Left's Cross

As you can tell by the lack of blogging, I’ve lost much interest…apathy is a drag.

Even Bush’s domestic spying didn’t draw my ire…. But leave it to Robert Dreyfuss to bring me out of my funk.

I’ve often heard from the Right how the Left is nothing but negative in their out look of life in general. I’ve often thought that was not an untrue statement…but tonight, it became clear just how negative the Left is by Dreyfuss’ column.

They hope all fail…which brings them joy.

French Hypocrisy

France is getting a taste of what they’ve been fermenting. Moonbat Central leads to a New York Sun article nicely pointing out the hypocrisy of the French. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of folks.

One thing pointed out in the Sun article:

A number of observers of the French scene have looked at population trends and suggested that France is on its way to becoming a Muslim country (one that would, let it be noted, be armed with hydrogen bombs).

Nice thought, eh?

Sharia Justice

Now, I know the USA is not to be referenced when dealing with humane justice with juveniles. Although I may think 13 – 14 yr olds know right from wrong, I don’t think they should be tried as adults…

That being said, I surely don’t think Sharia law is the answer either…check out the justice for an eight yr old caught stealing bread.

Note: site was shut down due to traffic, but thanks to Orbusmax.

Sad from the land of zombies

Sad from the land of zombies…

Far Left are just as wacked as the Far Right.

Thanks to Orbusmax

Zionist forewarned

OK, so tell me again why we shouldn't defend Israel?

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said.

Talk about little penis syndrome . . .

Being the General

And here I like William Wallace...

King Edward I You scored 62 Wisdom, 73 Tactics, 52 Guts, and 50 Ruthlessness!

Or rather, King Edward the Longshanks if you've seen Braveheart. You, like Edward, are incredibly smart and shrewd, but you win at any costs.... William Wallace died at his hands after a fierce Scottish rebellion against his reign. Despite his reputation though, Longshanks had the best interests of his people at heart. But God help you if you got on his bad side.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 40% on Unorthodox You scored higher than 60% on Tactics You scored higher than 41% on Guts You scored higher than 61% on Ruthlessness

Link: The Which Historic General Are You Test written by dasnyds on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

Coptic Troubles

Another fine entry from Wretchard on the West's perception of Christianity in Egypt.

Young Singers Spread Racist Hate

This is sad . . . once again, young minds fill with crap. But it’s no different than young rappers spewing sexist, gangsta garbage. This is the same mind set which punishes young bright minds, being ridiculed as Uncle Toms for using their minds.

Presidential Ratings

I don't really put much faith in polls these days since it seems America is so polarized these days, but I did find this article rather interesting.

Data from six polling organizations in October show an average of 39.5 percent job approval for Bush.

But according to the Gallup Organization, that's a higher mark than the low points for all commanders in chief dating back to Lyndon Johnson in the mid 1960s.

The low points for recent commanders in chief are as follows:

Bill Clinton: 37 percent George H. W. Bush: 29 percent Ronald Reagan: 35 percent Jimmy Carter: 28 percent Gerald Ford: 37 percent Richard Nixon: 24 percent Lyndon Johnson: 35 percent To find presidents with higher low-point approval ratings than Bush, one has to go back to John Kennedy at 56 percent, and Dwight Eisenhower at 48 percent.

UN controls the WWW

Sorry for my extended absence. I’ve been burnt on Politics, so I just haven’t had the heart to comment on all the BS.

But I stumbled on this tonight and felt compelled to comment.

[Dave] Hendon is the Department for Trade and Industry's director of business relations and was in Geneva representing the UK government and European Union at the third and final preparatory meeting for next month's World Summit on the Information Society. He had just announced a political coup over the running of the internet.

Old allies in world politics, representatives from the UK and US sat just feet away from each other, but all looked straight ahead as Hendon explained the EU had decided to end the US government's unilateral control of the internet and put in place a new body that would now run this revolutionary communications medium.

[…]

A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused. The meeting "was going nowhere", Hendon says, and so the EU took a bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide public policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that would be in overall charge.
Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that went against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of the internet.
But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.
While I find the ‘principle’ of the UN an altruistic ideal, it’s just like Communism.  It looks good on paper, but is unmanageable by humans. I cannot imagine the bureaucratic morass the Internet will be imbroiled in  if the UN is in control of the WWW.

Cindy's World

I don't have much use for Cindy Sheehan these days. She's become a cariacture of what she once was. Strata-Sphere has been able to pick up on the latest wackiness coming out of her mouth.

The people in LA who were displaced have nice, if modest homes that are perfectly fine. I wonder why the government made them leave at great expense and uproot families who have been living in their communities for generations.

To save them from the flood waters and storm surge??? Am I close?

After we arrived at Camp Casey III, we took the Veterans for Peace “Impeachment Tour Bus” into New Orleans after stopping at the distribution center to pick up some supplies in Covington.

Sheehan’s Impeach Bush gang took supplies supposedly for those in need in a disaster zone the size of Britain???

Even though Algiers came through Katrina relatively unscathed, our federal government tried to force (mostly successfully) the people out of the community.

Cindy, the Mayor and Governor ordered the evacuation. The Feds just supply the transportation and needed supplies. This women is dense.

They didn’t want to go to the Superdome, because their homes were pretty intact: they wanted to stay and have food and water brought to them.

They wanted door-to-door catering service??? I do too, come to think about it.

When I think of how many other poor neighborhoods are being decimated and made so desperate and hopeless by the failed policies of the Bush administration, it makes me so angry.

Cindy, you are aware a hurricane hit the place - not Bush’s policies???

One thing that truly troubled me about my visit to Louisiana was the level of the military presence there. I imagined before that if the military had to be used in a CONUS (Continental US) operations that they would be there to help the citizens: Clothe them, feed them, shelter them, and protect them. But what I saw was a city that is occupied. I saw soldiers walking around in patrols of 7 with their weapons slung on their backs. I wanted to ask one of them what it would take for one of them to shoot me. Sand bags were removed from private property to make machine gun nests.

Imagine? This woman should never ‘imagine ‘because it simply illustrates that there is a fairly simple mind at work.

When our fellow citizens are told to “shoot to kill” other fellow citizens because they want to stay alive, that is military and governmental fascism gone out of control.

This moonbat is over the edge. I guess she thinks police should not shoot people either - since the National Guard, in these kinds of situations, are being used as police resources. This woman is clueless.

Tens of thousands of families in our country have been devastated because of the incompetence and callousness of our so-called leadership.

Cindy wonders why no one waves the magic wand that puts it all right again, just like on TV. Cindy cannot understand how we could not have stopped the hurricane with our mighty force fields…..

George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power.

This women is nuts.

I couldn't agree more.

Katrina

I’ve been just amazed with all that Katrina has wrought. I’ve been reticent in responding to the devastation and assistance for several reasons. Foremost being, not all the facts were in.

First, I think the primary fault squarely fall on the shoulders of three people: New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and finally FEMA Director Michael D. Brown. All three should be held accountable.

Second, while I think Pres. Bush was 24hrs too slow in his response, I think that had to do with poor information not a ‘lack of compassion’ for the poor.

Finally, this was an absolute embarrassment, an entire breakdown of emergency management. We’ve know for decades the probability of the devastation awaiting New Orleans. So, this is not Bush’s fault. It’s the entire bureaucratic morass which is too be blamed. How can FEMA not have food and water ready? We knew for days the storm was coming.

From WaPo:
Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday.
The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. Some officials in the state suspected a political motive behind the request. "Quite frankly, if they'd been able to pull off taking it away from the locals, they then could have blamed everything on the locals," said the source, who does not have the authority to speak publicly.
A senior administration official said that Bush has clear legal authority to federalize National Guard units to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act and will continue to try to unify the chains of command that are split among the president, the Louisiana governor and the New Orleans mayor.
Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said. As of Saturday, Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency, the senior Bush official said.
And this from FEMA Director Michael D. Brown:
Brown, a frequent target of New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin's wrath, said Saturday that "the mayor can order an evacuation and try to evacuate the city, but if the mayor does not have the resources to get the poor, elderly, the disabled, those who cannot, out, or if he does not even have police capacity to enforce the mandatory evacuation, to make people leave, then you end up with the kind of situation we have right now in New Orleans."
New Orleans City Council President Oliver Thomas acknowledged that the city was surprised by the number of refugees left behind, but he said FEMA should have been prepared to assist.
"Everybody shares the blame here," said Thomas. "But when you talk about the mightiest government in the world, that's a ludicrous and lame excuse. You're FEMA, and you're the big dog. And you weren't prepared either."
In Baton Rouge, Blanco acknowledged Saturday: "We did not have enough resources here to do it all. . . . The magnitude is overwhelming."
State officials had planned to turn to neighboring states for help with troops, transportation and equipment in a major hurricane. But in Katrina's case, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida were also overwhelmed, said Denise Bottcher, a Blanco spokesman.
Eu Rota has a good response to some issues brought forth by the anti-Bushies.
The Left in the US seems determined to find any angle (ranging from the irrational to the psychotic) to pin the blame of the devastating Hurricane Katrina on President Bush. They have tried so far: the global warming caused it angle, strike one; not enough Louisiana National Guard troops due to the war in Iraq, strike two; now, Bush cut money earmarked for flood control due to the war in Iraq, hopefully strike three.
It think it boils down to FEMA’s Brown is political crony ill prepared to run this vital office. He must go.

Darfur

Darfur. What does that mean to you? Or better yet, DOES it mean anything to you?

Here’s an excellent article on what’s happening in Darfur. I was not sold on the Oil for Slaughter version before reading this. I’m still not sold 100%, but David Morse makes an excellent argument.

My belief of the inattentive concern for Darfur, as well as what happened in Rwanda, boils down to pure racism. It may not be an acknowledged racism, but it’s there none the less. Euro-centric folks have always had this paternalistic attitude toward Africa. It was one of the driving factors of the colonialism of Africa in the 19th century. Can you think of another reason for the First World’s lack of concern for the slaughter? Remember the horror of Bosnia? All the while, Rwanda was occurring.

Miscarriage of Justice

All I can say is Oh My God!!! What in the world just happened?? Two illegal aliens steal into this country, are apprehended by a militia group, and according to them:

The immigrants also said that the group gave them cookies, water and a blanket and let them go after an hour or so.

Of course, that was after they may have been roughed up a wee bit . . .

Mancia and Leiva were caught on a ranch in Hebbronville, Texas, in March 2003 by Nethercott and other members of Ranch Rescue. The two immigrants later accused Nethercott of threatening them and of hitting Mancia with a pistol.

But give them the manÂ’s property?!?!?

The immigrants said the ordeal had left them with post-traumatic stress.

Post-traumatic stress? How do they know it wasn't caused by the "coyotes"?

But still, give them the man's ranch???? They're ILLEGAL after all.

Now, I respect Morris Dees for what he did to the Aryan Nation up in Idaho, but to call this “poetic justice” after representing these ILLEGAL immigrants, is a miscarriage of justice

Ted Rall

I’ve NEVER been a Ted Rall fan. Some of his work is just revolting. However…..this article doesn’t leave me much to argue with and that’s disturbing. I still think he’s an ass.

Shame

As the few of you know, I’m in the Healthcare business and THIS is why I HATE insurance companies. I truly feel for these folks.

RU-486

I’ve always been a strong proponent of RU-486 and have NEVER understood Pro-Lifers opposition.  I’m not interested in their moral obligation to women; they’re never on good footing with me anyway. But INDC’s got a great (and lengthy) article rebuffing Michelle Malkin’s feeble attempt at demonizing RU-486 on a logical and statistical level. Well done, Bill.

Clintons Fantasy

I was doing the daily Daou crawl when I came upon this unbelievable nugget from Neal Boortz. I couldn’t believe it at first.

Now, I’ve never been a Clinton basher as I’ve indicated in previous posts. I thought he was alright, but just made some poor choices. Unfortunately, he wasn’t truthful when it came down to “it” and it caused us all grief. But this…

Ex-president Bill Clinton now says he would have taken out Osama bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks – if only the FBI and CIA had been able to prove the al-Qaida mastermind was behind the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.
"I desperately wish that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole," Clinton tells New York magazine this week. "Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early."
"I don’t know if it would have prevented 9/11," he added. "But it certainly would have complicated it.”
Despite his failure to launch such an attack, Clinton said he saw the danger posed by bin Laden much more clearly than did President Bush.
"I always thought that bin Laden was a bigger threat than the Bush administration did," he told New York magazine.

Bush is renowned for neither apologizing nor acknowledging errors – Stubborn Ass!! But please read this and TELL ME Clinton is NOT living in a fantasy world!!! Where as Bush is a stubborn, principled fool, Clinton is an unprincipled and insecure fool. His credo is “someone like me, please. Anyone?!?”

Moral Vacancy?

Once again, sorry for the lack of posting. I'’m working from home now and having to fight the blahs.

I'’ve been checking out the Daou Report'’s daily stream as usual. Like quite a few, I''m not overly impressed with Mother Sheehan, but donÂ’t doubt her right to protest. I just think this is all rather tacky. She'’s become somewhat of a caricature of herself. I read the newspaper article often quoted by both sides and she did have some rather pleasant comments for Pres Bush which she now recants. But now sheÂ’s out to embarrass him. Tacky. . .

But what has left me aghast is an article on Leiter Reports from E.L. Doctorow. I'’m left almost speechless in its audacity. For Doctorow, profess to "‘know"’ what Bush thinks, feels and means in his actions (or inactions). I'’m not a big fan of Bush, but this is ridiculous . . .

I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

There's more but I just can't... Discourse is lost in America today.

From A to B to G

I’ve always been intrigued by the Left’s view of America’s actions toward North Korea, especially during Bush’s regime. They seem to lay the sole blame of NK’s nuclear development at the feet of Bush. I find that extremely disingenuous (aka a lie!!) What in the hell do they think their ‘Savoir’ Bill Clinton did for eight years? Keep them in “developmental lock-down”? A Pandora’s Box just waiting for an incompetent boob to unleash to the world? Please….

A nuclear program just doesn’t pop up over night. So this tells the world NK was playing the Clinton Admin as fools, while stringing them along. But don’t try to tell that to the Left. They feel the whole NK development program is the fault of the Bush Admin.

Make no mistake; I’ve never disparaged the Clinton Admin in any of my rants. I thought he was a rather decent President. I didn’t agree with some of his plans, but I thought he was better than Bush I and Carter combined.

So, it was something to stumble upon this article by Sue Raging Roz during my Daou feed this evening. The title was US Backing off on North Korea. And her lead before the NY Times/International Herald Tribune article was:

Are there other fish to fry or is the Bush administration finally clueing in to the complexities of the situation over there?

Yet, the entire block is such a harsh break from the standard US policy (/sarcasm):

BEIJING The six-nation talks on the North Korean nuclear crisis opened here Tuesday with the top American negotiator stating that the United States recognized the sovereignty of the North Korean government as a "matter of fact" and had "absolutely no intention" of launching a military attack against the Stalinist regime.

The American envoy, Christopher Hill, also appeared to suggest that the United States would be amenable to a step-by-step process under which North Korean concessions would be met by rewards from the United States and other participants in the talks.

He described the approach as "words for words and actions for actions" - language that seemed to signal a softer line compared with earlier days, when the Bush administration demanded that North Korea must first dismantle its nuclear program before the United States would offer any direct aid or other benefits. Washington has already said it would send 50,000 tons of food aid to North Korea through the United Nations.

So, let me get this straight…. If we play extreme hard ball, we are thought of as evil villains who are unyielding in our own ‘principles’, yet if we show negotiating skills we are thought of as going “soft” on the issue.

Can you say “political pettiness” five times quickly?

Roberts / Scalia / Morality

What a Trinity!?!?!?
I was doing my daily Daou Report feed this evening. Most of the gak I just skimmed and deleted; far more Left Wing drivel than ususal today. However...I came across an intriguing article which I always find appealing.

Ann Althouse has an article I had to spend half the time reading out loud. It also reminded me why I could only stomach on semester of pre-law.

It seems Jonathan Turley wrote an article which Ann refers to in which Sen. Durbin asked an ambiguous question on how Roberts would react "if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral":

Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself...

Roberts could now face difficult questions of fitness raised not only by the Senate but by his possible colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the court (and a devout Catholic). Last year, Scalia chastised Catholic judges who balk at imposing the death penalty — another immoral act according to the church: "The choice for a judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty."

As mentioned in previous entries, I'm a practicing, not ncecessarily Christian non-Catholic...meaning I attend Catholic chruch every Sunday yet am unable to partake in Communion. Yet I find it fascinating when devout Christians (or any other faith for that matter) choose when to play the faith card against when the Govt or State rules. After all didn't Christ state, 'render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and unto God that which is God's'.

Yet, here's Scalia's argument on why it's ok to support State rights (yet over turn Federal law) on Choice (vis a vie abortion), yet uphold State execution...How do these jive with his staunch Catholic beliefs???

Capital cases are much different from the other life-and-death issues that my Court sometimes faces: abortion, for example, or legalized suicide. There it is not the state of which I am, in a sense, the last instrument that is decreeing death, but rather private individuals whom the state has decided not to restrain.

One may argue, as many do, that the society has a moral obligation to restrain them. That moral obligation may weigh heavily upon the voter and upon the legislator who enacts the laws, but a judge, I think, bears no moral guilt for the laws society has failed to enact.

My difficulty with Roe v. Wade is a legal rather than a moral one. I do not believe – and no one believed for 200 years – that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. And if a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would and could in good conscience vote against an attempt to invalidate that law, for the same reason that I vote against invalidation of laws that contradict Roe v. Wade; namely, simply because the Constitution gives the federal government and, hence, me no power over the matter.

With the death penalty, on the other hand, I am part of the criminal law machinery that imposes death, which extends from the indictment to the jury conviction to rejection of the last appeal. I am aware of the ethical principle that one can give material cooperation to the immoral act of another when the evil that would attend failure to cooperate is even greater: for example, helping a burglar to tie up a householder where the alternative is that the burglar will kill the householder.

I doubt whether that doctrine is even applicable to the trial judges and jurors, who must themselves determine that the death sentence will be imposed. It seems to me those individuals are not merely engaged in material cooperation with someone elseÂ’s action, but are themselves decreeing, on behalf of the state, death.

The same is true of appellate judges. In those states where they are charged with re-weighing the mitigating and aggravating factors and determining de novo whether the death penalty should be imposed, they are themselves decreeing death, whereas in the case of the federal system, the appellate judge merely determines that the sentence pronounced by the trial court is in accordance with law, perhaps the principle of material cooperation could be applied. But as I have said, that principle demands that the good deriving from the cooperation exceed the evil which is assisted. I find it hard to see how any appellate judge could find this condition to be met unless he believes retaining his seat on the bench, rather than resigning, is somehow essential to preservation of the society, which is of course absurd. As Charles de Gaulle is reported to have remarked when his aides told him he could not resign as president of France because he was the indispensable man: “Mon ami, the cemeteries are full of indispensable men.”

I pause at this point to call attention to the fact that, in my view, the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply those laws, and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course, if he feels strongly enough, he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty, and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do....

This dilemma, of course, need not be faced by proponents of the living Constitution who believe that it means what it ought to mean. If the death penalty is immoral, then it is surely unconstitutional, and one can continue to sit while nullifying the death penalty. You can see why the living Constitution has such attraction for us judges.

It is a matter of great consequence to me, therefore, whether the death penalty is morally acceptable, and I want to say a few words about why I believe it is....

The Day the Earth Stood Still

All I can say is OMG!!!

The Seattle Times, a bastion of Liberalism, has seen a great injustice wrought upon the citizens of Washington. An injustice brought upon us by the friends and allies of the Times, yet the Times is willing to call them out...and call them out they did!!!!

In failing to police the Legislature's promiscuous declarations of emergency, the Washington Supreme Court has failed to protect the rights of the people.

[...]

The state constitution gives voters the right of referendum on any new law except for "such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions."

[...]

The purpose of the referendum power is to limit the power of legislators to pass unpopular laws. The emergency clause should allow for a handful of exceptions only. When the Legislature declares emergencies dozens of times in every session — 98 times this past spring — it is limiting the people's right to challenge its decisions.

What the state needed from the court was a statement of its own responsibility and a standard for sorting the fake emergencies from the real ones. What we got was a statement that pretty much anything can be an emergency if the Legislature says it is.

Perhaps the people need a constitutional amendment to clarify what is an emergency or require that all declarations of emergency have a two-thirds vote.

This last paragraph is just amazing coming from the likes of the Seattle Times!!

(tip: Orbusmax)

bin Laden and Iraq date to 1998 and VDH Post

I've never been one of those who was wed to the bin Laden/Saddam threat. I felt while Saddam was a 'threat', it was a contrived association. I had no doubt Saddam harbored and supported terrorism, from Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas to paying blood money for Palestinian suicide bombers. Thanks to Power Line, there's video from ABC News dating back to 1998 which showed a direct link btwn bin Laden and Saddam!! Yet, there's not been a peep about this from ABC or any other 'credible' news site much less the wingnut sites of the Left.

UPDATE: Michael Totten blogs an exact entry!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another fine bit of work from Victor Davis Hanson.

Ever since September 11, there has been an alternative narrative about this war embraced by the Left. In this mythology, the attack on September 11 had in some vague way something to do with American culpability.

Either we were unfairly tilting toward Israel, or had been unkind to Muslims. Perhaps, as Sen. Patty Murray intoned, we needed to match the good works of bin Laden to capture the hearts and minds of Muslim peoples.

The fable continues that the United States itself was united after the attack even during its preparations to retaliate in Afghanistan. But then George Bush took his eye off the ball. He let bin Laden escape, and worst of all, unilaterally and preemptively, went into secular Iraq — an unnecessary war for oil, hegemony, Israel, or Halliburton, something in Ted Kennedy’s words “cooked up in Texas.”

In any case, there was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam, and thus terrorists only arrived in Iraq after we did.

That tale goes on. The Iraqi fiasco is now a hopeless quagmire. The terrorists are paying us back for it in places like London and Madrid.

Being in the Puget Sound, I remember the outrage Sen. Murray expressed at the airing of her bit on how bin Laden has done so much for Muslims. There was no 'out of context' possiblitiy since the entire episode was aired. Yet, she cried foul and blamed the 'Right' for trying to 'twist' her words.

Prior to 9/11, the United States had given an aggregate of over $50 billion to Egypt, and had allotted about the same amount of aid to Israel as to its frontline enemies. We had helped to save Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, and Afghanistan, and received little if any thanks for bombing Christian Europeans to finish in a matter of weeks what all the crack-pot jihadists had not done by flocking to the Balkans in a decade.

Long before Afghanistan and Iraq, bin Laden declared war on America in 1998, citing the U.N. embargo of Iraq and troops in Saudi Arabia; when those were no longer issues, he did not cease, but continued his murdering. He harbored a deep-seated contempt for Western values, even though he was eaten within by uncontrolled envy and felt empowered by years of appeasement after a series of attacks on our embassies, bases, ships, and buildings, both here and abroad.

And to think we still give so much to so many ungreatful...

Neither bin Laden nor his lieutenants are poor, but like the Hamas suicide bombers, Mohammed Atta, or the murderer of Daniel Pearl they are usually middle class and educated — and are more likely to hate the West, it seems, the more they wanted to be part of it. The profile of the London bombers, when known, will prove the same.

The poor in South America or Africa are not murdering civilians in North America or Europe. The jihadists are not bombing Chinese for either their godless secularism or suppression of Muslim minorities. Indeed, bin Laden harbored more hatred for an America that stopped the Balkan holocaust of Muslims than for Slobodan Milosevic who started it.

VDH talks about the Western Liberals need for appeasement almost as a guilt complex. Guilt at our own success and affluence.

Our first hindrance is moral equivalence. For the hard Left there is no absolute right and wrong since amorality is defined arbitrarily and only by those in power.

Taking back Fallujah from beheaders and terrorists is no different from bombing the London subway since civilians may die in either case. The deliberate rather than accidental targeting of noncombatants makes little difference, especially since the underdog in Fallujah is not to be judged by the same standard as the overdogs in London and New York. A half-dozen roughed up prisoners in Guantanamo are the same as the Nazi death camps or the Gulag.

Our second shackle is utopian pacifism — ‘war never solved anything’ and ‘violence only begets violence.’ Thus it makes no sense to resort to violence, since reason and conflict resolution can convince even a bin Laden to come to the table. That most evil has ended tragically and most good has resumed through armed struggle — whether in Germany, Japan, and Italy or Panama, Belgrade, and Kabul — is irrelevant. Apparently on some past day, sophisticated Westerners, in their infinite wisdom and morality, transcended age-old human nature, and as a reward were given a pass from the smelly, dirty old world of the past six millennia.

The third restraint is multiculturalism, or the idea that all social practices are of equal merit. Who are we to generalize that the regimes and fundamentalist sects of the Middle East result in economic backwardness, intolerance of religious and ethnic minorities, gender apartheid, racism, homophobia, and patriarchy? Being different from the West is never being worse.

These tenets in various forms are not merely found in the womb of the universities, but filter down into our popular culture, grade schools, and national political discourse — and make it hard to fight a war against stealthy enemies who proclaim constant and shifting grievances. If at times these doctrines are proven bankrupt by the evidence it matters little, because such beliefs are near religious in nature — a secular creed that will brook no empirical challenge.

I still have a Libertairian view on govt and life, but make no mistake - evil is evil in any culture, whether it's West or Muslim. Until the vast majority of decent Muslims take back control of their religion, they do not warrent our pity but should be ashamed.

London Bombings

I've withheld my thughts on the London Bombings until now...

I was appalled at the MSM incesent carping of 'no arrests yet'. Is it the US media approach to have immediate results or what?? I guess this is the price we pay for entertainment.

But Scotland Yard has done their due dilegence with identifiying the lost souls.

But the most telling line was from the Times of London:

The four were captured on CCTV cameras at King’s Cross Thameslink station, laughing together and carrying rucksacks, minutes before they set off for their targets at 8.30am on July 7.

So much for the innocent young boys who didn't know what they were doing!

Wretchard the Cat

My favorite web site is The Belmont Club. It is THE most insightful blog I've come across on both sides of the isle. The knowledge and vision is unsurpassed.

Today, Wretchard outed himself. I hope this was the correct decision. I feel his anonymity allowed him to truly speak the truth. I hope this will not affect his muses.

Another Episode in the War between Christendom and Islam

Bruce Thorton pens an insightful article at Victor Hansen's site on what we perceive of the Islamofacists' jihad.

Indeed, what we call Islamic radicals are in fact Islamic traditionalists; it is the so-called "“moderates", those wanting to compromise Islam so it can coexist with Western ideas such as secular government, separation of church and state, and human rights, who are the radicals and innovators. The terrorists are simply fulfilling the traditional and orthodox command of their religion to battle the infidels who resist the revelation of Mohammed and the global socio-political order mandated by Islam.

[...]

Yet listen to a respected historian in a conservative magazine: “Muslim holy wars (“jihads”), as taught in the Koran, were first and foremost a personal inner struggle for moral purity” and only secondarily a war against infidels. So all those Muslim armies that conquered the Christian Near East, North Africa, Egypt, Spain, Sicily, the Balkans, all that plunder, slaughter, rape, enslavement, kidnapping, and destruction were only the '“secondary'” jihad. How could such blindness to the obvious, masquerading as sophisticated '“tolerance',not arouse contempt in the minds of our adversaries? They tell us over and over that they are waging jihad in order to establish the global hegemony of Islam, and we tell ourselves that these Muslims don't understand their own religion. Millions and millions of Muslims all over the world cheer for the jihadists and support them materially and psychologically, millions idolize bin Laden and celebrate the murder of Westerners, but we tell ourselves that they are a minority of confused souls whose minds have been addled by poverty or autocracy or anger over the Palestinians.

[...]

The murderers we call terrorists are traditional jihadists, as much as were the first Islamic armies that swept away the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman civilizations of the Mediterranean. They are not going to be bought off with votes, a free press, more cable channels, Wal-Mart, or any other material good that to us constitutes the good life. They are fighting for a spiritual cause, the establishment of Islam as a global order in fulfillment of the will of Allah, and the reduction of all those who will not become Muslims to dhimmi, inferiors who acknowledge the superiority of Islam and the rightness of their subjection to it.

I really can't disagree with this train of thought. We in the West like to think others have the same thought process as us. We fail to understand all people are not Western-centric and do not have the same values. I draw a loose parallel to language. It's like trying to compare character based Eastern languages (Korean) to alpha based languages in the West. They require different regions of the brain. Thus our values may reside outside of what the Islamofacists will find acceptable to exist on planet Earth... It is OUR choice to live.

Latest Musings

Wow...That's all I can say for the past week, wow.

First, I was so happy for London to shaft Paris by being awarded the 2012 Olympic Game.

But that was tempered of course by the tragedy in London on July 7th. All I can say is the Islamofacists picked the wrong country this time...this isn't Spain.

But I did see a great article from the Sun documenting the acts of Terror since 1993. The only things missing are the acts of Terror against Israel and India.... What, those acts don't count???

Female Bombers

I don't know if you've seen the vid of 21-year-old, Wafa Samir al-Biss' failed homicide bombing attempt. I saw a couple of stills, but can't remember the site. But here is an outstanding article by Manuela Dviri on the women who have failed to murder Israelis. She's an amazing author who is a peace activist with street cred. Her son was murdered by Hizbollah rocket in 1998.

It was about midday when a young Palestinian woman from the refugee camp of Jabalya in Gaza approached an Israeli checkpoint clutching a special permit to visit a doctor on the other side of the border.The girl had big, brown eyes and her black hair was tied in a ponytail, but it was the strangeness of her gait that attracted the attention of the security officials at the Erez crossing, the main transit point between Israel and the Gaza Strip.

When a soldier asked her to remove her long, dark cloak, she turned to face him. All her movements were taped by the military surveillance camera at the checkpoint: calmly, deliberately, she took off her clothing, item by item, until she looked like any normal young woman in T-shirt and jeans. It was then that she tried to set off the belt containing 20lb of explosives hidden beneath her trousers. To her horror, she did not succeed. Desperate, she clawed at her face, screaming. She was still alive, she realised. She had failed her martyrdom mission.

What gets me is this chick was willing to blow up the hospital which treated and healed her, but even more disgusting was her desire to kill the innocent:

"My dream was to be a martyr. I believe in death," she said. "Today I wanted to blow myself up in a hospital, maybe even in the one in which I was treated. But since lots of Arabs come to be treated there, I decided I would go to another, maybe the Tel Hashomer, near Tel Aviv. I wanted to kill 20, 50 Jews …''

[...]

And what about babies? Would you have killed babies and children? she was asked. "Yes, even babies and children. You, too, kill our babies. Do you remember the Doura child?"

There are about 30 of these women whose homicide attempts were foiled, aborted or just given up.

Some of them did it to make amends for a relative who was a collaborator, others to escape becoming victims of honour killings, and for the psychologically frail or depressed it was a good way to commit suicide and at the same time become 'heroines'.

Her belief in the 'culture of death' is validated by this last statement - make amends for a collaborator and escape honor killings. I'm still, to this very day, absolutely amazed at their disregard for life...

But wait...

According to the Koran, male martyrs are welcomed to Paradise by 72 beautiful virgins. Ayat, as with many of the women she is incarcerated with, believes that a woman martyr "will be the chief of the 72 virgins, the fairest of the fair".

So, once again in a misogynistic egotism, the women will be the 'chief' whore for the men. I guess having 72 men service on woman would be more like rape. Oh wait, that happens here on earth.

I just don't get it. What kind of religion is this??? A religion of death...

Freedom and Liberty

My favorite blog site, The Belmont Club, by Wretchard has, as always, an interesting entry on Republican's usurping Jeffersonian freedom from the idealistic Democrats. He references an article by Michael Ignatieff in the New York Times .

Although Ignatieff plainly wants to see freedom spread, one of the sources of his unease is the role of God, or something like it, in the missionary endeavor. How much better it would be, he seems to ask, if any claims to universality or transcendence could be kept out it. Then we could bring the Europeans and the Canadians in on it.

This is where I personally have a problem with the Conservative wing of the Republican party. I'm not religious by any means, in fact I would describe myself (as in previous posts) as more of a spiritual philosopher attuned to Zen Buddhism. So when I hear the politicos talking about religion, I'm VERY concerned. Don't get me wrong. I don't give a sh*t about the Ten Commandments or even pray. Hell, I send my children to parochial school for goodness sakes!! But I do balk at the Righteousness of the Evangelical Right. I've known too many hypocritical pious jerks to swallow their crap without at first fighting my gag reflex.

Political Potpourri

Miss me? Sorry for the lack of posting, but the better half has pulled a yeoman's duty in assisting her mother in moving from her home of 25 yrs. So, while she's been doing her daughterly duty, I've kept the home front with the progeny.

So to get back up to speed, we'll keep it short and sweet:

>Dick Durbin is an absolute fool - I'm sorry. but to bring up the skeletons of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot even in the SAME BREATH as Gitmo shows NOTHING but partisanship. It is disgusting pure and simple. I may not agree with 40% of what the Bush admin does, but I will never vote again for the Dems if they continue to spew such vitriol.

>Rove's Rant - I'm sorry but did I miss something??? Didn't a large group of 'liberal' Democrats express just the sentiments Rove outlined? Didn't Atrios, Kos and others espouse just that?!?!? What about the wunder candate - Kerry? Please, just because your number two in the Senate, Durbin, makes an Ass of him self, don't think you once again have the moral equivalence....

>Supreme Court... Be afraid, be very afraid....

>So let me get this right. The Govt of 'State's Rights' re: Repubs, is flat out against State's Rights when it doesn't' meet their litmus test. Yet, the SCOTUS somehow, someway deigned in their wisdom to contrive a commercial product of something illegal in all but the most extreme circumstances...Medical Marijuana is a commercial product!?!?? So therefore can be regulated by the Federal Govt. Lord help us if and/or when abortion is overturned and sent back to the states. My guess is fetal material (Stem cells, DNA or hell, placentas) will be considered commercial material, thus regulated by Right-wingnuts.

>But wait, don't think the Right has a lock on the absurd. This next one is brought to us by the Left . . . The Kelo v. New London ruling left me absolutely speechless. . . . So, let's review. If a local govt deems a bit of property best suited for improvement for 'the better good of the local tax base', it can confiscate the property and basically give it to another PRIVATE entity for the purpose of increasing the revenue generated by that property. Does this raise alarms with anyone else? It better, this is one of our Constitutional foundations and it's been decimated by the Courts. This is not like freedom of Choice which is implied; this is a pillar of our Govt which has been ripped out!! I WILL take the extreme example and picture a local govt taking the waterfront/riverfront property and giving them pennies on the dollar, yet how do you compensate the view, the life of these people??

> And finally, SCOTUS decides file sharing is bad, cable sharing is bad but source sharing is required . . . and may women who file restraining orders be double afraid . . . jeez, this is all so frightening.

>But wait, there's more. From the Daou report, I linked to this from the Carpetbagger Report. This last year validates his supposition that Repubs are great at campaigning while the Dems are better at governing. Repubs are better in the Minority while the Dems do a better job in the majority. . . . Sorry, but I'm in agreement. Give me a Dem President and a Repub Congress ANY DAY! ! ! ! !

Iraq’s Jihad: Past as Prologue

We are now in the middle of a full-blown Jihad, that is to say we have against us the fiercest prejudices of a people in a primeval state of civilization.
Gertrude Bell, Baghdad, Iraq, September 5, 1920

OK, so today is not an original, but pls check out the fascinating reading Gertrude Bell edited by Andrew Bostom. What's that French saying 'the more things change, the more they stay the same...' I don't remember, but it was in a Rush song.

And Yes, I do believe a society of martyrs is primeval. But this does not bode well for the West.

The Horror of Bosnia

I can not express my disgust with the video I saw of some Serb punks toying with young Bosnians. I've seen many vids that are hard to watch, but not many compare with the gut-wrenching scenes of the impending executions. This almost made me physically ill. . . the anticipation . . . I hope they hang the animals who did this. THIS is what perpetuates the cycle of hate.

I hope they meet the same 'virgins' as the Islamofascits'.

Newscaster vs. Sportscaster

Keith Olberman was one of my favorite talkin' heads at ESPN until he thought he was bigger than all that. I've tried to watch his Countdown show a couple of times but thought it a bit much.

So, I've not given Olberman much of my time. Until now...

In surfin' today, there was much ado about the Newsweek fiasco. But what caught my eye was the dressing down of Scott McClellan by the media pool during today's briefing. I love the belligerence:

Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

I saw a bit of feed on PBS and just couldn't believe the tone, that was until I read Keith O's blog this evening.

Whenever I hear Scott McClellan talking about ‘media credibility,’ I strain to remember who it was who admitted Jeff Gannon to the White House press room and called on him all those times.

[...]

Whatever I smell comes from this odd sequence of events: Newsweek gets blasted by the White House, apologizes over the weekend but doesn't retract its story. Then McClellan offers his Journalism 101 outdoor seminar and blasts the magazine further. Finally, just before 5 p.m. Monday, the Dan Rather drama replaying itself in its collective corporate mind, Newsweek retracts.

I’m always warning about the logical fallacy — the illusion that just because one event follows another, the latter must have necessarily caused the former. But when I wondered tonight on Countdown if it applied here, Craig Crawford reassured me. “The dots connect.”

[...]

One of the most under-publicized analyses of 9/11 concludes that Osama Bin Laden assumed that the attacks on the U.S. would galvanize Islamic anger towards this country, and they'd overthrow their secular governments and woo-hoo we've got an international religious war. Obviously it didn't happen. It didn't even happen when the West went into Iraq. But if stuff like the Newsweek version of a now two-year-old tale about toilets and Qu’rans is enough to set off rioting in the streets of countries whose nationals were not even the supposed recipients of the ‘abuse’, then weren’t those members of the military or the government with whom Newsweek vetted the plausibility of its item, honor-bound to say “you can’t print this”?

Or would somebody rather play politics with this? The way Craig Crawford reconstructed it, this one went similarly to the way the Killian Memos story evolved at the White House. The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet — or has its proxies do it for them.

That’s beyond shameful. It’s treasonous.

Sorry, but what ever cred the big O had just went poof . . . and lastly, as proof, Keith goes after NeoCon windmills with this:

Firstly, the principal reporter on the Gitmo story was Michael Isikoff — “Spikey” in a different lifetime; Linda Tripp’s favorite journalist, and one of the ten people most responsible (intentionally or otherwise) for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Spikey isn’t just a hero to the Right — the Right owes him.

And larger still, in terms of politics, this isn't well-defined, is it? I mean Conservatives might parrot McClellan and say ‘Newsweek put this country in a bad light.’ But they could just as easily thump their chests and say ‘See, this is what we do to those prisoners at Gitmo! You guys better watch your asses!’

Islamic Reaction - a bit much, eh?

Miss me? Sorry it's been a while, but apathy reigns supreme with today's politics. From DeLay to Reid, I just don't give a rip.

Yet, I couldn't let the latest MSM flap go without comment. I'm not going to spend too much time on this since the fall out has yet to reach its climax. Suffice it to say Newsweek has entered that black hole from which few return. This saddens me since I happen to think Jon Meacham, some type of managing editor at Newsweek, is top notch with history.

So Newsweek acted foolishly by running with a blurb using only a single source, this is not the same as running something in the local rag implicating Uncle Steve with a drunken night of debauchery only to recant with a one liner saying 'oops, Uncle Steve was just cavorting with Aunt Betty in the back seat of the sedan. Sorry." The magnitude is not on the same level. Pls don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those espousing the WOT at every turn. In fact, I question the need to call it the War on Terrorism since we've had the War on Poverty, War of Drugs, et al and ad nausium, for the past 25 yrs. It just diminishes the importance. The WOT is more of a paradigm shift in attitude, one which Newsweek evidently hasn't caught on to.

It's one thing to disagree with whatever party is in power. It's another to willfully offer specious 'evidence' of an act which is inciteful. Yet, the mantel of 'fake but accurate' which we heard resonating from the CBS debacle, seems to be trying to take hold. The Raw Story is citing several detainees as implicating the US in the debasement of the Koran. Yet nothing can be substantiated. I'm sorry, but I don't trust a word those people say (then again I don't trust the govt, so I'm screwed, eh...)

For all the feigned anger emanating from the ME, I say 'screw `em!!'. Where was the outrage at Muslim desecration of the Church of the Nativity in April of 2002? ? ? ? Oh, wait... I think I hear it now. "It wasn't a true Muslim, it was just some fringe people." Please!!!

That same day, "More than 100 Palestinian gunmen...[including] soldiers and policemen, entered the Church of the Nativity on Tuesday, as Israeli troops swept into Bethlehem in an attempt to quell violence by Palestinian suicide bombers and militias."³⁴ The actual number of terrorists was between 150 and 180, among them prominent members of the Fatah Tanzim. As the New York Times put it, "Palestinian gunmen have frequently used the area around the church as a refuge, with the expectation that Israel would try to avoid fighting near the shrine" [emphasis added].³⁵

And in fact this was the case. The commander of the Israeli forces in the area asserted that the IDF would not break into the church itself and would not harm this site holy to Christianity. Israel also deployed more mature and more reserved reserve-duty soldiers in this sensitive situation that militarily called for more agile, standing-army soldiers.³⁶

On the other hand, the Palestinians did not treat it the same way. Not only did they take their weapons with them into the Church of the Nativity and fire, on occasion, from the church, but also reportedly booby-trapped the entrance to the church.³⁷

On April 7, "one of the few priests evacuated from the church told Israeli television yesterday that gunmen had shot their way in, and that the priests, monks and nuns were essentially hostages....The priest declined to call the clergy 'hostages,' but repeatedly said in fluent English: 'We have absolutely no choice. They have guns, we do not.'"³⁸

Christians clearly saw the takeover as a violation of the sanctity of the church. In an interview with CWNews, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican's Undersecretary of State and the top foreign-policy official, asserted that "The Palestinians have entered into bilateral agreements [with the Holy See] in which they undertake to maintain and respect the status quo regarding the Christian holy places and the rights of Christian communities. To explain the gravity of the current situation, let me begin with the fact that the occupation of the holy places by armed men is a violation of a long tradition of law that dates back to the Ottoman era. Never before have they been occupied - for such a lengthy time - by armed men."³⁹ On April 14, he reiterated his position in an interview on Vatican Radio.⁴⁰

On April 24, the Jerusalem Post reported on the damage that the PA forces were causing:

Three Armenian monks, who had been held hostage by the Palestinian gunmen inside Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, managed to flee the church area via a side gate yesterday morning. They immediately thanked the soldiers for rescuing them.
They told army officers the gunmen had stolen gold and other property, including crucifixes and prayer books, and had caused damage....
One of the monks, Narkiss Korasian, later told reporters: "They stole everything, they opened the doors one by one and stole everything....They stole our prayer books and four crosses...they didn't leave anything. Thank you for your help, we will never forget it."
Israeli officials said the monks said the gunmen had also begun beating and attacking clergymen.⁴¹

When the siege finally ended, the PA soldiers left the church in terrible condition:

The Palestinian gunmen holed up in the Church of the Nativity seized church stockpiles of food and "ate like greedy monsters" until the food ran out, while more than 150 civilians went hungry. They also guzzled beer, wine, and Johnnie Walker scotch that they found in priests' quarters, undeterred by the Islamic ban on drinking alcohol. The indulgence lasted for about two weeks into the 39-day siege, when the food and drink ran out, according to an account by four Greek Orthodox priests who were trapped inside for the entire ordeal....
The Orthodox priests and a number of civilians have said the gunmen created a regime of fear.
Even in the Roman Catholic areas of the complex there was evidence of disregard for religious norms. Catholic priests said that some Bibles were torn up for toilet paper, and many valuable sacramental objects were removed. "Palestinians took candelabra, icons and anything that looked like gold," said a Franciscan, the Rev. Nicholas Marquez from Mexico.⁴²

Now, I'm a firm believer in 'two wrongs don't make a right'. But let's get real. We have the word of some 'detainees' versus documented facts. Oh, let's not forget what those Taliban bastards did to the Buddhas in March of 2001!!

So I don't want to hear from the "Muslims in the street" on this one. Newsweek should be held liable for the deaths and suffer the consequenses. It's a shame, but when 'truth' is fabricated for the purpose of making the Administration of the day look bad, MSM and all of us are ill served.
(tips: Daou and LGF)

Sunni Apologist

Ya know, it never fails.... I'm in a funk and while perusing the blogsphere, come upon some major bullshit.

One of my favorite Sunni apologists, Juan Cole, has a protege, Baghdad Burning, who is quite amazing. She laments her poor life in post-Saddam all the while fretting the life in her view of a 'free Iraq'. It is a view of denial...one were the only perps are the evil Shia. Yet her blindness is enlightening with this piece of work. Where to start in this article? Let's start at the beginning, eh?

The Hostage Crisis...
I'm sure many people have been following the story of the moment in Iraq: Dozens of Shia hostages taken by Sunni insurgents in a town called Medain?

The first time we heard about it was a couple of days ago. I was watching the news subtitles on Arabiya but the subtitle was vague. It went something like this, "Sunni guerrillas capture 60 hostages in Iraqi town and will kill them if all Shia do not leave the town." It said nothing about which town it was, who the guerrillas claimed to be representing and just how the whole incident happened.

But I like the absolute denial:

The whole concept of a large number of Sunni guerrillas raiding the town and taking 60 – 150 of its members (including women and children) was bizarre, frightening and by the second day of the rumor, a little bit suspicious.

People in Baghdad didn't believe it. Most of them waved a hand dismissing the report and said, "They just want to raid Medain." It's a town that has been giving the Americans quite a bit of trouble this last year, a part of the Sunni Triangle . Many attacks were reported to have come from the area, but at the same time, it's not like Falloojeh, Samarra, or Mosul- it's half Shia. It wouldn't be as easy or politically correct to raid. [ed. emphasis!]

OK, here's the rest:

Yesterday, there were actually Shia demonstrators from the town claiming that the rumors were false and the town was peaceful and there was no need for a raid or for door-to-door checks.

The last few days, Iraqi officials have been on television claiming that the whole hostage situation was "under control" and things were going to be sorted out, except that apparently, there's nothing to sort out. There have been no reports of hostages, even from the majority of Shia residents themselves. Someone mentioned that it was possible a couple of people had been abducted, but it had nothing to do with Sunni guerrillas chasing out Shia.

Now, Associated Press is claiming,

"The confusion over Madain illustrated how quickly rumors spread in a country of deep ethnic and sectarian divides, where the threat of violence is all too real."

Uhm, no. Not really. See, this whole thing didn't start out as a rumor. Rumors come to you through actual people- the guy who brings you kerosene spreads rumors, that neighbor next door brings you rumors, the man you get your rations from spreads rumors. This came to us, very decidedly, from a news source. It first made its debut as breaking news and came from an "Iraqi Shia official who wished to remain unnamed". The official should have to answer to the rumor he handed over to the press.

And now…

Shiite leaders and government officials had earlier estimated 35 to 100 people were taken hostage, but residents disputed the claim, with some saying they had seen no evidence any hostages were taken.

We know a lot of our new officials and spokespeople are blatantly lying and it's fine to lie about security, reconstruction and democracy- we've gotten used to it. In fact, we tell jokes about it and laugh about it at family gatherings or over the telephone. To lie about something as serious as Sunni-Shia hostage taking is another story altogether. It's unacceptable and while Sunnis and Shia were hardly going to take up arms against each other over this latest debacle, but it was still extremely worrisome and for people who wish to fuel sectarian violence, it was a perfect opportunity.

We have an Iraqi government that bans news channels and newspapers because they *insist* on reporting about such routine things as civilian casualties and raids, yet the Puppets barely flinch over media sources spreading a rumor as dangerous and provocative as this one.

AND NOW THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BODIES FROM MADIAN:

Iraq's interim president announced Wednesday the recovery of more than 50 bodies from the Tigris River, saying the grisly discovery was proof of claims that dozens were abducted from an area south of the capital despite a fruitless search by Iraqi forces.

[....]

Terrorists committed crimes there. It is not true to say there were no hostages. There were. They were killed, and they threw the bodies into the Tigris," Talabani told reporters. "We have the full names of those who were killed and those criminals who committed these crimes."

Shiite leaders and government officials claimed last week that Sunni militants had abducted as many as 100 Shiites from the Madain area, 14 miles southeast of Baghdad. But when Iraqi forces moved into the town of 1,000 families, they found no captives, and residents said they had seen no evidence anyone had been seized.

Funk

Man, the funk continues . . .
I thought after writing the Dowd piece and seeing the POTUS' speach plus the gak on Bolton and DelLay, I would find the fire to pen (tap the keys, I guess now) a few words. No, the malaise runs deep. It is affecting more than the Blog...but I'm trying...man, it hurts.

Apathy

It is painful.

Dotty Dowd

Ok so I couldn't stay away for that long . . . espcially after reading the esteem able Maureen Dowd's mid-week disjointed rantings. This one is particularly fractured. She starts with network anchors:

In the free fall of TV news, ABC's attempt to create a successor for Ted Koppel's "Nightline" will go down as one of the most hilariously embarrassing moments.

One show tested recently, according to reports, was set in a nightclub. It had white tablecloths, candles, a jazz quintet, a live audience at little tables and - this is not a joke - faux fog.

We've gone from the fog of war to the fog of news.

Then moves on to her habitual Rupert reflection:

In Washington last week, Rupert Murdoch echoed Mr. Moonves in giving the American Society of Newspaper Editors some bad news about young people in the age of the Internet, blogging and cable news:

"They don't want to rely on the morning paper for their up-to-date information. They don't want to rely on a god-like figure from above to tell them what's important. ... They certainly don't want news presented as gospel."

She has special antipathy for the new Pope. I'm particularly amazed (OK, not really) at her reaction and those on the editorial staffs of the major newspapers. They've already passed judgment. Talk about Christian . . .

The white smoke yesterday signaled that the Vatican thinks what it needs to bring it into modernity is the oldest pope since the 18th century: Joseph Ratzinger, a 78-year-old hidebound archconservative who ran the office that used to be called the Inquisition and who once belonged to Hitler Youth. For American Catholics - especially women and Democratic pro-choice Catholic pols - the cafeteria is officially closed. After all, Cardinal Ratzinger, nicknamed "God's Rottweiler" and "the Enforcer," helped deny Communion rights to John Kerry and other Catholic politicians in the 2004 election.

The only other job this pope would be qualified for is "60 Minutes" anchor.

OK, let's take a look at this last bit. She first takes a swipe at the cardinals by slammin' them for voting for "the oldest pope since the 18th century". Just like a Lib to use agism to make her point. But she's not done, the Spanish Inquistion was abolished in the early 19th century: "In 1965, the P.R.-sensitive Pope Paul VI rebranded the Inquisition as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith...Paul VI even revoked its ability to ban books, leaving the Inquisition toothless and largely irrelevant going into the 21st century." This doesn't stop her from implying something evil.

I think she especially guilt of the sin of omission when she invokes the Hitler Youth card. She should continued... all youths in Bavaria were required to join the Hitler Youth and of course she omits the fact Ratzinger deserted Hitler's army! But I guess the specifics can be omitted if it's necessary to make a point...

Finally, I don't seem to remember Sen. Kerry being denied communion, so I don't know how "the Rottweiler" could be condemned for this. I've more to say on this, but I'll need to file that in another post.

What would be a Dowd post with out the obligatory Bush-bash:

President Bush has also long acted as if he channeled the voice of God...Mr. Bush's more subtle obeisance to the evangelical right is no longer enough. Puffed up with its electoral clout, the Christian right now wants politicians to genuflect openly.

Just when I think 'what the hell' when it comes to the Media, I stumble across a work of art such as this...

The Light is Dim

I seem to have lost the light... so posting will be thin until I can rekindle it. Sorry.

Nepotism

I know Dave suggested I go Global in my pursuing of life, but I just can't let go of the DeLay mess. SFGate.com has done some research on paying family members as employees of behalf of congressional members.

_ House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas: Wife and daughter were paid more than $500,000 since 2001 for working for DeLay's campaign and political action committees.

_Connecticut Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman: Son Matthew received about $34,000 and daughter Rebecca about $36,000 for working on the senator's 2004 presidential campaign.

_ Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash.: Nephew Todd Reichert was paid $3,000 last year, plus several hundred dollars for mileage, for serving as driver.

_ California Democratic Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark: Wife Deborah earns $2,400 a month for serving as campaign consultant.

_ Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.: Wife Arlene Willis serves as congressional chief of staff at a salary of nearly $111,000.

_ Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.: Wife Laurie Stupak earned about $36,000 annually the past two years as the finance director for her husband's campaign.

_ Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio: Wife Elizabeth was paid about $1,730 a month during his 2004 campaign. She has worked as a campaign consultant for him since the 2001 election cycle.

_ Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif.: Cousin Ken Costa made about $45,000 for serving as a co-campaign manager last year.

_ Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah: Three college-age children worked on his campaign last year. Emily was paid $5,425, Jane $9,508 and Laura $17,766.

_ Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn.: Sister-in-law Sharon Davis has been his campaign treasurer since 1994,and daughter Libby Davis was his campaign coordinator in the last half of 2004. Libby Davis was paid about $2,334 a month; Sharon Davis was paid about $1,000 a month for bookkeeping last year.

_ Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, employs his wife, Kathy, as his campaign manager. She was paid $21,791 over four months, including a $7,500 bonus last November.

_ New York Democratic Rep. Tim Bishop: Daughter Molly was paid $46,995 as his 2004 campaign's finance director.

_ California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher: Wife Rhonda Carmony makes $40,000 a year as his campaign manager.

Now there are examples here of spouses performing legitimate functions, but man it still smells so bad. Just because it's legal doesn't me it's right. How is nepotism handled in the Corporate world? It's not tolerated. Why should it be acceptable in our legislature?

Slow Time

Sorryfor the lack of blogging. Many factors responsible for this but nothing major.

First, I'm just tired of most political crap., but what's new. Most politicians are whores no matter what party, from DeLay to Harkin to Boxer to Santorum.

Second, this crap on Schaivo. I've never been so disgusted with people's action regarding an issue before. I was disgusted in the fact it became a Media Event and even more so when Congress decided to get involved.

Finally, I bought my first hand held game - - a new Sony PSP. My son has a Nintendo DS as gift from SC, but I finally broke down an purchased the new multi media PSP. It's GREAT!!! So I lost myself in it.

Well, I've moved my office to my home now that the Lab has moved to downtown Seattle, so I may have an opportunity to get back in the groove...we'll see.

Death Watch Deux

OK, now that we've gotten the death watches out of the way, life can go on. . . At least for awhile. Although, I'll be interested in the upcoming Conclave. Now the Real Politicks (sic) begin! ! !

Dissatisfaction

What did they really think? Was the out and out pandering to the looney Religious Right really worth it? How about the thorough thrashing of the Reagan conservative principles?

“The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

This quote was pulled from an Andrew Sullivan article which was referred to by a site I was not familiar with, but will now check out routinely. What go me clickin' was Totten's article on the perceived melt down of the Republican party. I'm in agreement with Michael on this. While I'm not a Repub, I just feel my skin crawl with their actions in the past week or so. Their beliefs are showing them to be no better than the Dems. It's Big Govt, pure and simple. They spout 'State Rights' like it's a mantra from the past. Yet, in every case, when push comes to shove, they fall back to Big Govt. Let's see... Gay Marriage, Medical Marijuana, Right-to-Die. So, much for the Sanctity of Marriage with the Schiavo debacle. Your rights now belong to Big Govt. Then there's Sullivan's point on the time honored local control of Education:

In the 1980s Republicans wanted to abolish the federal Department of Education, believing local control was best. Bush has all but ended local control, introduced national standards and added a huge increase in federal spending. No wonder Ted Kennedy, the arch liberal Democratic senator, voted for the bill.

The current spending by the Bush Admin is going through the roof with no end in site. This should give us all pause. Their version of Conservatism is a joke, it's just a one-off of the Democratic view, with just the 'right' touch of religious zeal.

Sad State of Baseball

I'm soooo burnt on the Schiavo case, I thought I'd touch on lighter fare....

As a forty-something male, baseball was my past time. From tee-ball to Pony League to semi-pro (albeit over 30 league), I've lived and breathed baseball for a vast majority of my sporting life. Don't get me wrong, I was a multi-sporting fool. I could hold my own in varsity football and basketball, but my love was baseball.

I've read and followed stats and box scores for as long as I can remember. One of my favorite games growing up with my one and only best friend (besides my lovely bride) was Strat-O-Matic.
In fact, during the early 80's we played our own form of rotisserie baseball by keeping track of daily player stats. My friend, Scribe, worked for a minor league team of the Dodgers and was given a Major League Baseball pass!!! All we had to pay for (really, it was my duty) was the parking!!! Granted it was the 300 level at Dodger Stadium, but dude... it was free!!! Man, the life... baseball, beer and bud. Sigh.......

Wha... oh, right where was I. Yeah, the state of baseball.

I don't know if anyone really saw the Congressional hearings on Baseball. It wasn't really on C-SPAN, but parts were shown on ESPN. I did catch just a bit in the morning session. I wasn't impressed by the ususal pomp and irrelevance. However, I did catch the 'lowlights' on ESPN. Needless to say I was saddened by Mark McGwire's lack of truthful responses. How pathetic was his resplies 'I'm not here to talk about the past'. What garbage. He's lost all credibility and by his inaction, it cannot be helped but assume his guilt by Canseco-association.

Sally Jenkins has an excellent article on the hearings.

A home run king basically pleaded the Fifth. Baseball officials thoroughly discredited themselves with disingenuous promises. Subpoenas showed MLB's anti-drug policy had loopholes bigger than Jose Canseco's biceps. Anyone still think the hearing was a farce? On the contrary, the hearing has been revelatory. It has revealed, among other things, character.

What the hearing has demonstrated, more than anything, is a pattern of arrogant duplicity and willful collusion that reaches throughout the game, from players to owners to commissioners to union officials, who would keep us all quiet and in the dark on steroid use. The evasive performances of some of the seven former and current major leaguers and officials before the committee last week simply begged more questions -- and that's apparently what they're going to get.

And this last paragraph in her column just wrenched at my inner being:

The hearing has uncovered something important: the extent to which the people in baseball believed they are above the law and accountable to no one. Baseball's passionate defenders have accused the committee of political grandstanding, exceeding authority, and witch hunting. But if the hearing has proved one thing, it's this: we need more hearings, because baseball is as sick as it is secretive.

It is truly time to remove this 'special status' Congress bestow upon baseball by granting them special Anti-Trust status.

And then we have Bonds, Barry Bonds. . . If there has not been a more less sympathetic soul in baseball, it would be a toss up between Barry Bonds and maybe Ty Cobb. In a word, Barry is an Ass. What is more sad is the fact that he once was an outstanding player; after all he won his 7th MVP award last year. But he's been in question for the last several years, questioned about Steroids. He's always been such an Ass that folks have been very reticent in giving him a break. Now, he's whining about being tired....tired about being hounded about `roids. But he can't justify anything. All he does is parade his son and complain about the media. But now he's broke. Not broke in a monetary way, but broke in a physical way.

Thomas Boswell has an excellent article on Bond's whine. At times, it's quite poetic. He starts:

Last Friday, in an online chat with readers, I wrote, "Did you see that Barry Bonds had another knee surgery yesterday? I've been saying to friends ever since his use of steroids -- the clear and the cream -- was leaked to the San Francisco Chronicle last winter that I thought there was a chance that he would never play another game.

"Just a gut feeling. Never pass Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron. Just a chance, not a probability. But it's increasing."

But he also note something I was wondering about after the spotlight becames so focused:

If you think that Bonds will ever play another big league game, just because he won the National League MVP award last year with the best all-around offensive season in baseball history, then you haven't been paying enough attention.

Bonds has never been a fan of the media:

That night at Shea, Bonds was asked if he was concerned that he might have perjured himself before a grand jury in the BALCO case. "You couldn't get me if you tried," Bonds shot back.

What if the Justice Department got ahold of past urine samples? "What do I care what they do? What do I care what you think?" said Bonds. "I don't have to prove to you or anyone else in this world. . . . When you come up with the truth, then you write your [expletive]. Until then, shut up."

[...]

Who knew a pendulum swing of pious reform would arrive so fast? The sinners of the '90s, plus a few scooped up in the seine by accident, are being humiliated these days. If powerful CEOs can be jailed or fired for infractions that practically drew praise in boom times, why can't we enforce the rules on a few jocks, too? Or, switch the rules, some of them might say. After all, who was praising Mark McGwire's 70th homer or Bonds's 73rd, if not the fans and media? Who was marketing them, if not baseball itself? And who was shielding them from tests to protect their own health if not their shameful union?

This is so poetic from Boswell:

Throwing down the gauntlet to a pitcher is pride. Throwing down the gauntlet to society -- criminal investigators, the judiciary, media and by extension the public -- is the kind of hubris that keeps all those old Greek plays in print. The pride that drives the rise is the pride, gone to excess, that precipitates the fall. Those whom the gods would destroy they first make great.

One could only hope Bonds will walk after dragging his son into the mess:

On Tuesday, the threads of the long, sad Bonds story seemed to weave themselves into what may be the first premonition of an ending. Before he answered questions, Bonds looked at the camera and said, "Can you get my son in this, too, not just me, so you guys can share the pain that you are causing my whole family?" The camera obligingly panned wider.

There was Nikolai, 15, heir to the bitterest tradition of glory in baseball history.

"Me and my son are going to try to enjoy each other," said Bonds. "That's all we've got. Everybody else has tried to destroy everything else." Then, turning to his boy, he said, "Let's go home."

They walked off camera together. You couldn't script it better. Or worse. All that was missing was, "The End."

The records of the `90s are now suspect which is a shame. I'm only glad my son is not into baseball. I'd hate to have to explain how the titans of swat were really the 'cheaters with `roids'.