will join you in group three. You have expressed my feelings better than I could.

Posted by: Razorgirl at August 11, 2005 09:31 AM (H+tJ8)

7 That is, perhaps, one of the most rational and well-thought-out responses to this I have read. However (you knew it was coming, right?) - WRT sexual reproduction it is possible that it co-developed. IOW, a species that reproduced asexually evolved into being able to do both - either through completely independent means (e.g - budding + sex) or hermaphroditically. Of course, AFAIK there is no evidence of this so it falls into your no example of great leaps argument, but still a possibility. Anyway - I personally am of the belief that they do co-exist in the real world and; incompetent/biased teachers aside, see no reason to not have them taught side by side. Not necessarily taught as "The Truth"^(TM), but atleast presented in class. Oh, and Danny has an even better idea - private schooling. However, I have an EVEN BETTER idea that I am hoping my wife and I are able to swing - Home Schooling. (And, perhaps more importantly - everyone should take an active role in helping their child(ren) learn, above and beyond what ANY schooling offers!) /TJ ... NIF

Posted by: TJ at August 11, 2005 09:34 AM (/0bzs)

8 Whoops - think I meant to agree with Brad about the homeschooling. Perhaps a line break or something between comments would help me overcome my psuedo-lexdysia /TJ

Posted by: TJ at August 11, 2005 09:45 AM (/0bzs)

9 i agree with Drew on this and fall in the third group....after all evolution and creationism are just theories and neither can be proven or misproven...after all, humans have only been around for what???....3 million years or so???...and modern humans for 30,000 years or so???...and being that we have such short life spans, who can say how it all really works...anyone been around to actually watch and record a species change and evolve or be created???...didnt think so....so science and the church can crow all they want about how it all works ,but no one has the actual PROOF, the TRUTH....to claim so would be really pretty arrogant of the human race...we always claim that we have the proof and than "poof" something else shows up and changes it all around and we have the nerve to act all surprised...we are not omnipotent so we do not know it all and we never will

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 09:51 AM (IJ51c)

10 Evolution takes as much faith (or more) than does ID. They should both be taught as theory, or neither taught at all.

Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 10:24 AM (8e/V4)

11 Howie, ID and creationism have two distinct meanings. The former is a scientific debunking of evolution, the other is the Biblical account of creation.

Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 10:28 AM (8e/V4)

12 The only facts in the discussion is how little we actually know. The lefties try and make a lot of things which can't be proved out to be facts. To start another thread, man caused global warming comes to mind.

Posted by: bill at August 11, 2005 10:35 AM (7evkT)

13 Brad is right, although I send mine to a Baptist school. By the way, one of my kids is in college on a full engineering scholarship. Just so yall know that creationism didn't affect his science or math scores. The best single thing I ever did for my kids was to take them out of the public school system.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 10:35 AM (DDXXI)

14 Drew, I don't agree--but Gawd I love the smell of touching the third rail in the morning. Seriously. We need to start a new blog. One which only discusses ID, abortion, and, er, I know there's a third one in there that we're not supposed to be talking about-THAT.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 11, 2005 10:35 AM (JQjhA)

15 I have a radical, some would say crazy, idea. Long ago and far away, in a mythical land where some say Western civilization was born, students were taught by great thinkers, some say the greatest of all time, not in the arts of "Socialological Pedagogic Methods in a Context of Gender Equality and Social Justice in a Post Colonial Era of Big Oil's Use of the Military Industrial Complex to Oppress Gay Asian Womyn's Aromatherapy Studies in the Thrid World, from a Revolutionary Anti-Zionist Perspective 101", but rather in the arts of Logic, Rhetoric, Critical Analysis, History, and Ethics. Students were taught to think. I know, I know, it sounds crazy, but it produced men like Alexander and Caesar, not to mention Winston Churchill, and to me, that makes it seem worth reinstating as a teaching method, rather than just rote indoctrination and preparation for future institutionalization in the System.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 11:41 AM (0yYS2)

16 oh, snaps! i guess we better not teach the theory of relativity, either. idiot luddites and flat earthers....what should we teach in schools? did you know that most education degree programs for high school math and physics now require an introductory course in quantum field theory? i guess we can't mention that either. this is easily the most idiotic post i've read on the subject. Dr. Shackleford, may i recommend the following topics for your new blog? ESCR Schiavo gay marriage i'm sure there are more. ;-)

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 11:59 AM (JREvR)

17 IM Are you suggesting that we allow the little bastards to learn to think for themselves? Not on my watch mister.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 11:59 AM (jPCiN)

18 Well, folks, I guess I have to change my position. After all, matoko kusanagi and hermetic have SUCH convencing counter-arguments. Actually, the two of you prove one of the points that I've always held. When evolutionists (or lefties) disagree with you, they don't try to argue or prove their point, they simply go "well you're certainly an idiot for thinking that way." Rusty: I'm all up for starting another blog. I don't have my own server for nothing. And yeah, isn't it great coming in at 5:30 AM and trying to start a shitstorm?

Posted by: Drew at August 11, 2005 02:25 PM (T0Mi7)

19 Evolution is taught in many private schools as well--even, sadly, Catholic ones.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 11, 2005 02:41 PM (x+5JB)

20 why drew, how unkind...i was merely agreeing with you...if we cannot teach Theory of Evolution in schools, why then we cannot teach Theory of Relativity, Estimation Theory, Theory of Error-correcting Codes, Quantum Field Theory, etc. etc. lol. i apolo for the name calling--but aren't you provoking me and hermetic? That is what you IDists always say, when we scient types are so stunned by your random pronouncements that we can barely get our breath. If you don't want us to call you idiots, don't act like idiots. Frankly, i quite believe in empirical data and the scientific method--haven't you adequately proven you're an idiot with this argument? QED

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 03:26 PM (JREvR)

21 Are you expecting them to know the difference between a postulate a theory and a law. Dream on.

Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 03:35 PM (D3+20)

22 It doesn't matter Howie. I cannot agree with the tactic of using science to prove G-d, because I don't think it's possible and I think it detracts from real science, but I will tell you that the dishonesty about what we can prove regarding evolution as the life source on earth is fairly stunning. It's advocates are using the time honored trick of allowing one word to stand proxy for 2 distinct concepts. Simply put, they want it accepted that the proven part of the field of thought can stand as the unproven part as well.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 03:43 PM (lVjfM)

23 Howie. Lobby to insert ID into college curriculums then, where they should know the difference. Let it stand or fall on its own merits. And where students can choose to take it. or not.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 03:43 PM (JREvR)

24 The two of you act as if evolution has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. If you're so sure of it, then why not try answering some of the original questions that I raised? Problem is you can't. Yet every day, our kids are taught that evolution on a macrocosmic scale is simply a fact of life. Since this is untrue, it shouldn't be taught. Maybe you should try teaching the hypothesis of evolution. Except anyone who knows a lick of science knows that doesn't work either. You see, the scientific theory that I was taught shows us that a theory is only a working theory until a case is found where it does not apply. No case has ever been found where the theory of relativity fails. Unfortunately, evolution cannot make the same claim. And yet I shouldn't expect any more of an argument than that from someone who's only rebuttal so far has been "you're an idiot." Try answering the questions rather than proving yourself the idiot.

Posted by: Drew at August 11, 2005 03:45 PM (T0Mi7)

25 I'm pretty much saying the same as you Drew. There is evolution as has been described with accepted scientific practice, and then there is 'evolution' as postulated as being the source of life on earth. They are not equal, and one does not yet provide proof of the other.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 03:54 PM (lVjfM)

26 drew, if you want ID to be treated as a legitimate peer alternative theory with evolution, then the Discovery Institute should fund research assistantships and chairs at major colleges, instead of ginning up propaganda for school boards. Is ID a real science or not? Holes in the theory of evolution? there are a lot more holes in quantum mechanics and cosmology. why aren't you attacking those disciplines?

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 03:59 PM (JREvR)

27 Why am I forced to pay property taxes to support a school system I do not agree with and do not use? I pay to educate my kids privately and do not need or want the state to educate my children. People like Matoko force their beliefs down my familyÂ’s throat without any 2nd thought. However, they violently object to any of my familyÂ’s beliefs and refuse to include them in a public school curriculum. I donÂ’t expect Matoko to support my school, why does he and other libs demand I support theirs?(with my money)?

Posted by: Brad at August 11, 2005 06:57 PM (3OPZt)

28 brad, there is a difference between belief and science. i have no objection to ID being included in a comparative religion curriculum. like i said, if ID is really science, let it prove its bones in university acadame. don't like your taxes paying for public school? move. a lot of countries have private school systems. this is America. and i'm a grrl--or at least i used to be....hmmm....maybe i'm just a cyborg now.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 07:37 PM (gNc4O)

29 Move? I live here, I just object to paying for what you demand I believe in. You would not pay to support my beliefs? No you would not. You take my money, I do not take yours.

Posted by: Brad at August 11, 2005 08:06 PM (3OPZt)

30 My new political party. Atheists for Christians. Since they should turn the other cheek. We are not bound by a silly rule such as that. Maybe we should wear brown shirts? Just think, we wouldn't have to do the Christian thing. Am I on to something here?

Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 09:08 PM (wJPgF)

31 Get them Matoko. My kind of girl. I don't agree or disagree with either side. I just like Japanese American women. So I kiss up to them at every opportunity. You never know. Are you really a freshman?

Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 09:27 PM (CBNGy)

32 Thanks anyway Greyrooster, I can fight my own battles. As much as the lefties think we are trying to enforce our will on them, the opposite is true I canÂ’t get far enough away from them. Regarding your comment on the Brownshirts, the left would have you think itÂ’s the right wearing them, but we on the right have much more to fear from them. I have no control over the public school system In WA State. It is a dictatorship run by the WEA under the NEA. I just wish I could opt out of paying for something that I have no control over and is so mismanaged. Last Fall after the WA governors election was stolen by the King CO machine (Seattle) in favor of Gov. Fraudouire, Union reps were breaking up protests by GOP supporters in Olympia. They tore signs from people, pushed and spit on Republicans and generally created atmosphere of fear for the Rossi supporters. It looked to me like Germany in 1930Â’s. There are indeed brown shirts out there; we in the metro areas of the West Coast know them well. They are on the left not the right.

Posted by: Brad at August 11, 2005 09:50 PM (6mUkl)

33 lol, i'm not a brown shirt--i'm a browncoat! http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/ and i am also a registered republican and i fervently object to anyone pushing ID-as-science on anyones' children. like i said before, if ID is really science, let it prove it's bones in universities first.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 11:06 PM (gNc4O)

34 ID belongs in school the way the tower of babel story belongs in Spanish/French/Grammar classes to explain why we use different words for the same thing.

Posted by: h0mi at August 11, 2005 11:46 PM (LuPL2)

35 Drew, the reason no-one has answered your questions is that you are so blisteringly ignorant on the subject that it would take several hundred pages of basic biology before you would be able to understand the answer - which would be that your questions are total nonsense. If man descended from apes, why are there still apes? Ye gods and little fishes, I can't believe that people are still trotting out that one. The reason there are still apes is that there is no reason for there not to be apes.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 12, 2005 12:35 AM (RbYVY)

36 here's my question, drew. of course, your "teach neither" is a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize ID. Who could possibly be qualified to teach ID in a science curriculum? Where are the professors of ID, the research assistants, the graduate students, the underclassmen in "theory of ID" classes? will someone answer my question? If ID is Science, where is it in university research programs?

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 12, 2005 01:05 AM (gNc4O)

37 Ah, now I see the problem, matoko. You simply didn't read my original post. You just saw ID and evolution and assumed I must be an idiot. Hmmm, I wonder what that makes you? No, when I say "neither," it's not a thinly veiled attempt at anything. I gave the reasons that ID should not be taught and that's exactly what I think. I'm not trying to raise it to the level of anything. And if I were, I'd have to lower it to the level of evolution for anything to become equal. Pixy Misa: I see you belong to the same "I don't agree with you so you must be an idiot" group. It's amazing how I can point out that argument three times and yet people still try to use it. If you're so brilliant in biology, then just answer one simple little question. What purpose would an asexually reproducing organism have for producing sexual organs. If there is aready a perfectly acceptable means of reproduction, then why start another, more inefficient method? Oh, and your "because there's no reason for there not to be apes" has to be the stupidest argument that I have EVER heard. According to your "theory," there's every reason for apes not to exist. The only reason they would "evolve" into humans would be for survival. If this were the case, then obviously survival could not continue without the proscribed changes, so how did the remaining apes survive? Which also opens up a whole new series of questions. Humans are hardly more fit to survive in the wilderness than apes, so why would there evolution take that direction? Did they domesticate themselves and begin living in shelters and then DEVOLVE into humans?

Posted by: Drew at August 12, 2005 06:39 AM (HQiW4)

38 drew... Hmmm, I wonder what that makes you? An empiricist? you are equating evolution and ID as peer theories...not me. and yes, your suggestion that evolution should not be taught, does prove you an idiot. pixy is right, your ignorance of the process of evolution is woeful. changes in the genome can arise as point mutations. these mutations are selected for or against within the breeding population based on reproductive fitness. so humans became a more successful branch of apes, but the rest of apes remained in their environmental niche. It is truly astonishing to me that you don't see the advantage of recombination and genetic variability in sexual reproduction. where did you go to school?

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 12, 2005 08:22 AM (gNc4O)

39 FYI, drew, to make this perfectly clear, there are species of animals which are natural hermaphrodites, possessing both sets of sexual organs in one organism, like earthworms. those species can reproduce either sexually or asexually. this was the intermediary step. no divine intervention required. which you would have known if you had had a decent high-school education. ;-)

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 12, 2005 08:33 AM (gNc4O)

40 Ah! At last. We are finally getting around to sexual reproduction. Thats the part I like. Speaking of sexual reproduction. Today the court sentenced that gorgeous phys Ed teacher Pamela Rogers to 9 months in prison. That is the most wacko thing I have ever heard of. This beautiful woman could bring happiness and education to hundreds of teenagers. I think it is horrible to be sentenced to jail for doing what you were hired to do. She was hired to be a physical education teacher. That is exactly what she was doing. PHYSICALLY EDUCATING one of her students. For this she goes to jail. Just doesn't make sense. They didn't make teachers who look that good when I went to school. If they had I would have left the local Baptist preacher's daughter alone.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 09:36 PM (0zyYw)

41 Don't know Brad. She's doing pretty good.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 09:41 PM (0zyYw)

42 Thankfully, sheÂ’s probably too intelligent to click on the Yoda thread that is reserved for the lower primates.

Posted by: Brad at August 12, 2005 11:37 PM (6mUkl)

43 What! Yoda is the one true God. No one kills anyone in his name. He doesn't hold his hand out of money every Sunday. His followers molest no one. Heresy! Heresy! Fatwa against Brad. He has defiled our saviour. We Yodist are a new religion so we are unsure of how to handle heretics. Therefore, we will just act like all major religions before us. Someone get a large stake and some firewood. Ah, but to save his soul we must first put his body on the rack. Then cut his head off. Then we will hang him and then burn him at the stake. When he freely confesses to his heresy his soul will be saved. Thank Yodism. The religion of peace. Saving souls the old fashion way.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 14, 2005 10:28 AM (CBNGy)

44 Rooster, This saucy little heathen is leading you down the wrong path.

Posted by: Brad at August 15, 2005 01:06 PM (3OPZt)

45 You have to start with the understanding that what we have here is an epistemological problem. In doing Science, we have agreed that our methodology will be premised on things that can be measured or tested, directly or indirectly. Thus, "Science" is based on the premise that non-natural causes will NEVER be considered as legitimate explanations for what we are investigating. God's actions in the world cannot be measured or tested, whether or not they actually exist. But for practical purposes, in the absence of anyone making it a point to tell students this, it is understandable that many students conclude that the procedural point is a substantive claim about the non-existence of God. This idea - this fundamental procedural assumption - is never explained to the students as being itself non-provable. As a result, there is a subtext in any science class, and in any articulation of the theory of evolution or the mechanism of natural selection, that "God does not exist." This subtext is not really intended to be a claim that He does not exist, but merely that as a part of the procedures we use to do "Science," his actions cannot be part of any scientific explanation. Now, because of the Supreme Court's rulings about the relationship of religion and the government, there does not seem to be a way to properly explain what that subtext really means, at least in the public schools. Attempts to address the question of God directly are ruled out of bounds by the courts. Attempts to point out the inherently "Godless" nature of Science, particularly in the topic of Evolution, are treated as back door attempts to do what the courts have said cannot be done - namely, talk about God. Thus, the accidental coalition between "Science" and the courts has the effect of teaching our children that God does not matter. Enter ID. ID challenges the fundamental notion of Science that God cannot be measured or tested, directly or indirectly. Strictly speaking, ID is NOT "Science." But that does not mean that ID is false. It merely means that what we call Science cannot encompass God's actions in the world without turning into something that is not "Science" in the first place. What we need in the schools is not a requirement that ID be taught, or that Evolution not be taught, or that they should be offered as two "scientific" explanations of creation, but rather, a course on Epistemology - a course on what it means to "know" something. The course should start, not with ID or Science, but with Mathematics, which is entirely unprovable yet obviously a legitimate way of knowing the world. And as part of this course, it should be made clear to the students that people like Richard Dawkins, who thinks that evolutionary theory disproves the existence of God, have no greater "scientific" authority for making such a claim than people like John Polkinghorne (former dean of physics at Cambridge) have to make a "scientific" claim that the incredibly fine tolerances of the physical universe are so unlikely that only the existence of God can explain why we exist at all. Frankly I don't see that ID and the theory of evolution or natural selection are mutually exclusive. I certainly wouldn't go around saying that God couldn't use evolution to create life if that's how He wanted to do it. And clearly, if God wants to balance the universe on a set of extremely narrow tolerances in the relationship of, say, hydrogen to oxygen, He can do so and evidenly has. But I don't see how Science could be used to prove or disprove any of that.

Posted by: harmon at August 17, 2005 12:40 AM (r+Wy6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Libertarian Case for Drug Control
Bet that headline got your attention. All right, my last long, long word on this for a while and we can go back to posting on GWOT stuff. Rusty, thanks for your indulgence.
You can't be a libertarian and support tyranny, nor can you support slavery. If all men are created equal before God, then slavery is an abomination and no man is naturally the subject of any other. A slave, or a subject, may have his own will, but he is not free to exercise it except insofar as it comports with his master's.
Likewise an addict may have a reason most of the time, and a complex inner life, but he is in the end a slave to those who will provide him with the means to satisfy his addiction. The worst cases--and you can spare me the accounts of the white collar friends of yours who appear to sail through life without a care snorting and shooting up everything in the Harrison Act--I said the worst cases, and there are far too many of them--will kill and rob and mortgage their house and blow the baby's college fund and sell their bodies to satisfy their masters. An addict, or for that matter someone tripping or stoned, is not a free man. In many cases, you can't even commit murder when you're high--under the law your "mental defect" can prevent you from reaching the mental state required to form the mens rea for intentional homicide. more...
Posted by: seedubya at 02:45 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 1156 words, total size 7 kb.

1 EXCELLENT argument regarding this issue - as excellent as I have ever seen. THANK YOU for this fine exposition on the subject - it needed to be said. It is a shame it needs to be said, seems these are days when all the basics are having to be rehashed and thrashed and relearned. So I really appreciate it. Well reasoned.

Posted by: Rose at August 11, 2005 03:02 AM (z4MUD)

2 I especially liked this part: "I wanted the CD player, my wife wanted the sun roof. So we, um, compromised, and got the sun roof."

Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 05:18 AM (YudAC)

3 Well reasoned and rational, but with a few problems. First, as the legalize-it crowd would say, they would really not have a problem with illegal alcohol and legal buds, which, according to your analogy would lead to X-1 societial harm. I also have to say that the argument that someone who is high is automatically 'addicted' and a slave is a fallacy. Certainly alcohol and cigarettes are both more addictive and destructive to society than pot. Anyway, the end result is that you can't control a illegal substance - nobody will card you for drugs!

Posted by: Joe at August 11, 2005 08:53 AM (P1gjy)

4 You can't free a slave by changing his master. He must master himself.

Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 08:54 AM (D3+20)

5 Ok you supposed "libertarian", let's examine this a bit. Govt. should stay out of our lives unless we are doing some nonsense that hurts other people(like saying driving drunk) So aside from the people killing others drunk in their cars and the people slowly killing themselves with alcohol and tobacco, we spend out tax dollars fighting a "war" that is unwinnable and the vast majority of the folks we are putting away are not drug lords. Hell, they aren't even annoying tweakers. No, most people that are put in jail and kept there(again at our expense) are guilty for possesing a naturally growing herb. So lets review, nobody is being killed by herb and it doesnt have ANY of the social ills like alcohol or tobacco( well mebbe the cancer thing but that link is slight at best). So, of course, we should spend billions of tax dollars and create a large govt. organization to stamp out something that is virtually impossible to stamp out. Ya know, if we were getting the coke and the opium dealers it would still be a bad idea but at least you wouldn't look like such idiots advocating it. Libertarian means that nobody tells me what to do with my body as long as I'm not injuring you.

Posted by: delatao at August 11, 2005 09:02 AM (iu/zX)

6 This is not the Libertarian argument I'm familiar with at all. According to Libertarian purists like Szasz addiction doesn't even exist. It's a false "disease model" that masks the truth about people who drink and drug too much - they are making a choice. Sure, you can choose to drink for so long that you get DTs, but you chose to get there. Terms like "relapse" are crappy lies to cover up the fact that the person decided to drink or drug again - chose pleasure over responsibility. And in the classical Libertarian world, that is a choice they are free to make until such time that they impose on others. If you steal because you want more crack, society punshes you for stealing. Period. It is the consequence that you must pay for your bad crack-related choices. Read Szasz and his comments on the "theraputic state". I think you'll enjoy it very much.

Posted by: CJ at August 11, 2005 09:44 AM (Hk10/)

7 http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=5240

Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 09:46 AM (iJ7b1)

8 "You can't ban it all, of coursse, nor do we really want to." If you admit that mind altering substances of some sort are okay, and even at sometimes a good thing then how on earth could you think that it should be the governments business to decide which one is better for the individual. This is not a libertarian thought you are having. Square peg, round hole?

Posted by: BigDuke at August 11, 2005 10:26 AM (kuyD/)

9 The libertarian ideal assumes we are all islands. We are not we all affect each other.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at August 11, 2005 11:11 AM (JFPR+)

10 Your argument that "drug users are slaves" to their suppliers, etc. is absurd. If drugs were legal, they would likely cost less than 1% of the current black-market price and could be available at your local Wal-Mart, grocery store, whatever. Let's say you currently take aspirin. Does that mean you are a "slave" to Bayer Inc.? (Ironically Bayer was a major supplier of legal, over-the-counter morphine to the USA in the early part of the 20th century). In the 1890's, cocaine was openly sold thru the Sears catalog (without Rx)!

Posted by: Laurence at August 11, 2005 11:57 AM (lV6KO)

11 I love how any person with a computer can play like they are notorious. Somehow a blogspace grants them with the authority to make huge claims without using any facts (ad baculum). God love the internet. Not only that, but people can parade around their egos on a float of reason and logic and at the same time commit any fallacy of reason they so desire. For example, your argument about the soicetal impact of alcohol(x) and weed(x-1) can be reduced to a simple equation is rediculous. Have you ever heard of a Straw Man argument? Your argument is a complete cariacature of the problem you are addressing. There is no way it's that simple. What about biology, psychology, sociology, HISTORY... all these things play a part. It's not as simple as pure economics. Tell me about addiction. Do you know any addicts? What's your history, do you eat too much fast food? Are you addicted to your lifestyle? Could you cut it cold turkey or will you be feeling symptoms of withdrawal by the end of the day? I will agree with you on one thing: "in the end [everyone will be] a slave to those who will provide him with the means to satisfy his addiction." Freedom is a ruse, if you really want it be a Buddhist.

Posted by: Geoff at August 11, 2005 12:03 PM (F20cM)

12 The glaring error in this argument is limiting freedoms because of the worst members of a class. Your argument is 1) Drug addiction is slavery. 2) Slavery is tyranny. Therefore, 3) Drug addiction is tyranny. 4) Tyranny should be illegal/prevented. Therefore, 5) Drugs should be illegal/prevented. Do you see the disconnect? You went from saying that drug addiction should be prevented to saying that drugs should be illegal. Logically, (5) should read: Therefore, 5) Drug addiction should be illegal/prevented.

Posted by: RMStalzer at August 11, 2005 12:28 PM (oB5aR)

13 You're not a libertarian, you're a statist control freak who doesn't like drug users and who has come up with a facile set of justifications for the continuing the war on (some) drugs. Your story about your buying a new car doesn't shed any insight on this problem, it just shows that you're a PWed statist control freak (I can hear the whip cracking from here). Then you start outgassing about how liberty is the province of reasonable men and that "...Our government is designed to be run by reasonable men, not by a cadre of stoners and tweakers and junkies. Everyone's liberty is at risk in such a regime." Does anyone else find it interesting that you don't mention "drunks" in this? I guess you'd be OK with a bunch of boozehounds like Teddy Kennedy running things because even though they're slaves to a drug it's a drug you like (alcohol). Then you cough up the following bit of noxious spew: "You can't ban it all, of coursse, nor do we really want to. We can pick and choose among addictive substances--coffee and tobacco and liquor we'll allow, ritalin and percodan we'll allow for medical use but regulate pretty tightly, pot and heroin and meth, nope. Wouldn't-be-prudent. Not worth it. We'll tolerate a little drunkenness and alcoholism, a little edginess from caffeine, lung cancer and stained teeth from tobacco, but not the burned-out stoner or the psychotic meth nut. Just like the sun roof, that's the package of costs we're willing to incur and enforce. But just because we're willing to tolerate that much addiction, hallucination, and drug-induced unreasonableness , doesn't mean that we ought to tolerate more. This is of course the conservatard argument for the war on (some) drugs, namely that as soon as you legalize drugs everyone is going to become a burned out stoner or a psychotic meth nut. Of course this argument is total sewage and is disproven every day. Alcohol is legal and easily available to anyone over 21 years of age (and many who are under 21 years of age) and yet despite this we are not a nation of total drunkards, stumbling blindly around in search of spare change so we can purchase a bottle of Olde English 800 or Thunderbird. Here's a question for you: If drugs were legalized would you use them? If heroin were legalized and easily available would you use it? I certainly wouldn't. I have to wonder if the reason you're against drug legalization is that you know that if drugs were legalized that you'd become a burned out stoner, or psychotic meth nut in short order due to a lack of will on your part. God only knows that some of our drug warriors have compulsive addictive behaviors, as witness moralizing conservatard Bill Bennett, former Drug Fuehrer and Secretary of Education blowing eight million dollars in 10 years on slot machines (if that isn't a monkey on your back please tell me what is). If junk were legal Bennett would probably be bathing in it, giving himself junk enemas, shooting it through his eyeballs into the frontal lobes of his brain for that perfect rush. Instead he has to content himself with slot machines. Of course even though you're against drug legalization based upon what it might cost society (conveniently ignoring what the war on (some) drugs has cost society in terms of tax dollars wasted and the destruction of civil liberties) you're willing to tolerate the 300,000 people who die of cigarette related illnesses every year, the cigarette smokers who put others at risk by lighting up at gas stations (more than one smoker has burned himself to death while lighting up while pumping gas) the drunks who kill around 25,000 people a year on our roads and highways, beat their wives and kids and end up lying in the gutters begging for change to buy fortified wine and malt liquor. Again, what this comes down to your advocating the government enforce your arbitrary prejudices. You spout a lot about how we're not subject to a tyranny of reason (BTW, your French revolution example is garbage) and instead argue for a tyranny of irrational prejudice and bigotry against the users of certain substances, and this is better how? In the end what you argue for is totally arbitrary rule by the majority with laws based upon the prejudices of that majority. I've got some bad news for you sunshine, that isn't in any way, shape or form "libertarian". If the majority doesn't like pot but is OK with alcohol, objectively a far more dangerous drug, then you're OK with the laws against pot. This is the same stupid argument that the drug warriors use when they're asked why, if they're so concerned about people using drugs and harming themselves and others, they don't crack down on alcohol and tobacco. Tell me, what are you going to offer us next: The "libertarian" case for gun control? The "libertarian" case for higher taxes? The "libertarian" case for internment camps? The "libertarian" case for genocide and ethnic cleansing? Man, with "libertarians" such as yourself who needs communists, nazis or islamofascists?

Posted by: Jamie Jamison at August 11, 2005 12:36 PM (pqJMZ)

14 I used to be a court reporter for a daily newspaper. One thing I learned is that incapacity because of intoxication is not a valid defense, no matter what the crime, no matter what the circumstances. If it were a valid defense, drunken drivers would never go to prison.

Posted by: Mark at August 11, 2005 01:07 PM (vl841)

15 I hope you would include religion, sex, processed sugar, animal fat (and trans fat substitutes) and TV in your list of things that should be illegal becasue they are habit forming and/or addictive and somehow escape or resist human will. Your overly simplistic view of addiction , habit and human freedom and contingency are laughable. Not to mention your obvious lack of knowledge about drug use (as if all users are addicts, and as if all addiction is the same in severity or managemability). And Libertarians are rarely utilitarians, so I'm not sure where your pedestrian and sophmoric cost benefit analysis fits into your poor libertarian argument.

Posted by: lazerlou at August 11, 2005 01:21 PM (J7EvK)

16 I would be interested to see how all the libertarians in this thread would excuse the laws against having sex with minors. Any takers?

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 01:27 PM (jPCiN)

17 Drugs should be legal! A large # of people are killed or hurt by "users" trying to get either the dope or the money to get it. I no longer remember the #'s but decades ago I did a paper on this subject (I was a Goldwater small Govt man at the time) and the results of several articles written in the 50's and early 60's was that over 1,000 times as many people are killed or hurt by users tryin to get either dope or $ to buy it, in the US (pro rata)as were killed or hurt by high users in Europe. The biggest single factor in the high cost of snow or other dope is the implicit cost of being killed by DEA or spendig years in jail. Legalizing dope would not only save billions in law enforcement yearly but significantly reduce crime because the crimes commited to get expensive dope would not be committed since it would be cheap.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 11, 2005 01:31 PM (03F0I)

18 An addict, or for that matter someone tripping or stoned, is not a free man. In many cases, you can't even commit murder when you're high--under the law your "mental defect" can prevent you from reaching the mental state required to form the mens rea for intentional homicide. But isn't the free man choosing to impose that "mental defect" upon himself? A slave is one who is compelled, against their will to serve another. If you choose to use a drug, you have excercised your will, as a free man, and you must accept the consequences of that action. The argument you put forth suggests that my freedoms should be limited if I might use those freedoms to limit my own freedom in the future. How is that libertarian? By this logic, it would be legitimate to regulate sex because engaging in sex has the potential to limit my future freedom through pregnancy or disease. I'm free to have sex with many people, but I effectively give up that right in marriage (or at least most marriages). I'm free to party all night long every night of the week, but I have to give that up to get a decent job. Our freedoms measured as much in what we choose to give up as what we choose to hold onto. It's only when we are compelled, forcibly, to give up a freedom, that we become slaves.

Posted by: Steve at August 11, 2005 01:38 PM (XJJye)

19 You are not Libertarian; hell you're not even a decent constitution upholding American if you think we should prosecute consensual crimes. America is a place where you can reach for stars, or die in the gutter....keep it that way.

Posted by: blahblahblah at August 11, 2005 02:18 PM (1HeG/)

20 "If all men are created equal before God, then slavery is an abomination and no man is naturally the subject of any other." What about the libertarians that don't believe in God?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 11, 2005 02:32 PM (x+5JB)

21 From a libertarian perspective, your argument is specious. People should be free to choose dangerous and destructive lifestyles, as long as they hurt no one else directly. I'll leave out the anguish they may inflict on friends and family cause that is too vague and far reaching. Using that, you can ban homosexuality because of AIDS and the anguish it may cause someone who haes gays. As far as certain laws that make one not guilty of premeditated murder because they are high, they prove nothing, the law is foolish. After all, our life loving President executed a lady who committed murder when she was high, and who honestly tried to redeem herself while in prison. But that is irrelevant. A person shuld be able to choose to lead a dangerous life, like motorcycle riding, mountaineering or drug abuse, regardless of what the nannies might say. Societal costs are a vague factor and in a libertarian society the government would not be providing much in the way of services anyways. Even a practical, non libertarian approach might make some distinctions, only a complete moron would treat pot the same as heroin while arguing cigs and tobacco are okay.

Posted by: Jake at August 11, 2005 02:49 PM (zeHqd)

22 I have called in sick more than once because of too much alcohol, I have never called in sick because I smoked one too many "joints" the night before... But Alcohol is still ok right? People should be left to make decisions for which they are responsible, not the Government, the Government should hold those accountable who have encroached on another's rights, not because they feel a person can not handle the maturity require for some things they wish to indulge in... Commit a crime while intoxicated? Pay the price for that crime.. not for seeking intoxication. What if in your sample equation, the real factors are alcohol = 1 and pot = 0-1 then legalization would equal a sum of 0 and all of societies' ills would be solved by legalizing pot... this is actually quit closer to the fact since no-one knows what the reality would be if pot were made legal, they are certainly less than alcohol and in my mind would be close to nill when equating the effect on society. This shows how you can make any equation fit your theories no matter how baseless they are in reality.

Posted by: Somebody at August 11, 2005 02:53 PM (MaRYv)

23 As a man who has been a card carry Libertarian for almost two decades, let me say that your article doesn't begin to satisfy the conditions you set out in your title. You may make a case for the Drug War, but it is not a libertarian case. See, a Libertarian would be the first to realize that X or X-1 as you define them aren't really part of the equation. In the Libertarian perspective individual freedom are given gravitas over societal will. The "Pursuit of Happiness" is the fundamental right of all people to follow their own road just so long as their actions don't inhibit another person from doing the same. In short, as long as I'm not hurting you then what I might or might not choose to do is really none of your damned business. Whether I choose to be a "burned-out stoner or the psychotic meth nut" is my choice to make-- at least under a libertarian doctrine. A true Libertarian would also understand that it isn't slavery if it's a choice made freely, thus the WHOLE of your argument falls apart. Those things to which I choose to subject my life, those things which I grant claim upon my time and resources, are an elemental part of freedom. I may choose to have kids, rather than pursue a career. You might say that I am then a "slave" to the needs of my children, but this is, again, my business and not yours. Were I to choose the career I might be considered a slave to my desk, but my workaholic tendencies would still be my demons to bear. I have set priorites in my life for who and what get access to me and to those things which I indenture myself. YOUR role in this equation is to butt out. For the most part, for most people, life is terribly difficult. I would suggest that whatever it takes to get you through the day-- be it drugs, religion, hobbies, children and family, work, play etc-- as long as you're not knocking on my door asking for me to bear the brunt of your problems for you, then go for it... it's your life, your views, your time to shine or rust in the rain. I won't even begin to discuss the insanity, from a libertarian perspective, of government spending my money to fight a war against personal choice.

Posted by: Shantyhag at August 11, 2005 04:08 PM (iwe1N)

24 What about the societal costs of Marijuanna law enforcement? I think if you take those into account, your 2X-1 argument falls apart, since there is a huge cost to society enforcing those laws. For the record I believe that the societal cost of enforcing most drug laws falls below the costs of legalization, but I do not see that happening with Marijuanna.

Posted by: Dan at August 11, 2005 06:08 PM (Y2A8A)

25 MUUSIC! Throw the tape player into the bathtub when the song "White Rabbit" by Jefferson Airplane peaks

Posted by: Ren at August 11, 2005 06:40 PM (a9tRx)

26 The main reason alcohol is legal in the U.S. while other rec drugs are not has nothing to do with whether we want to deal with the consequences of more than one rec drug being legal. I've already brought this up (at considerably greater length) in my comment on "Why Everybody is Wrong About The Drug War", but it bears repeating here. In a nutshell, the difference between our alcohol laws and our drug laws boils down to an idiosyncrasy of Western culture: Alcohol has been around since the dawn of mankind, and has long been considered a staple of Western civilization. Other drugs have not, and therefore have proven much easier to demonize and gain popular support for them to be outlawed. Further complicating the drug-vs.-alcohol-laws debate is the fact that alcohol, and only alcohol, has its legal status enshrined in the U.S. Constitution - specifically, in the 21st Amendment which makes alcohol regulation the purview of the states. Short of another constitutional amendment to eliminate that disparity, bringing other drug laws into line with alcohol laws (or vice versa) is not only unlikely, it is constitutionally impossible.

Posted by: Joshua at August 12, 2005 01:59 PM (5Xc3J)

27 I hate tobacco. I hate pot. I hate coke. I hate meth. If you mess with my bourbon I kick your ass.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 09:56 PM (0zyYw)

28 There are an awful lot of food addicts in this country and stores and shops on every corner to support this heinous addiction. Some kill animals for food, some kill plants. Killing to live. It creates a whole murderous climate on the planet. And the level of addiction is simply astounding. And people feed this addiction in public. How disgusting. People need to stop being slaves to substances of all kinds and a food prohibition will do at least part of the job.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 13, 2005 12:01 PM (/XcVW)

29 What if the people taking drugs need them? Addiction or Self Medication?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 13, 2005 12:03 PM (/XcVW)

30 What this post lacks is a Moral Sense. Suppose the people taking pain relievers are desperate for pain relief? Why are drugs are associated with a reduced moral sense. Let us start from what we know: Pain destroys the moral sense. Next step is to look at the connection between drugs, pain, and morality: People taking drugs for pain are in moral danger from the pain. The drugs actually help alleviate the moral danger by relieving the pain. As a society we recreate that moral danger by keeping those in pain from relief. I think this point is typical of the confused thinking on the subject of drugs. We ascribe the ills caused by prohibition to the drugs themselves. We make people desperate by depriving them of pain relief and then complain when desperate people do desperate things.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 13, 2005 12:09 PM (/XcVW)

31 I agree with CJ and Szasz. There is no such thing as addiction. The idea is superstition. There is such a thing as people in chronic pain taking pain relievers chronically.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 13, 2005 12:39 PM (/XcVW)

32 And the level of addiction is simply astounding. And people feed this addiction in public. How disgusting. There is no such thing as addiction. The idea is superstition. Fatal Syntax Error, Unexpected contradiction

Posted by: Ren at August 13, 2005 06:35 PM (a9tRx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 10, 2005

Let's Settle the Iraq War Question the Old Fashion Way, With a Duel
Q: Who would win in a gunfight? An Iraq War supporter or an Iraq War opponent.
A: An Iraq war supporter, of course. What kind of an idiot would pull a gun on an Iraq war supporter? Oh, this guy.
A quarrel between two firearms vendors at a Floyd County flea market on Thursday allegedly led both men -- described as "good friends" -- to draw guns. Douglas Moore, 65, of Martin, who supports the war, shot and killed Harold Wayne Smith, 56, of Manchester, who opposed it, investigators said.
Hat tip: Jeff Blogworthy who has more.
Posted by: Rusty at 10:07 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

1 One less moonbat in the world won't be missed. That's 'tolerance' neocon style baby!!!

Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2005 11:00 PM (8e/V4)

2 Hey Jawa, it's "duel" not "dual".

Posted by: Redhand at August 10, 2005 11:44 PM (TrmBs)

3 Such irony.

Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 05:28 AM (YudAC)

4 What a wonderful idea, and it's good to see Amerikkkan culture is still intact- let's just kill anyone who disagrees with you.

Posted by: Zanzibar at August 11, 2005 08:46 AM (gDyiS)

5 I for one support the killing of anti-american war opponents. Lets get it on! I am being completely serious, they deserve nothing but hatred an death for themselves and their families.

Posted by: Hedgy at August 11, 2005 09:17 AM (A8rF5)

6 I think there's really only one moral or ethical thing one can say. Whoever was the agressor deserved to get shot, no matter what position they happen to hold on the war. If both went for their guns simultaneously instead of reacting to an agressor (meaning it really was a duel) or if the person who was the initiator is the survivor, then the survivor is guilty of murder. His opinion on the war is irrelevant, both legally and morally, to the outcome.

Posted by: Demosophist at August 11, 2005 09:33 AM (IbWE6)

7 a sad case of people having the right to have different choices not agreeing to respect each others choices and instead trying to hurt and kill each other ...and this is over having the right to speak youre mind on a subject, a harmless thing

Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 10:02 AM (IJ51c)

8 A man may disagree with me. And I will fight to the death for my right to shoot him if he does.

Posted by: Scott in CA at August 11, 2005 10:04 AM (MKTwl)

9 I seem to recall a similiar story on AMW recently in which the anti-war person shot the pro-war one. No one ever said that the reasons we kill each other were always going to be good ones, or ever would for that matter.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 11:26 AM (jPCiN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Lodi Terror Ring Connected to Bin Laden
Whoa. Check this out from KGO:
The FBI is now drawing a link between their terror investigation in Lodi and Osama bin Laden. The government believes al Qaeda was trying to set up a school in Lodi to recruit terrorists.
The accusations from the FBI came Tuesday morning during an immigration hearing for Shabbir Ahmed. He's the 39-year-old religious leader of the Lodi mosque -- one of five men connected to the mosque that have been arrested on immigration charges. Today the government drew links to all five and then to Osama bin Laden.
The FBI says it has information that two of the religious leaders at this Lodi mosque were acting as intermediaries for Osama bin Laden....
Lawyers for the government would not be interviewed, neither would the FBI. But in court today the lead agent said they have secretly taped conversations between several of the five men arrested in Lodi....
The government believes they wanted to set up a branch of a religious school that has in the past been associated with terrorists including 9/11 leader Muhammed Atta.
For their part, the father and son Hayat terror duo dispute the governments claim, admitting to the lesser charge of fomenting violent jihad against the United States and praising bin Laden while in Pakistan. Both claim they have changed their minds about the U.S. I wonder, though, what are on those secret tapes?
UPDATE: California Mafia has been following the case closely. Their post on the bail hearing is here, including the name of the connection between the Lodi ring and al Qaeda. more...
Posted by: Rusty at 09:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

1 All of this is so comforting to me, being 70 miles from Lodi. Seiously, here in the Bay Area, we have lots of Muslims. Not suprising, since we have Berkeley and Stanford here, as well as several other schools. All of them have lots of Muslim students and faculty, as they have for decades. However, we here have noticed that in the last couple of years, many of our Muslim neighbors have begun to wear the headscarf, the traditional dress, the little white caps, the long beards, etc. Many of them tend to glare and scowl a lot. I don't fear or hate or even dislike Muslims. But I do wonder why this change has come about. When I went to Berkely in the 80s, it was not this way. It is now.

Posted by: Scott in CA at August 11, 2005 10:10 AM (MKTwl)

2 What is odd too is Victor Davis Hanson's words just a few weeks ago (I'll paraphrase); that we're likely to find more Muslim "friends" in Tehran than in Berkeley.

Posted by: Oyster at August 11, 2005 11:26 AM (fl6E1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Able Danger Help
I'm trying to figure out the whole Able Danger/we-knew- about- Atta- being- an- al- Qaeda- member- a- year- before- 9/11 thing. If you have a post about it, or know of a good summary, I'd appreciate it if you e-mailed it to me. A lot of discussion about this, but I'm not sure where to begin. Thanks.
Posted by: Rusty at 04:51 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Check out Captain Ed: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005175.php I have couple week posts, but, from what I understand, the rules that Jamie Goerlick and the Slick admin put in hamstrung the ability of military intel to share what they had with law enforcement, plus they were big weenies regarding investigating folks in the US on legal visas, despite possible AQ ties. Investigating Atta and company might have stopped 9/11, or maybe not. We will never know. The New York Times made sure that they did not mention Clinton in their article about this today.

Posted by: William Teach at August 10, 2005 06:04 PM (Pzlrt)

2 OK head over to my blog. I have three posts. http://snookerswamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/data-mining-and-sandy-bergers-pants.html http://snookerswamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/connecting-some-more-dots.html http://snookerswamp.blogspot.com/2005/08/news-of-usefulness-of-gorelick-wall.html One explains data mining, the others the essence of the story. I built some data mines for unnamed users. Always willing to help the Jawa out.

Posted by: bill at August 10, 2005 06:27 PM (7evkT)

3 Anyone with half a brain will figure out whose admin was occupying the White House when Atta's name came up. Oh wait.....

Posted by: Oyster at August 10, 2005 06:28 PM (YudAC)

4 I think the groundwork for this fiasco was laid in the seventies, following our defeat in the first major propaganda war: Vietnam. At that time, the military and intelligence agencies were despised by many people and laws were passed to curb their perceived excesses. The Brass also began to evolve (devolve?) into PR people and poll watchers. The process accelerated during the nineties as Clinton exploited the "peace dividend". Wish I had a dollar for all the ex-military personnel who told me they resigned rather than serve under Slick Willy.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 10, 2005 07:07 PM (RHG+K)

5 Check Andrew McCarthy's archives at NRO, he seems to be the expert on FISA and "the Wall." Heather MacDonald had a few pieces in City Journal that also hit on this.

Posted by: Rob A. at August 10, 2005 08:33 PM (hWGIY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

<< Page 11 of 17 >>

227kb generated in CPU 0.0765, elapsed 0.2945 seconds.
137 queries taking 0.2407 seconds, 550 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

bowflex adjustable dumbbells Naturally, a bed that's comfortable for yourself helps, but I also uncovered anything containing rat... entry

does the diet solution program work I every time spent my half an hour to read this weblog's articles or reviews all the time along with... entry

Click at %url_domain% It's going to be finish of mine day, but before finish I am reading this enormous post to improve my... entry

reverse phone check Hello! I simply want to give away a huge thumbs up for the great info youâ€™ve here on this p... entry

chine destock Donâ€˜testosterone try overtime, the proper information arrive as you the very least , be prepar... entry

chine destock A true colleague is what individuals overlooks your new accidents plus can handle your new positive ... entry

destockchine Romances hang around as soon as each individual one colleague considers brand-new areas such as a sm... entry

ãƒ¢ãƒ³ã‚¯ãƒ¬ãƒ¼ãƒ« ãƒ€ã‚¦ãƒ³ ã¯ã˜ã‚ã¾ã—ã¦ã€‚çªç„¶ã®ã‚³ãƒ¡ãƒ³ãƒˆã€‚å... entry

http://www.poubelle-automatique.org/poubelle-brabantia/ Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article. I'll make sure to... entry

rc helicopter Thanks for posting this for us. visit here entry

Categories

Afghanistan (29)

Africa (27)

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali (14)

Antisemetism (10)

APSA (11)

Atwar Bahjat (3)

Atwer Bahjat (0)

Australia (8)

Beheading (30)

Bilal Hussein (8)

Blog Propaganda (815)

Blog Wars (50)

Breaking News (65)

Canada (21)

Caption Contest & Polls (19)

China (12)

Corporate Greed (1)

Counterterrorism (175)

Crime & Punishment (30)

Cuba (1)

Culture War (21)

Defeatists (15)

Dialogue on Democracy (65)

Domestic Dhimmis (322)

Domestic Masochism (101)

Domestic Terror (35)

Example (0)

Far East (7)

Fatwa This! (46)

flu (1)

Fwance (9)

Hamas (16)

hostages (244)

Immigration and border issues (13)

Imperial Good News (68)

India (2)

Indonesia (10)

Iran (12)

Iraq (142)

Jeff Gannon (6)

Jeffrey Ake (7)

Jill Carroll (25)

Joel Henry Hinrichs (10)

Korea (3)

Lebanon (4)

London (4)

LOONIE LIBS (11)

Lunacy (37)

Media (51)

Ministry Of Blog Pimpage (3)

Ministry of Edumacation (144)

Ministry of Entertaining the Masses (256)

Ministry of Propaganda (615)

Ministry of Reproduction (94)

Ministry of Sport (12)

Ministry of Warfare (79)

Nature (3)

Norman Kember (26)

North Korea (2)

Online Terrorism (47)

Persia (59)

Political Correctness (10)

Rants (15)

Religion of Peace Roundup (127)

Ronald Schulz (7)

Roy Hallums (22)

Russian Bureau (68)

Saddam Hussein (5)

Scams & SPAMS (5)

Sex Offenses (24)

Southeast Asia (25)

Susanne Osthoff (8)

Syria (2)

Tattooine Bureau (772)

Terror: Scandinavia (8)

Terrorist Suspects (15)

Totalitarianism 3.x (9)

Tsunami (3)

U.K. Terrorism (10)

UK Terror (17)

United Nations (6)

War Porn (2)

Wassef Ali Hassoun (1)

Zarqawi (12)

Zeropa (73)

Archives

November 2006 (1)

September 2006 (1)

August 2006 (1)

July 2006 (6)

June 2006 (191)

May 2006 (269)

April 2006 (290)

March 2006 (353)

February 2006 (378)

January 2006 (328)

December 2005 (214)

November 2005 (186)

October 2005 (210)

September 2005 (288)

August 2005 (336)

July 2005 (261)

June 2005 (241)

May 2005 (219)

April 2005 (234)

March 2005 (236)

February 2005 (189)

January 2005 (148)

December 2004 (190)

November 2004 (199)

October 2004 (208)

September 2004 (224)

August 2004 (230)

July 2004 (42)

June 2004 (1)

Blogroll
Sample link

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 81374

Files: 18

Bytes: 467.8M

CPU Time: 44:39

Queries: 6948394

Content

Posts: 5690

Comments: 76631

Feeds