Michelle Malkin is at it again with several good topics including my very own Senator DICK Durbin. Gee typing Dick instead of DICK didnÂ’t last long. Michelle has a good story on how left wing hackers used fraud, theft and hacking to attack Protest Warrior as well. And she has added even more this afternoon. Wow. Also itÂ’s quite a coincidence that just yesterday Mr. Durbin replied to my email.

The full text of Senator DurbinÂ’s reply is below my comments. I should have saved my initial email too.

Stop the Bush Bashing. Your efforts to help are a welcome contribution but the continuous Bush bashing works directly against the soldiers you speak so highly of. The war is going on right now and to continue to harp over the conditions in which it was started is counter productive. To support the troops you must also support the Commander in Chief. Work hard for the troops because the war over hearts and minds on the home front is just as important as the war on the ground. They need to know they have our support. The terrorists/baathists think “we the people” will give in. You assist them in that task by dragging up the same old talking points that have been going around and hurting home front morale for months now.

Well now that IÂ’ve done my ranting I would like to thank Mr. Durbin for his reply. IÂ’m nothing if not polite and I appreciate the reply even if I donÂ’t agree with most of it. Still no vote for you from me Mr. Durbin. But youÂ’re getting warmer on a couple points. Cooperation instead of confrontation might do it sir. At least he said he would keep my/our concerns in mind.

Click to read Senator Durbin's reply. My question was simply what was his take on Iraq and what should be do about it.
more...

Posted by: Howie at 04:36 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1233 words, total size 7 kb.

Well first of all I would like to thank everyone bloggers and readers who took the time to send links and ideas. For me this site is all about getting to read Rusty and also read the comments of some of the brightest people I've seen. I started as a reader and I still consider myself to be just that. While I've been posting up here really it is all of you out there that make the site fun. So before I go a big thanks to everyone who has supported me. Rusty we all hope for your swift recovery.

Now one last thing. YBP wishes to discuss the very foundations of civilization. Since he sent links today I will oblidge him. And remember everyone watch the BP. It's the discussion that makes it cool. Let's not give ourselves a stroke now. I've got to go and do some real work too. I've been jumping back and forth so good afternoon all and....

Have a good one.

Link to the very foundations of civilization

Hat tip :YBP

Guest Posters: A big thanks to you too and feel free to continue as this will be the end of me for today.

Also for those bloggers that I referenced today. I'm still not up to speed on pings and trackbacks so my sincere apologies if I missed anyone or failed to do it correctly.

Updated : Rusty lives. I did get an email and Rusty says he feels a little bit better. I take that as was able to pull my head out of the bucket long enough to send an email. He says he probably will not blog today. Speedy recovery my master.

Posted by: Howie at 02:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

Whew where is Rusty when you need him huh?? Thanks for all the links and suggestions. I think I have enough to maybe get us through the day.

Michelle Malkin has a post on a Democratic poll showing that public support for Democrats is slipping faster than for Republicans.

Washington post story here.

Personally for me I think they pick the wrong arguments. The DSM issue for one makes me feel better. It's kind of like a space shot. You had better be thinking about it ahead of time. You can always abort at the last minute. And once the candle is lit, well there is no turning back. So the discussion of if would should have or not is dead to me. The candle is lit people.

Rusty seems to like Michelle so I think he would approve.

Posted by: Howie at 12:38 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

By Demosophist

Good opening. Thanking the right people (our military services). GWOT reached our shores on 9/11. "Murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology... they have continued to kill." Yup.

"They believe we're corrupt. They are mistaken." (Well, not totally.)

"ONLY ONE COURSE OF ACTION: To defeat them abroad before they attack us at home!"

Yeah, baby!

"We are removing a source of violence and instability and establishing a foundation for peace... is the sacrifice worth it."

Well, what will you ask of us?

The bad guys in Iraq are making common cause with similar ne'er-do-wells in Libya, etc. They see the abyss.

"Among the terrorists there is no debate that Iraq is central to the War. The outcome will leave them either emboldened or defeated."

Clearer one could not be.

"They failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty."

They failed to stop the formation of OUR VANGUARD. They cannot stop the advance of freedom. "This will not happen on my watch."

"Defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend."

The VANGUARD!

Iraqi responsibility. We have made siginificant progress. THE ELECTION. They rebuild. Progress is uneven, but real.

30 nations have troops in Iraq. The UN is there. 40 countries have pledged $34 Billion for reconstruction. The Donar Countries.

Iraq is critical. Iraq is critical. Iraq is critical.

Numeber and quality of Iraqi security forces has improved. Operation Lightning. Iraqis want to be defended by their own countryment.

OUR VANGUARD. (Who are we?)

"Our strategy has both a military and a political track... As [they] stand up, we will stand down!"

Good enough. Not complicated. Nancy Pelosi take note.

"NATO is establishing a military academy near Baghdad." Yikes! THE VANGUARD!

Three new steps:

Partnering with Iraqi units.

Embedding coalition teams in Iraqi units.

Working with Iraqi ministries to manage their forces.

(See Mont Ventoux)

Deadlines serious mistake. Wrong signal to allies, our troops, and to the enemy. We need to complete the mission. More troops? If needed.

[But it's not more troops that we need.]

Emerging from tyranny into a democracy. Our VANGUARD. ("We" includes the Arab Middle East.)

Transitional National Assembly must draft a robust and fair constitution, to be ratified by the people, and will then "bind their multi-ethnic society into a democracy."

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

Libya knuckles under. Our strategy to defend ourselves and expand freedom IS WORKING. There will be tough moments that test our resolve. They don't respect sanctuary. They create chaos. They will fail to shark our will. (Probably, most of us.) We're in a confliect that demands much of us. Demands the perseverence of our citizens.

"The rise of democracy will be the ultimate ... victory. We will stay in the fight until... the fight is won."

APPLAUSE APPLAUSE

Our troops can know our people are behind them. At every outpost across the world. FLY THE FLAG.

[OK, he's finially asking something of us. Propagate it. Ring the bell. Let's get it done.]

Loss. "The best way to honor the lives that have been given in the struggle is to complete the mission." Service.

"They" are no match for the United States of America.

Well, keep banging the drum. Good start. Finally asked us for something!

(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia and Anticipatory Retaliation)

Posted by: Demosophist at 07:35 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 530 words, total size 4 kb.

Rusty dropped me an email this am and asked if see dubya or I could get this up this am. I will past in a few parts of Rustys email as well as the kinks he sent.

From: John Hawkins

This is John Hawkins from Right Wing News & Conservative Grapevine and
I've done an interview with Ed Klein, author of "The Truth About Hillary:
What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President".

This is a blockbuster interview that covers: Bill Clinton's affairs,
whether Hillary had an affair, Hillary's role in the Clinton White House, her
"anti-military" views, and Ed Klein's reaction to the less than
enthusiastic conservative support for his book among other things. We also had some controversial "off the record" comments that were put back on the
record. What was said there alone is worth the read.

Here are some short excerpts from the interview to give you an idea of
what it was like:

** Ed Klein On Hillary's threats against the network to get his book
blackballed **

"For instance, because of my book, Hillary and her war machine have
called every major television network in the United States and suggested to
them that if they have Ed Klein on to discuss his book, they can forget
about Hillary being a guest on their network.

As a result, the entire mainstream media – NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and
MSNBC – have blanked me out. This is my 5th best seller in a row.
I’ve been on all of those networks for all my books up ‘til this
one book. IÂ’ve been a constant guest on the Today show, the Good
Morning America show, you know, the Chris Matthews show, etc. Suddenly
IÂ’m anathema and the reason I am is because the Clintons, Hillary in
particular, have threatened all these mainstream media outlets."

** Tell us what you really think about Hillary, Ed **

"All IÂ’ve done is find a lot of new things and important things to
reinforce what everybody really knows about her, which is that she is a
congenital liar, as Bill Safire has called her –- and an ultra-liberal
and a militant feminist."

** Ed Klein on the conservative reaction to his book **

"...I just assumed that, you know, the conservatives would rally to my
support – and, as you say, I’ve had some problems in that area."

You can read the entire interview at the following address:

Full story here

Posted by: Howie at 10:35 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 2 kb.

By Demosophist

I'm slowly becoming enraged as I watch Stephen Spielberg's latest epic Into the West, which purports to recount the history of a family in Virginia as they migrate westward and merge with the native Americans they encounter. It's hard for me to put my finger on what it is that bothers me about Spielberg's tale, but the essence of the problem is that it's inauthentic. And it's not one single thing that gives me that impression, but more like the fact that I grew up in a family in which the pioneering generation was only once removed from my own. Therefore, the stories really weren't that old when I heard them recounted by people who actually knew the principals. I actually knew my great grandmother, who had become the matriarch of the family by the time I was old enough to toddle around. I actually touched the bridge to that past so inauthentically recounted by Spielberg. more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:03 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 1084 words, total size 6 kb.

I spent some time watching the interview of Senator John McCain’s on “NBC NEW’S MEET THE PRESS”. I had few thoughts afterward. About party, the war, and politics in general.

link to MTP transcript

If you are a Republican trying to “Casey Jones” the Democrats and change the rules of the Senate so that the President can get every judge he wants. If you take advantage of our majority and use it to pay back every contributor and push everything past the minority. You put yourselves before our party and before our country.

If a Democrat, filibustering every judge that comes across your desk. Spouting terms like Nazi and Gulag to try and make your point on GITMO. Playing politics with the war and failing to support the President. If you think this war is that trivial. You are putting your party before your nation.

If you are right or left wing and you bite on all the wedge issues like abortion and stem cell research or other moral distractions that never die and then vote for President based on these alone. You are putting your ideals before your duty.

If you are a moderate of either party, or an independent, or just a citizen, and you failed to vote for whom you thought might be a good candidate in a primary or general election because of party or laziness. Well just shut up about George Bush and get behind him. For if you had voted John McCain may have been President right now. The far right and left all vote, blame you.

Also for those who bother to read the transcript and I know itÂ’s hard. Just read some. The next President of the U.S.A., uh I mean Senator McCain gives a great example of the manner in which these issues should be dealt with. Some things are just above politics and I think he knows what those things are. LetÂ’s not start playing politics and forgetting there is a war on. That is exactly what the enemy is counting on. ItÂ’s not fair to the people of this country, itÂ’s not fair to the men and women serving and dying, and itÂ’s most unfair to the people of Iraq who are depending on us to stick with them.

I like quotes, so hereÂ’s what I feel is his best one of the interview.

“But you know what I've found out? That every time I've done something for what may have been influenced by political reasons, I've regretted it. Every time that I've done something that I think is right, it's turned out OK in the end. I've got to do what I think is right. And if it offends a certain political constituency, I regret it, but there's really nothing I can do about it.”

Sen. John McCain R, AZ from
“NBC NEW’S MEET THE PRESS” aired 06/19/05.

Another link to the transcript

IÂ’m so jealous of Arizona.

Posted by: Howie at 06:34 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 498 words, total size 3 kb.

Well Rusty has allowed me to post a few things when I can find them. So IÂ’ll try and add a few relevant links during the week. I also may express an opinion or two. But IÂ’ll try to save making an ass out of myself for the comment sections. Rusty and I have the same problem we have real jobs too. So there will be no way I could possibly answer a whole lot of email should that happen. But IÂ’ll try and skim it for links and stuff to post up. Maybe some of you regulars here can help with that. Please send links to either Rusty or myself but not both so we can avoid duplicate posts. Rusty allows links in the comment sections as well. The object from my perspective is to give Rusty more time to do whatever he does like write meaty opinions. Possibly I might learn a bit from the process. I have no idea what heÂ’s thinking, he tells me nothing. Please post responses and argue as always as I think we all get a lot out of that. And nowÂ….

ISSUE ONE, PATRIOT ACT.

See this Yahoo story

Text of patriot act here.

The House last week passed an extension of the “Patriot Act” which makes searches of library records and such more difficult. The President has vowed to veto it. Some civil liberties groups have hailed this as a major improvement. Also the new bill would make the law Permanent and would require further action by Congress to repeal.

QUESTION?

What are the pros and cons of the new Patriot Act and should it be passed? What changes, etc, etc? And should anyone think that this “concession” is better than a simple extension with an expiration date?

I ask you, my fellow civil libertarian and recently reformed, Greg?

Eleanor? Uh I mean Filthy?

Sorry, I know I shouldnÂ’t have. But I always wanted to do that.

Posted by: Howie at 06:19 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

1 What you'll find Howie is that 99% of critics of the PATRIOT Act do not know what its provisions actually are, and exactly how it changed existing law. Instead, they repeat false claims and exaggerations.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at June 19, 2005 07:24 PM (xauGB)

2 Robin speaks the truth. I know of no one outside of KOS-land who makes any claim that their life has been negatively impacted by the Patriot Act (or impacted in any way for that mattter).

Posted by: EvilMe at June 19, 2005 09:25 PM (hi8LV)

3 What I want to know is why it's easier to slip under the radar getting a gun than it is to do some reading of "questionable material"... I'm not anti-gun, but damn if it ain't easy for nutjobs to get one. I love how Bush, inc. gives the opposite names to things it's trying to pass to trick those who are asleep in our government into going, "Huh? Where do I sign? When's lunch?". Anyway, as you know I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act, since I think it's eroding our hard won American freedoms and rights. What does everyone else think? (besides "fuck you osamabinbitchin' lib bastard")

Posted by: osamabeensellin'tinfoil at June 19, 2005 11:40 PM (buka0)

4 Yes Sahib, you have question for the Filthy one?

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 20, 2005 07:46 AM (yBHNA)

5 Be specific osama. In what ways specifically has the patriot act 'eroded our freedoms and rights'? Until you can answer that question, you just come accross as hysterical and uninformed. Oh yeah, fuck you osamabinbitchin' you lib bastard.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 20, 2005 08:37 AM (jPCiN)

6 Well, I guess 40 Republicans, some known as staunch conservatives, voted for the amendment to be amended anyway...(238 to 187). So that's quite a majority. To be specific, I don't want people monitoring what I read. How is that for a start?

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 20, 2005 10:19 AM (buka0)

7 Fair enough osama, I wouldn't much want that either. However, is that what's happening? Is it ok for the FBI to moniter a persons reading if they are already a suspect, or should that be out as well?

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 20, 2005 10:40 AM (jPCiN)

8 As Robin suggests, few people have read the Patriot Act, including the congress critters who voted for it. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote — at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." –Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). The bill was rammed through congress a few weeks after 9-11 and during the Anthrax scare. In this atmosphere of hysteria, congress critters were given a couple of days to act on it. It was overwhelmingly passed. What is so bad about the new law? "Generally," says Rep. Ron Paul, "the worst part of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants." He is referring to Section 213 (Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the "sneak-and-peek" provision, which effectively allows police to avoid giving prior warning when searches of personal property are conducted. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government had to obtain a warrant and give notice to the person whose property was to be searched. With one vote by Congress and the sweep of the president's pen, say critics, the right of every American fully to be protected under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was abrogated. Under the USA PATRIOT Act in this country, Section 802 defines domestic terrorism as engaging in "activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any state and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence. According to Rep. Ron Paul, “Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." According to this definition, any act of civil disobedience now falls under the umbrella of terrorism. The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your Internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mails and Internet communications. The Act also allows the government to order librarians and bookstores owners to report the ‘literary consumptive’ practices of individuals. Librarians around the country have led the charge against this provision in the Patriot Act, arguing that Americans have always been free to read whatever they choose without being monitored by government. The Act also gives the government the power to access your medical and tax records. Some of these ‘flawed’ provisions are set to expire at the end of the year. But President Bush wants to make them permanent and even strengthen the Act, and the House and Senate have been holding hearings in preparation for votes. These are just a tiny fraction of the numerous provisions that conflict with the Constitution. The Act, rather than focusing on ‘terrorists’, as you and I would define them, focuses on American citizens. Companions to the Act contain ‘lone wolf’ provisions and FBI pamphlets have been produced and distributed that warn people to be on the look out for people who call themselves Constitutionalists, and to turn them in. Clearly this act further subordinates American citizens to the whims of government. It brings us one step closer to Martial Law. There are over 600 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States. It is apparent that the government is prepared to round up dissidents should the voice of dissent reach a critical mass. This is no longer a country governed by the people for the people. The people are now viewed as an impediment to the consolidation of power currently being undertaken by the government. The future is coming into focus. I see tanks in the streets. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, -- The Declaration of Independence

Posted by: greg at June 20, 2005 11:11 AM (/+dAV)

9 DG...I think snooping library records is crap. Think of how easy it is to get into this country, fake ID's, absurd airport security, weak or nonexistent security involving major water supplies, buildings, bridges, etc. Need a gun? Easier than opening a bank account. Those things worry me more than someone's reading habits. I want results and confidence, not big brother.

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 20, 2005 11:19 AM (p0lNZ)

10 Greg: I thought you would like that subject.

Posted by: Howie at June 20, 2005 11:43 AM (D3+20)

11 He whose name I shall not repeat said: "Anyway, as you know I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act, since I think it's eroding our hard won American freedoms and rights. What does everyone else think?" I think that the Patriot Act is a necessary evil, but should definitely have a periodic renewal requirement and should never, EVER, become permanent law. Such laws have a way of far outlasting their time, and becoming tools for oppression after their original purpose has expired. I oppose its permenence for the same reason as many others; it can be used by corrupt politicians to attack political opponents, i.e., Hillary "filegate" Clinton. The Patriot Act itself doesn't bother me an infinitessimal fraction as much4 as a judiciary that is completely out of touch with the Constitution and beyond control of the President, Congress, and the People. When the judiciary exceeds its legal bounds and begins to actively legislate from the bench with little or no regard for the Constitution or American legal and social tradition, then I think it doesn't matter what legislation Congress passes, we're screwed. Congress is like a carnival sideshow with misbehaving monkeys, but the Courts are a big-top three-ring circus with all the elephants gone rogue. Anyone who thinks it's okay for judges to exceed their Contitutional powers just because they happen to agree on a point of contention is just asking for trouble, because once the precedent of excess is established, it's almost impossible to correct. P.S: Fuck you osamabinbitchin' lib bastard.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 20, 2005 11:54 AM (0yYS2)

12 Damn all my typo's today. DAMN THEM TO HELL!!!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 20, 2005 12:05 PM (0yYS2)

13 "DG...I think snooping library records is crap." I agree, when there is no reason to do so. However, I want the feds to have the rights to investigate the reading habits of those they suspect of terrorism links. "Think of how easy it is to get into this country, fake ID's, absurd airport security, weak or nonexistent security involving major water supplies, buildings, bridges, etc. " Not sure what you mean here. Are you really trying to say that since these things are worrisome that they somehow negate the issues of terrorism in general? "Need a gun? Easier than opening a bank account. " I assume you are talking about the illegal purchases of firearms. Please remember that the 2nd holds that it is your right to own guns. "Those things worry me more than someone's reading habits. I want results and confidence, not big brother." Again, your arguments just don't hold water. If you suspect that someone might be a potential terrorist, and have good reasons for that suspicion, then why hamstring the police by not allowing them access to library records?

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 20, 2005 12:13 PM (jPCiN)

14 Howie, Good call. DG, The government isn't accessing the library or book purchasing activities of terrorists, they are doing it to American dissidents. Most think that the war is in Iraq. The real war is here at home and were losing badly.

Posted by: greg at June 20, 2005 01:07 PM (/+dAV)

15 Greg, remember that in here American dissidents are pretty much viewed as terrorists. DG, man...if you have some pretty solid facts behind someone being a suspected terrorist, you should be able to go after them. This includes any records. The problem I have is in HOW that suspicion is established, not how preventative measures are carried out. I think this completely holds water, btw. I also don't see what you didn't get when talking about water supplies, bridges, etc. since these are major vulnerabilities in our major cities. Cripple or infect can be a nasty, but effective method. Anyway, I gotta run. I'll be back later after Greg gets banned again. IM, P.S. Damn you for making me agree with you so many times in the past week!

Posted by: osamabeenlibbin' at June 20, 2005 01:36 PM (p0lNZ)

16 DG: "If you suspect that someone might be a potential terrorist, and have good reasons for that suspicion, then why hamstring the police by not allowing them access to library records?" The government/police have never been 'hamstrung'. Previously the government needed at least a warrant and probable cause to access private records. The Fourth Amendment, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and case law provided that if the state wished to search you, it needed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed and to obtain a warrant from a neutral judge. Probable cause and a warrant are no longer needed. The government can now investigate the private records of anyone, for any reason it deems appropriate.

Posted by: greg at June 20, 2005 01:48 PM (/+dAV)

17 "....increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants." Many forget why all these issues are brought up in the Patriot Act to begin with. It was "too hard" to get warrants to search certain records, seize computers, etc. THAT'S what led to 9/11. The fear of treading on rights is what kept them from taking decisive action in way too many instances. They don't want to just snoop on any ordinary Joe-on-the-street. It's a total waste of time. They want the ability to do so if there is probable reason to do so. And I WANT them to search [insert suspect's name here] house or computer or library records if he gives good reason to do so.

Posted by: Oyster at June 20, 2005 01:50 PM (fl6E1)

18 "Probable cause and a warrant are no longer needed. The government can now investigate the private records of anyone, for any reason it deems appropriate." That is not the way I understand it. The police are still required to get a warrent, but do not have to tell the suspect that it is being served. I'm not saying I love it, but it does help to not have to show your cards before you are done investigating. I also don't want it to last forever. I like the sunset provisions and the conversations that we have on its renewal.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 20, 2005 02:00 PM (jPCiN)

19 Oyster: 'Many forget why all these issues are brought up in the Patriot Act to begin with. It was "too hard" to get warrants to search certain records, seize computers, etc. THAT'S what led to 9/11. The fear of treading on rights is what kept them from taking decisive action in way too many instances.' Horse puckey! David Schippers, Chief Council for the House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible conducting the impeachment against former President Clinton, went public revealing that prior to 9-11, many FBI agents had come to him informing him about the impending attacks. These agents knew the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of the terrorists' funding, etc., many months in advance of the 9/11 attacks. The FBI command pulled them off of their investigations into these terrorists and threatened them with the National Security Act saying that if they talked about any of the information pertaining to their investigations they would be prosecuted. Consequently, many of them sought the council of Mr. Schippers hoping to get somebody in the U.S. government to take action against these terrorists before their plan could be implemented. Mr. Schippers talked to many Congressmen and Senators, and tried to get a hold of Att. Gen. John Ashcroft, all only to get the run-around. Mr. Schippers is now legally representing at least ten of these FBI agents in a suit against the U.S. government in an attempt to subpoena their testimony, where they can then legally tell what they know and legally get it on record. The pre-9-11 investigation was obstructed by bureaucrats, not the courts, and only God knows why.

Posted by: greg at June 20, 2005 02:16 PM (/+dAV)

20 WRONG!!!! The answer is : The consessions will be erased in conference after the Senate takes this up. The bill will be permanent. It will prove useful in the GWT but later the law will be turned inward on ourselves thereby striking a terrible blow to freedom. Thus causing greg to suffer a minor head explosion. He then will sell out and move to patagonia where he will raise sheep and Lamas. Bye Bye Next time Howie attempts to create links that go places. Stay tuned.

Posted by: Howie at June 20, 2005 03:46 PM (D3+20)

21 IM wrote "When the judiciary exceeds its legal bounds and begins to actively legislate from the bench with little or no regard for the Constitution or American legal and social tradition, then I think it doesn't matter what legislation Congress passes, we're screwed." Damn, you know it didn't register till just now, but I think I might have said those exact words about 5 years ago when the Florida recount was stopped! Though, Gore can wipe my ass with a thousand hanging chads 'cause I didn't like him either.

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 20, 2005 04:42 PM (p0lNZ)

22 The government is more than welcome to investigate my private records. I can't see the harm. That is being a patriot I have nothing to fear. Perhaps, some others have something to fear. If looking into my personal records or library books I have read helps root out those who would kill innocent people I say more power to them.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 23, 2005 01:07 AM (CBNGy)

23 GR: I don't think it's about that. I think most people are afraid of these powers being abused, or afraid to read something which might place them under suspicion. That's great that you have nothing to hide, but what if we lived in a country where your views expressed on these blogs got you arrested without trial or a lawyer to be held indefinitely? Many people who have no intentions on being or helping a terrorist have plenty to fear about the government intruding on their privacy.

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 23, 2005 12:21 PM (CYGDF)

24 What if? The truth is I don't live in a country like you describe. What if an elephant runs through my cattle fences tonight? Should I build an elephant proof fence just in case? The fact that Greg and Colon Babler haven't been arrested and hung for treason is proof that we do not live in a country where people are arrested for expressing their views. You have to come with a factual claim not an if to convince me. How many innocent lives can be saved? That should be the major concern.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 23, 2005 10:38 PM (CBNGy)

25 Which innocent lives...the blacks killed by your KKK or the Iraqis killed by our "smart bombs"?

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 24, 2005 12:59 PM (CYGDF)

26 osamabeenthere: Neither of those. I'm far more interested in the number of whites attacked, robbed and killed by blacks today in the United States. Read the papers and face reality. The muggers are not white people wearing white sheets. There is more than a few areas of New Orleans I would like to drop you off in tonight. If you lived through it you would have a serious attitude adjustment. A real mind clearing experience. Reality will wake you up. A 38 slug through my stomach for not giving up my wallet 3 years ago woke me up. Result. 4 months in the hospital for me. One black mugger shot in the ass and now doing life in Angola. One black mugger escaped only to be killed a month later during a robbery. What happened in the past, if true I had nothing to do with. Nor do I hold todays Germans and Japanese responsible for what happened 60 years ago. Stupid to bring up or hold responsible todays Germans and Japanese for what happened under a different political climate. Also stupid to constantly remind them of it. This also applies to the stupid shouting of what the Glorious Knights of the Klu Klux Klan did nor did not do 60 years ago. As to the Iraqis killed by smart bombs. Pity. All they have to do is lay down their arms and turn in the terrorists and it would all stop. Pity they are too stupid and too stuborn to see the writing on the wall. If the scum bag islamic terrorists you feel pity for were not consentrating their efforts in Iraq they would be consentrating their resources in Europe and America. My personal opinion. Better them than mine. Better you than me. And I will do everything and anything to make it turn out that way. Also, so I am very clear. Muslims are the biggest threat to peace in the history of the world. More than the commies, more than the facists, more than the nazis. Everywhere this gutter religion is practiced. Nothing but trouble, killing, pain and suffering. Look around the world. Or are you as stupid and stuborn as the fucking islamofacists.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 24, 2005 09:44 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Rusty has given me permission to post this upon The Jawa Report and I thank him for doing so. I started a campaign to send letters to our service men and women about a week ago after seeing how many U.S. soldiers simply want mail. Letters for Heroes is about to ship out therefore this is your last chance, and to some it may be their first and last chance, to submit a letter that will be sent out tomorrow to the following service men and women.

SGT George W. Granter who is the squad leader of a recon team in Afghanistan. There are eight people on his team and their request is mail from the States.

PV2 Eric Avila who is stationed at Kandahar Air Base in Afghanistan and has yet to recieve even one piece of mail. His request is simple mail and we should do our part and send him letters of encouragement.

SPC Jon Drzewiecki who is stationed near Tikrit, Iraq and wishes to recieve mail for himself and his 17 other fellow soldiers. SPC Drzewiecki wishes to get some email penpals as well therefore include your email address in the letter.

Basic rules of submissions: Simply said, there are none. Your letter can be one line thanking a soldier for his or her service or it could be a very well thought out draft as some submissions have detailed. There are both men and women in these groups so please keep that in mind. If you wish further correspondence, include your physical address and/or email address.

How to be included in this effort: It cannot be more easy than this. Simply comment to my post here (I can pull email addresses off the comments if you wish but please state you wish me to do so) or email your letter to me.

While this is a small sacrifice for us to undertake, spending 10 minutes of our time, it means the world to our soldiers fighting for our freedoms accross the globe. Please take the time to create a letter and include it in Letters to Heroes.

I also want to thank those who have supported this effort and who have already sent in letters. I've recieved 23 letters thus far and I'm hoping to get another seven in this last minute push. Let's show our soldiers how much we care for their putting their lives in harms way by sending a letter.

Posted by: Chad at 03:21 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

Mookie Al-Sadr, paunchy moderate-cleric-murderin' city-attacking Shiite rabble rouser, floated up from his hidey-hole and criticized the US and Saddam. He's been scarce since a warrant went out for his arrest in connection with the murder of a rival cleric.

Buddy, try the Al-Atkins

Yeah, he's a creep. The actual news here is that Ahmed Chalabi is helping him negotiate the dismissal of the indictment. I am conflicted about Chalabi's role in Iraq; people who know far more about Iraq than I do are sharply divided about whether Chalabi is a true Iraqi patriot or a self-dealing opportunist. The Fox article is a little vague about Chalabi's role, but any association with al-Sadr looks bad for him.

Let's remember what else al-Sadr did besides allegedly arranging the murder of a respected, moderate Shiite cleric and being a suspect in assorted other assassinations and sundry other anti-US activities. He also destroyed a Gypsy village (Qawliya) for immorality back in 2004. His mob leveled the town with machine guns, RPG's, and mortars when the village refused to give up a woman to stand trial for prostitution in Sadr's kangaroo religious court. An excellent dossier on all his Sadrmizing can be found in, of all places, Newsweek.

This murdering thug must not be allowed to return to a place of public power and respectability in Iraq.

UPDATE: CAPTION MOOKIE!
e.g., "We must sit on the American Infidels and crush them beneath our enormous Islamic butt!"

Posted by: seedubya at 04:03 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

By Matt from WMD:

From Reuters:

Kuwait's parliament passed a law on Monday granting women the right to vote and run in elections, for the first time in the pro-Western Gulf Arab state.

Kuwaiti women lining the podium burst into cheers when parliament speaker Jassim al-Khorafi said the legislation had been passed by a majority of the all-male parliament to grant full suffrage to women.

"We made it. This is history," said prominent activist Roula al-Dashti. "Our target is the parliamentary polls in 2007. I'm starting my campaign from today," she told reporters.

There were 35 in favor, 23 against, and one abstention on the vote that had met fierce resistance from Islamists and other MPs.

This is a step in the right direction for the Middle East.

Does anybody think this sort of thing would be happening if Saddam were still in power?

Visit Matt's home blog: Weapons of Mass Discussion

Posted by: MattWMD at 12:41 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

By Matt from WMD:

The word has been tossed about with little regard for what it actually means and for purposes both sacred and profane, but what does it really mean to be a patriot?

Most people confuse patriotism with nationalism, which couldn't be further from the definition of actual patriotism if it were spoken on another planet. George William Curtis:

A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains and rivers and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.

Allegiance to the land is not patriotism. One of the greatest statements of patriotism is the Pledge of Allegiance wherein we express our loyalty to the Republic for which the flag represents. Our Republic is more than just the land: it includes our system of laws which provides for our civil rights, and our way of life as revealed in the promise of the American Dream. more...

Posted by: MattWMD at 09:09 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 760 words, total size 5 kb.

by Demosophist

On Bill Maher tonight I heard the host say something to the effect that "Well yeah, Bush had a list of reasons for invading Iraq and about the fourth one down had to do with regime change to rid the people of that brutal murderous dictator. But he obviously lied about everything else." And a similar bit of dissembling wisdom popped out the other night on Dennis Miller, from some panel guest whose name I have no good reason to recall. Well, I could waste time, as did David Horowitz on the Miller show, recounting how a lot of people made quite a big fuss about regime change and the "suffering of the Iraqi people." But I recall almost no one on the left saying anything like that, other than the usual suspects: Paul Berman (who wrote a book about it), Bernard Kouchner, and Chris Hitchens, as well as a few bloggers like Marc Danziger on Winds of Change. And all of those folks have subsequently been disowned and shunned by many of their ideological compatriots. more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:56 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 603 words, total size 4 kb.

Disclaimer: I'm not sure how Rusty feels about this issue, and for all I know we're diametrically opposed... so just make sure this post isn't attributed to him. I should also note that I'm not exactly a "liberal pushover." I believe, wholeheartedly, in the "ownership society." That said:

I'm sorry, but there's just something obscene about the way this Bankruptcy Bill is sailing to passage, without even token opposition from anyone. It seems almost self-evident to me that if it's such a walk in the park to file bankruptcy under current statute then the appropriate reaction from a responsible credit industry would be to... lend less, or at least cut the predatory lending, deception, etc.. That being the case, there's simply no way to interpret the desire to make bankruptcy as painful as having the skin stripped off your back by a cat-o-nine-tails (instead of just losing a hand or something), unless it's an over-arching GRUNCH (what R. Buckminster Fuller used to call the "Great Universal Cash Heist.") Gosh, you'd think that'd be a Democrat issue, right? I mean them being the guardians of the poor and disadvantaged and all.

We know how that worked out, for Iraq and the Middle East.
more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:11 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

By Demosophist

I've been thinking lately about the process of nation-building in Iraq and elsewhere, under the difficult conditions imposed by a vicious terrorist insurgency. The prospects for the enterprise sometimes seem as likely as the quest for the Philosopher's Stone, the mythical device that was supposed to turn "dross into gold." Somehow the transfer of legitimacy from an occupying power to a new liberal democratic government, in a recently totalitarian society, seems just as implausible, and valuable. Recently I compared this bit of alchemy to a famous cycling contest, between American Lance Armstrong and Italian Marco Pantani, up the slopes of the bleak and legendary Mont Ventoux. Cycling is such a rich mix of competition and cooperation that it often supplies useful analogies for political processes, and this particular contest seemed appropriate because it involved an attempt by Armstrong to "render the victory" to another rider, in order to obtain cooperation of that rider's team in a larger strategy. The attempt was unsuccessful for a number of reasons. more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 06:55 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1835 words, total size 12 kb.

1 two questions 1. was this your dissertation? 2, was it approved? You know how to wear a dumb exJarhead out! My eyes hurt. We have been, are and will win the War on Terror. Have faith

Posted by: Rod Stanton at March 06, 2005 06:48 AM (l5t6M)

2 Rod: But did you like the title?

Posted by: Demosophist at March 06, 2005 08:31 AM (Dfdj0)

3 OK I liked the title. I read the entire thing and you owe me for a new set of glasses. The title inttrigued me.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at March 06, 2005 08:07 PM (l5t6M)

4 Didn't Nietzche say something along the lines of "only a fool muddies his water?" 1) You state the obvious when you make the theoretical comment that Iraq will be able to handle itself when it has a population that supports its government and that (in theory) their military will be able to overcome the insurgency once they are better trained. Also, if there's anything we've learned in the last 30 years is that you can't apply western rationality in determining what will happen in the Middle East. Also, a bike race analogy (or any analogy) wasn't really necessary, and likely bored most readers (constant thesaurus perusal notwithstanding). 2) A well-trained military does not guarantee stability. See most South American countries. While I have hope it does, there is no empirical evidence that would suggest this is always the case. Opinions are one thing, but to create a mini-thesis without really backing up your argument with any kind of tangible evidence (save for a bike analogy you admit is inadequate) leaves a lot to be desired.

Posted by: Venom at March 07, 2005 10:53 AM (dbxVM)

5 1) You state the obvious when you make the theoretical comment that Iraq will be able to handle itself when it has a population that supports its government and that (in theory) their military will be able to overcome the insurgency once they are better trained. Actually, I said the inverse of that. This and your other comments reveal that you don't really understand the point I'm making, which is not about either an Iraqi or American victory over the insurgency (which is something I assume will happen) but what role that plays in establishing the legitimacy of the regime. Suggest you consult something like a political science dictionary or encyclopedia, and look up the term "legitimacy" or "legitimation." Especially "social legitimation." You might also take a look at Lipset's The First New Nation.

Posted by: Demosophist at March 07, 2005 03:05 PM (Dfdj0)

6 "Actually, I said the inverse of that." Hahaha, that's great...despite the fact that the legitimacy of a government increases quite highly with the support of its population (which can be even higher if said government defeats an insurgency), you're "saying the inverse" of that. And yet trying to play up the logical consequences of this "inverse" at the same time. Very deep and mysterious. "This and your other comments reveal that you don't really understand the point I'm making..." Maybe that means you need to put the thesaurus down? I'm sure most people miss the points you're trying to make on a regular basis. Not because you're smarter and they're dumber, mind you. There's something to be said for concise points that don't meander all over the place. Legitimacy is, obviously, a consequence of a population supporting its government. If a people support their government, regardless of the means that government attained power, it has legitimacy in the eyes of its population. So, no, I didn't miss your point. I just didn't think I needed to "legitimize" your post with any more incredibly obvious analysis. "Suggest you consult something like a political science dictionary or encyclopedia, and look up the term "legitimacy" or "legitimation."" Thanks teach. Will that give me the insightful powers you cast with every verbose-ridden post?

Posted by: Venom at March 07, 2005 03:26 PM (dbxVM)

7 Hahaha, that's great...despite the fact that the legitimacy of a government increases quite highly with the support of its population (which can be even higher if said government defeats an insurgency), you're "saying the inverse" of that. Yeah, without legitimacy it won't have any support, but that's the least of it. The regime simply won't exist for very long. "Support" is simply a matter of having popular policies, and so forth, which has very little to do with this. (That's a matter of administrations, rather than regimes, if you want to get technical.) Conceptually you're not even in the ball park. Anyway, Venon... what makes you think anyone would be much interested in what you have to say (apart from pointing out conceptual errors that might mislead others) since you have a universally negative opinion of everything? It'd be like building a house with a .357.

Posted by: Demosophist at March 07, 2005 05:18 PM (Dfdj0)

8 "without legitimacy it won't have any support, but that's the least of it. " And you say I'm not in the ballpark...you're trying to put the cart before the horse with this statement. Popular support gives legitimacy, not the other way around. Otherwise, Saddam would have had a very legitimate government. But hey, how about I try to keep the illumination of conceptual errors to a minimum? "Anyway, Venon... what makes you think anyone would be much interested in what you have to say since you have a universally negative opinion of everything?" I don't think anyone would care what I have to say. Remember, I'm not at the point where I feel vain enough to have a blog. If you write in a blog, you open yourself to comment and criticism. If you don't like it, don't post. Besides, if you're going to write a monolithic post, you might want to keep in mind who your audience is. At this point, I'd bet that the majority of people who see your name likely skip your posts because your choice of words make even the simplest of issues a tiresome game of "how many big words will Demosophist use this time?" At which point, you have to ask yourself are you writing for the benefit of others or for yourself. I'm guessing the latter. So, why do it publicly? Oh, and I don't have a universally negative opinion of everything. Just when I see things that I think a)need questioning, b)are so inherently stupid, they require comment, or c)are ignorant.

Posted by: Venom at March 07, 2005 06:16 PM (dbxVM)

9 And you say I'm not in the ballpark...you're trying to put the cart before the horse with this statement. Popular support gives legitimacy... I'd bother to explain this to you, but you're such a nasty fellow what's the point? Pupular support is just popular support. It has little to do with social legitimacy. Again, I suppose it's too much to ask you to have enough humility to decide you may not have this topic knocked... but a good starting point is Max Weber. That's not so much for you, because you're pretty much unreachable, but in case anyone else is interested.

Posted by: Demosophist at March 07, 2005 06:59 PM (Dfdj0)

10 Holy smokes, you could split hairs until the cows come home, couldn't you? "It's not this legitimacy, it's that legitimacy." C'mon, it's common sense. Popular support makes all the difference in determining a legitimate government. You trying to dismiss it is pretty closed-minded. Considering that was the basis of your entire "argument" suggests to me you failed. "That's not so much for you, because you're pretty much unreachable, but in case anyone else is interested." lol...I guess you just glossed over my other point in that most people don't read your posts? I'm not really unreachable, unless someone is trying to argue a point they 1)haven't backed up (see your post) or 2)is inherently wrong (see your post). Writing a post that you crafted with every conceivable adjective at your disposal doesn't make your post "right," by the way. It just shows a need to attempt to confuse the writer into thinking you know what you're talking about. By the way, I noticed you completely avoided any defense of my take on your need to write gigantic posts. Maybe I hit the nail on the head? Surely you have the "humility" to realize that?

Posted by: Venom at March 08, 2005 08:50 AM (dbxVM)

11 *...to confuse the READER into thinking...

Posted by: Venom at March 08, 2005 08:52 AM (dbxVM)

12 Venom I think he said "fouls his doorstep". As in dump.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at March 08, 2005 11:54 AM (l5t6M)

13 Could be, Rod (though the "fouls his doorstep" has more flair). Either way, the message is the same.

Posted by: Venom at March 08, 2005 02:27 PM (dbxVM)

14 Holy smokes, you could split hairs until the cows come home, couldn't you? How does your inability to recognize a rather commonplace, standard and obvious distinction become my "ability to split hairs?" Equating "popular support" with political legitimacy is like equating applesaunce with jet fuel, observing that they're both sources of energy. George Washington had enough "popular support" to be elected, but so did Grover Cleveland and Jimmy Carter. The latter contributed precisely nothing to the legitimacy of the nation, while Washington contributed (for all practical purposes) everything. And for all I know Cleveland and Carter got a higher percentage of the vote. Legitimacy isn't popular support. It just looks like it, to the ignorant. Legitimacy is what your parents earned by telling you "no,' when you needed to hear it, which obvioushly wasn't often enough.

Posted by: Demosophist at March 09, 2005 02:15 AM (Dfdj0)

15 See, this is the problem with your argument. You're interpretation of the social legitimacy (or lack thereof) of Jimmy Carter's presidency is simply that: your interpretation. Perhaps your interpretation of social legitimacy is based on whether or not the society in question has engaged in some kind of nation-building (which again opens up the question as to what you actually consider "nation-building"). The "fans" of Jimmy Carter - i.e. the people who voted him in - might argue that his presidency did provide value in a socially legitimate sense. The problem is that you're confusing "identity" for "legitimacy" (oh, and cute comeback you slid in at the end, btw. I'll give you a free pass in the psychoanalysis, but I've got a few theories of mine own regarding your own upbringing). His presidency may not have contributed to the nation's identity in the same sense Washington's did, but is was legitimate in a social sense. If you were to argue that the Iraqis are in danger of losing their new identity without the efforts of the U.S. and its coaltion, I'd agree with you. However, this new country is still going to be socially legitimate with or without the U.S.'s help as long as the majority of Iraqis support whoever is elected. It's them, not you (or the U.S.) who defines the social legitimacy of their country. You're attempting to place your viewpoints (or those you subscribe to) as some kind of blueprint as to whether or not their country will be socially legitimate, while in fact its their perceptions that define what's legitimate or not. Their collective (read: majority) perceptions will define all of this. As such, their popular support plays a far greater role than you wish to admit.

Posted by: Venom at March 09, 2005 10:09 AM (dbxVM)

16 I'm really not going to belabor this topic any more, because you're apparently not even interested enough in learning or comprehension to bother to look up the concept somewhere (like Weber ferinstance). But suffice to say it's not "my definition" that's idiosyncratic, it's yours.

Posted by: Demosophist at March 09, 2005 10:54 AM (Dfdj0)

17 Thank you, because this exchange was becoming as boring as your post. The best part, though, is that you actually didn't prove a thing within your post, and like most wannabe philosophers can't back up shite.

Posted by: Venom at March 10, 2005 10:43 AM (dbxVM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

by Demosophist

A link to an article in a left-leaning paper, in a left-leaning area of a left-leaning country, sent to me today by a left-leaning friend. In his words: "All I want is a good outcome. I don't have to have been right."

Admit It: Bush Was Right About Iraq. Excerpt:

But on the defining, fundamental question, Bush was right.

He understood that to defeat an idea, no matter how perverse and brutal it might be, it was necessary to have an opposite and superior idea.

He understood, in other words — instinctively rather than intellectually — that the only way to win a war against terrorism was to turn it into a war for democracy.

This is now happening. Against the quest of ordinary Iraqis for dignity and self-respect and freedom, the terrorists in Iraq had nothing ultimately to offer, except blood and hatred.

(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia and Anticipatory Retaliation)

Posted by: Demosophist at 05:02 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

by Demosophist

Today, during a discussion on Fox News about the Iraq Election Moira Liasson objected to Brit Hume's contention that many people had been habitually skeptical about the odds of establishing a legitimate democracy in Iraq. Moira allowed that this just wasn't so, and that although many people had expressed skepticism about the details of the Bush plan nearly everyone had always had faith in the "will of all people to be free." Well, I can't speak for Liasson, nor do I know what she thought back then, but it seems to me her memory may be a bit "selective." Frankly, I don't know anyone who has more credibility with political sociologists on the topic of democratization than Amitai Etzioni, and over a year ago, back in November, 2003, I posted a comment to his blog post A Sociologist's Iraqi Exit Strategy. For documentation purposes you can find the original here, along with his response, but it's reproduced below for the sake of convenience: more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 09:28 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 834 words, total size 5 kb.

by Demosophist

A recent installment of The Belmont Club on a "colonial corps" had a reference to Sam Huntington's speech on a "great awakening" in the US, and his thesis that the greatest ideological force in the world today is God. This, from a Harvard professor. His perspective, however, isn't as a religionist but as a sociologist and political scientist. I wrote a piece several years ago, on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attack, about a "tidal wave" of totalitarianism in the Middle East traveling, mostly unnoticed, toward landfall. It's somewhat ironic to think about that wave analogy now. The term "tidal wave" is slightly misleading, because it really has nothing to do with the lunar tides, but is "tidal" in the sense of being a sudden change in sea level as a result of a shift in the earth itself. One might call it an "earth tide," or a "quake wave." I therefore reasoned that it was a good analogy to what had happened to the Middle East where subterranean pressures had built up over centuries and had finally resulted in a paradigmatic shift in the culture. And I reasoned that the only way to deal with the consequences of that shift, analogous to the rise of the Nazis in the early 1930s, was to create a "counter-wave." In terms of the jihadist movement a liberal/democratic vanguard to counter their Qutbist vanguard. more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 10:09 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 783 words, total size 5 kb.

After the Bush administration pledged $15 million in immediate relief aid for tsunami victims and directed the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to send a 21-member disaster-relief team to the region, the Norwegian-born UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland said the U.S. is stingy and should raise taxes to give more.

Thanks for the suggestion, Mr. Egeland. In return I'd like to suggest you have your entire paycheck donated to relief efforts. It's also worth mentioning that if you're attempting to rekindle an American fondness for the UN, you are going at it all wrong. Let the American people decide what our taxes should be. The next time you want to weigh in on U.S. tax policy, with all due respect, put a sock in it.

[Update] From a commenter, those interested in relaying some pleasantries to Mr. Jan Egeland, his phone and fax numbers are displayed here.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 08:36 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

As much criticism as I've leveled at both Kofi Annan and the United Nations, I feel I should present a story that is positive towards Annan because at times I've been too critical of the oil-for-food swindler.

WASHINGTON - President Bush took a condolence call Thursday from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who said he mourned the loss of more than 20 people in an apparent suicide attack at a U.S. military outpost in Mosul, Iraq.

A kind gesture of goodwill between Annan and President Bush is nice to hear, but for those words to resonate with Americans Annan needs to back his wording with action.

Cross-posted at In the Bullpen

Posted by: Chad at 02:34 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 2 kb.