After all, we are being assured by those Muslims demanding the Pope apologize for a seven century old quote that Islam is a religion of peace, that jihad is simply an internal struggle, and that violence committed in the name of that faith is unIslamic.

What, then, do they say about this?

Israeli Arab Islamic leader Sheikh Raed Salah told a rally in Jerusalem the "Israeli occupation" of the city will soon vanish.

"With fire and blood we shall liberate al-Aqsa," Salah told 50,000 people Friday at the Islamic Movement's 11th annual rally in Umm al-Fahm, a city in Israel's Haifa district, YNetNews reported.

The Al-Aqsa mosque is part of a complex of buildings in Jerusalem known as the Temple Mount to Jews and some Christians.

"Soon Jerusalem will be the capital of the new Muslim caliphate, and the caliph's seat will be there," Salah said. Caliph is the term or title for the Islamic leader of the Ummah, or community of Islam.

"With fire and blood...."

Nah, that certainly can't be viewed as suggesting violence in the name of Islam, can it.

Either this Muslim leader doesn't understand Islam, or those trying to reassure us that Islam is a peaceful religion are liars.

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

So spoke the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus nearly seven centuries ago, during a dialogue with a learned Persian on the nature of God, revelation, and reason.

And so quoted Pope Benedict XVI in discussing the nature of faith and the place of reaon in relation to it.

Quite frankly, as a Christian, I've gon no problem whatsoever with the original quote, or with its use by the Pope.

Anyone want to guess who does? You got it -- the prickly, easily offended Muslims.

They are demanding apologies, burning effigies, and engaging in violence -- all over the perceived insult to their religion.

But let's stop for just a moment and consider the quote itself.

For a Christian, public revelation stops with the closing of the Christian canon of Scripture. Private revelation must be consistent with Scripture to be accepted as true. That which conflicts with God's revelation to us is false, and therefore presumptively evil.

Which brings us to the question of Islam.

While Islam claims (and many others accept) that Islam worships the same God as the Christians and the Jews, there arefundamental conflicts which exist between these three faiths. Judaism follows the revealed books of the Torah, which point towards the coming of the Messiah. Christianity accepts and reveres those books and adds to them the New Testament, which we hold to reveal that the Messiah came in the form of Jesus of Nazareth, who was the Word made Flesh. Islam, on the other hand, claims that the Quran supercedes Jewish and Christian Scripture, which are labeled as corrupted. Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus and the Triune nature of God are rejected in Islam -- indeed, some Muslims consider Christians to be polytheists because of those beliefs. In short, Judaism and Christianity are, to a Muslim, false, and contain in them elements of evil. I don't hear any calls for Muslims to apologize over what their faith teaches.

Yet when a Pope dares quote a long-dead emperor who expresssed a similar sentiment about Islam, there is outrage. Why? If you are a Christian, you MUST believe that parts of Islam are false. Why shouldn't a Christian say that?

And if there are elements of Islam that go beyond mere falsehood into the realm of evil, then it is incumbent upon Christians to say so.

Which leads us back to the initial quote.

Jihad, for all the recent attempts of Muslims to deny and disguise the truth, is a part of Islam and has been since the days of Muhammad. Furhtermore, it is not merely a peaceful internal struggle for conformity with the will Allah. Jihad is and always has been the use of warfare to defend and spread Islam. If you doubt that, read the Quran and scholarly histories of the Islamic world. Indeed, jihad was the method used to wipe out the historically Christian cultures of much of what is today considered to be "the Muslim World" -- places like Israel, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, and North Africa. They became Muslim through the use of the sword -- jihad.

And therein lies a difference between Chrstianity and Islam, one that the Holy Father was attempting to highlight. Christians believe that faith must spring from reason, and that coercion in religious matters is wrong. Islam does not -- whether we are talking the events of the seventh centuy or the present day, when conversion has been demanded as a condition of being permitted to live (remember the Fox News journalists). To the Christian, forced conversion denies the fundamental free will with which God endowed each of us. It is therefore, as the quote above says, evil and inhuman (in that it fundamentally contradicts what Christians believe to be the true nature of each human person).

So what, exactly, is there to apologize for? For believing it? Or for daring to speak it?

Which leads me to demand of Muslims and their dhimmified apologists (like the al-NewYorkTimes) a response to the following.

1) Is forced conversion wrong ("evil and inhuman") or not?

2) If it is, why shouldn't the Pope (or any other person) say so unapologetically?

3) If it isn't, why did you object to Ann Coulter's call to forcibly convert terrorists and their supporters following 9/11?

As for me, I echo Manuel II Paleologus, and applaud Benedict XVI for daring to use the quote.

Oh, and I wonder -- for all their outrage over words, will Muslim leaders condemn these violent actions?

UPDATE: Even if al-NewYorkTimes doesn't get it, the Times of London does.

This is, in some ways, a re-run of the hoo-ha among some Muslims over the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons depicting Muhammad. In the frenzy that followed, with bloody riots and demonstrations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Indonesia and India, about 140 people were killed and hundreds were injured. The cartoons were implicated in religious riots in Nigeria in which 200 people — Muslims and Christians — died. Denmark was targeted, its embassies attacked and its businesses boycotted.

The clash of civilisations is not between Christianity and Islam, it is between nations that encourage religious diversity and those which practise religious intolerance. It is between those who favour open debate and those who think free speech is anathema. The Pope may or may not have known what a hornetsÂ’ nest he was stirring up. Even if he did, there was nothing inappropriate, within context, in what he said.

The Vatican has said he is very sorry his speech caused such offence to Muslims. That is fine but it should not go further than that. He should certainly not be pushed into withdrawing his remarks. As in the case of the Danish cartoons, Muslim zealots are trying to impose their restrictions of free expression on the West. Mindful as we should be of religious sensitivities, that cannot be allowed to happen.

Well said! Bravo!

Posted by: Greg at 07:49 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 1032 words, total size 7 kb.

IÂ’m disgusted by this column in the Star-Tribune in the People's Republic of Minnesota. How can this writer possibly object to identifying a candidate as a racist Kluxer?

Somewhere between a recital/rally he held at the Varsity Theater in Dinkytown a month ago and Keith Ellison's Tuesday night victory in the DFL primary for the Fifth District seat, [Democrat Congressional candidate Alan]Fine changed keys. In the process, he lost any claim to moderation, thoughtfulness or originality, which were just a few of the attributes I poured on him.

Here's a sampling of what Fine had to say the day after Ellison -- who is white and a Christian -- handily won his hard-fought primary: "I'm personally offended that this person is a candidate for U.S. Congress. He is unfit to represent the voters of the Fifth District. ... He is the follower of a known racist, David Duke ... a person who believes that the black man is the anti-Christ, a person who believes that Jews are the scourge of the Earth. I'm personally offended as a Jew that we have a candidate like this running for U.S. Congress."

This new Alan Fine suddenly can't say the name "Keith Ellison" without saying the name "David Duke."

That’s right – Fine loses his claim to be a moderate, thoughtful decent man for objecting to the nomination of a member of the KKK, who organized for that racist organization ad Christian Identity groups during his student days, who brought known racists to speak on his college campus, and who continuously lied during the campaign to obscure his past memberships and association. After all, I guess that the Klan is mainstream in the Republican Party, and that holding to the hate-filled doctrines of Christian Identity constitutes acceptable religious practice for a nominee of a major political party and possible member of Congress. Objecting to such a candidate clearly makes one an extremist.

But let’s cut to the chase. No such column would ever be written or published in the MSM today – nor should it be. A column like the one quoted above is utterly reprehensible, and the author would be condemned – probably fired.
Except such a column was written. And published.

Only it was a little different from what I wrote. Take a look.

Somewhere between a recital/rally he held at the Varsity Theater in Dinkytown a month ago and Keith Ellison's Tuesday night victory in the DFL primary for the Fifth District seat, [Republican Congressional candidate Alan] Fine changed keys. In the process, he lost any claim to moderation, thoughtfulness or originality, which were just a few of the attributes I poured on him.

Here's a sampling of what Fine had to say the day after Ellison -- who is black and a Muslim -- handily won his hard-fought primary: "I'm personally offended that this person is a candidate for U.S. Congress. He is unfit to represent the voters of the Fifth District. ... He is the follower of a known racist, Louis Farrakhan ... a person who believes that the white man is the anti-Christ, a person who believes that Jews are the scourge of the Earth. I'm personally offended as a Jew that we have a candidate like this running for U.S. Congress."

This new Alan Fine suddenly can't say the name "Keith Ellison" without saying the name "Louis Farrakhan."

Ellison has lied repeatedly about his past, and has been given a pass by the Star-Trib. This has been well documented over at Power Line and by Joel Mowbray. Now we are told that daring to speak out against the racist past and deceptive present of a candidate converts one from a thoughtful moderate to a hateful extremist.

The difference? Party, race, and religion.

Ellison is a Democrat, an African-American, and a Muslim. As such, the Star-Trib considers him beyond criticism – and defines any criticism of his documented history of bigotry as a sign of bigotry on the part of the critic. After all, liberals excuse racial and religious bigotry coming from minorities – if they are properly liberal.

Posted by: Greg at 12:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 681 words, total size 4 kb.

I've been waiting on Robert Novak's response to Richard Armitage's revelations. I think it can be summed up this way -- Armitage is still trying to deceive America, and still lying -- but now that he has spoken out, Novak no longer feels obliged to kep silent in public.

First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he "thought" might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear that he considered it especially suited for my column.

An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of his being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I had long opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me, improbably, into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left.

But I thin Novak's most telling point about Armitage's lack of integrity is found at the end of the column -- in a point I have made since his identity as the leaker became clear.

Armitage's silence for the next 2 1/2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive

Indeed. Why not come clean from the beginning -- if one truly wished to preserve faith in our government and its leaders, and not simply protect one's own sorry ass.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

Yeah, she was from the other side of the political fence.

Yeah, I was never a supporter.

But you know, there was rarely a dull moment while Gov. Ann Richards was involved in Texas politics.

She will be missed.

Former Texas governor Ann Richards, the witty and flamboyant Democrat who went from homemaker to national political celebrity, died Sept. 13 after cancer was diagnosed this year, a family spokeswoman said. She was 73.

Ms. Richards died at home in Austin surrounded by her family, the spokeswoman said. She was found to have esophageal cancer in March and underwent chemotherapy treatments.

May she rest in peace, and may her loved ones be comforted in their time of loss.

Posted by: Greg at 10:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

This move will do nothing to eliminate the advantages and disadvantages inherrant in the college admissions process.

Harvard University, breaking with a major trend in college admissions, says it will eliminate its early admissions program next year, with university officials arguing that such programs put low-income and minority applicants at a distinct disadvantage in the competition to get into selective universities.

Harvard will be the first of the nationÂ’s prestigious universities to do away completely with early admissions, in which high school seniors try to bolster their chances at competitive schools by applying in the fall and learning whether they have been admitted in December, months before other students.

Some universities now admit as much as half of their freshman class this way, and many, though not Harvard, require an ironclad commitment from students that they will attend in return for the early acceptance.

Harvard’s decision — to be announced today — is likely to put pressure on other colleges, which acknowledge the same concerns but have been reluctant to take any step that could put them at a disadvantage in the heated competition for the top students.

Except it does nothing to eliminate what is seen as being at the heart of the problem.

But at Harvard and many other universities officials have grown concerned that early admissions present a major obstacle to low-income and working-class students. Such students have also been hurt by steep tuition increases and competition with students from wealthy families who pour thousands of dollars into college consultants and tutoring.

“I think there are lots of very talented students out there from poor and moderate-income backgrounds who have been discouraged by this whole hocus-pocus of early admissions by many of the nation’s top colleges,’’ said William R. Fitzsimmons, Harvard College’s dean of admissions and financial aid.

So how is this going to stop the spending of large sums of money by wealthy students intent on getting into the right school? How is this going to make college more affordable to the students in the middle -- neither poor enough to qualify for a free ride nor wealthy enough to afford it? It is all window dressing!

Absent a system like hospitals use to award residency positions -- one with nationwide competition and a matching system that includes all applicants and schools -- you won't get away from teh identical problem.

But then again, such a system would never be accepted.

It would kill athletic programs. It would end legacy admissions. And what of the poor kid who wants to go to a local college in his or her hometown who is instead assigned to Middle-Of-Nowhere State University in Hicktown, Montana?

So while the Harvard move looks good on paper, it doesn't really address the issues at hand -- and cannot.

Posted by: Greg at 10:34 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

I think the following needs to be widely circulated.

ONE ARAB'S APOLOGY

By EMILIO KARIM DABUL

WELL, here it is, five years late, but here just the same: an apology from an Arab-American for 9/11. No, I didn't help organize the killers or contribute in any way to their terrible cause. However, I was one of millions of Arab-Americans who did the unspeakable on 9/11: nothing.

The only time I raised my voice in protest against these men who killed thousands of innocents in the name of Allah was behind closed doors, among the safety of friends and family. I did at one point write a very vitriolic essay condemning their actions, but fear of becoming another Salman Rushdie kept me from ever trying to publish it.

Well, I'm sick of saying the truth only in private - that Arabs around the world, including Arab-Americans like myself, need to start holding our own culture accountable for the insane, violent actions that our extremists have perpetrated on the world at large.

Yes, our extremists and our culture.

Every single 9/11 hijacker was Arab and a Muslim. The apologists (including President Bush) tried to reassure us that 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam, but was a twisting of a great and noble religion. With all due respect, read the Koran, Mr. President. There's enough there for someone of extreme tendencies to find their way to a global jihad.

There's also enough there for someone of a different mindset to find a path to enlightenment and peace. Still, Rushdie had it right back in 2001: This does have to do with Islam. A Christian who bombs an abortion clinic in the name of God is still a Christian, at least in his interpretation, and saying otherwise doesn't negate the fact that he has spent a goodly amount of time figuring out his version of the one true and right thing to do.

The men who killed 3,000 of our citizens on 9/11 in all likelihood died saying prayers to Allah, and that by itself is one of the most horrific things to me about that day.

And, while my grandparents never waged a jihad, their attitudes toward Jews weren't that much different than Mohammed Atta's. No, they didn't support the Holocaust, but they did believe that Jews were trouble in many different ways, and those sorts of beliefs were passed on to me before I'd ever actually met a Jew.

I'm sorry for that, for ever believing that anything that my grandparents or other relatives had to say about Jews or Israel, for that matter, had any real resemblance to truth. It took me years to realize that I'd been conned into believing the generalizations and stereotypes that millions around the Arab world buy into: that Jews, America and Israel are our main problem.

One look at the average Arab regime should alert us to the fact that the problem, dear Achmed, lies not overseas or next door in Tel Aviv, but in the brutal, corrupt despots that we have bred from country to country in the Mideast, across the span of history. That history and its corresponding economic devastation is the main reason I reside on New York City's West Bank - New Jersey - not the one near Jerusalem. On my worst day, I'm happy about that fact. I'd rather be here than there, and experience the freedom and boundless opportunities that were mostly unknown to so many generations of my family in the Mideast.

For as long as I live, the image of those towers falling, as I watched in horror and disbelief from the corner of 40th and Fifth, will be for me my Pearl Harbor, for in that instant I recognized that not only was our city under attack - so was our freedom.

It still is. And will continue to be for years to come. And the threat is not from within, but from Islamic fascists who desperately want to destroy the freedom and opportunities that millions the world over still seek.

Five years after that awful day, it's time for all Arab-Americans, and Arabs around the world, to protest against Islamic fascism, to raise our voices - and, where necessary, our arms - against these tyrants until their plague of terror has been driven from the face of the earth forever.

Amen.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 741 words, total size 4 kb.

After all, the statement is a flat-out lie, and everyone knows it. And for all her spinning, Claire McCaskill's lie cannot be justified in any context. Will Missouri Democrats reject it? Will national Democrats do so?

The U.S. Senate campaign of Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill has been under sharp criticism since she accused President Bush of letting poor blacks in Louisiana die during Hurricane Katrina.

Mrs. McCaskill, the state auditor, is attempting to link Republican Sen. Jim Talent with the president as she tries to unseat the incumbent.

"George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black," she told a group of Democratic state legislators last week.

The comments, made as she outlined Mr. Talent's efforts to attract minority voters, were first reported by Pub Def Weekly, a St. Louis-based blog.

McCaskill refuses to repudiate or apologize for this blood libel.

The record is clear that the state and local officials failed in their emergency planning and their obligation to safeguard their citizens -- but their party wishes to absolve them and play the race and poverty cards to smear their political opponents. Have the Democrats even one ounce of shame left?

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.

Even the paper from San Antonio, with its surfeit of illegal immigrants, is willing and able to see why we need something more done to secure the border against border-jumping immigration criminals.

Imagine the folly of passing a law without the mechanism or the will to enforce it. Imagine if there were no penalties, no fines or jail sentences, for crimes like robbery.

People might get the notion that, despite the official ban, it was all right to steal.

This analogy applies to illegal immigration.

In 1986, President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, granting amnesty to almost 3 million people who were in this country illegally.

The legislation, while showing compassion to the immigrants already here, was not intended to create an open border, and to balance the amnesty, lawmakers included several provisions to strengthen the enforcement of immigration laws:

Sanctions for employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

Increased border controls.

Programs to verify the immigration status of workers applying for welfare benefits.

Except for sporadic raids of employers who hired illegal immigrants, however, little changed. The immigrants lived in the shadows, but the lack of enforcement emboldened the workers and their employers. And, as a result, the illegal immigration population has swelled to 12 million.

Either we control our borders, or those illegally crossing our borders control us. We must have an immigration bill this year, with sanctions against both employers and border-jumpers.

Posted by: Greg at 10:10 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Just down the road from here, in my state senator's local office.

A white, powdery substance found in an envelope that came in the mail to state Sen. Mike Jackson's League City office was found to be a sugar derivative by federal and local investigators, who immediately responded to what they presumed to be a possible anthrax exposure.

"Obviously, with today being 9-11, we're all aware of what happened and first thing that comes to mind is that somebody sent something toxic in the mail," said Jackson, who was at his business office in LaPorte when his League City district director Lamoin Scott called him as she was sorting the mail in the early afternoon.

Scott opened the letter addressed to Jackson and only read part of it to the senator. Jackson said the beginning of letter started by saying the person had asked the senator to do something and nothing had been done. Jackson told Scott to call the police and evacuate the building.

The good news -- No Anthrax.

Posted by: Greg at 10:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Today, five years after the assault on America by jihadi Muslims, we pause to remember the 2996 people who died in the attacks of September 11, 2001.

As part of a coordinated effort to recall each and every person who died on that fateful day, I offer a few words in memory of Tony Karnes, a software trainer with Marsh & McLennan.

Tony worked in the World Trade Center in New York, and died at Ground Zero on September 11, 2001. He was 37 years old, and was survived by his partner John Winter and his sisters Brenda Vandever, Vicky Ratcliff and Gayle Barker.

The New York Times had this to say about Tony Karnes.

William Anthony Karnes made his living as a software trainer for Marsh & McLennan. But his life's passion was touting the virtues of his adopted hometown, New York, regaling his sisters with stories about the wonders of living in the city where anything is possible, a place grander than anything he imagined growing up back in tiny Corryton, Tenn.

At least twice a week, Mr. Karnes, 37, would phone home to Tennessee, as much to say "I love you" as to brag about his latest favorite restaurant, usually some Indian place. "He loved that there was so much to discover in New York," said John Winter, his domestic partner.

And he made sure to share his favorite discoveries. "It was a big kick for him to show us around his city," said his sister, Gayle Barker. "He'd take us to the Empire State Building, the top of the World Trade Center, Rockefeller Center or just walking through the streets."

The one thing Mr. Karnes couldn't find in his beloved Manhattan was true Southern cooking. His love of a good plate of pinto beans, corn bread, mashed potatoes and biscuits always managed to guide him back home to one of his sisters' dinner tables. In her mind, Mrs. Barker still imagines her brother sitting around the table. "I just keep thinking that this isn't really happening, that he's not dead. He's just on a long, long trip somewhere."

Writing three months after Tony's attack, John Winter had this to say about him.

Tony, you were my soulmate and the love of my life. After 3 months I still miss you more than anyone can realize.

The 3 years we had together were blissfully happy and oh how I wish we'd had longer to share our lives with each other.

I still love you so very much. HPD

In Tony's honor, the people of East Tennessee contributed $12,000 towards the purchase of the Freedom Engine -- a fire truck which operates as part of Ladder Company 14 in Harlem.

Tony's sisters offer a ray of hope in the face of the manifest evil of the September 11 attacks.

Tony, your sisters are still hurting. We are only saying goodnight but not goodbye.

To this I simply add a heart-felt "Amen!"

UPDATE 9/14/2006: I've decided to not merely shut, but also to hide, comments on this post. A liberal commenenter could not resist the urge to politicize the non-political while claiming to eschew politics. A Fascist troll began a series of hate-comments directed at me and about Tony. As such, I have taken the only appropriate course of action.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 559 words, total size 4 kb.

Originally Posted on September 11, 2004 -- As is my custom, I repost it today.

So many died that horrible day.

One was my classmate at Washington and Lee University, Commander Robert Allan Schlegel.

I would love to tell you he and I were close. That would be a lie.

I would love to share stories of great times together. I don't have any.

What I can tell you is that I remember Rob Schlegel as a good guy, a friend of some friends. I remember him as being a bright guy, sitting a couple rows over and a couple seats back in a US History class. One of those classmates you later wish you had gotten to know when you had the chance.

Rest in Peace.

May all the victims of September 11 and the many men and women of our armed forces who have died fighting terrorism since that day rest in peace.

And let us not forget those heroes who still live.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

I will not submit to the forces of jihadi Islam. I will not surrender to the Religion Of Peace My Ass.

Rhymes With Right is a No Dhimmitude Zone.

H/T Michelle Malkin & Jawa Report

UPDATE: One of Rusty's commenters suggests a better phoenetic translation would be "Lan is'tislimo". I have modified my title accordingly.

Posted by: Greg at 11:50 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

As I read Harry Turtledove's latest book in the "Settling Accounts" Trilogy, The Grapple, I encountered the above unfamiliar Latin phrase. Attributed to the Roman poet Lucius Accius, it translates roughly as follows.

Let them hate us, so long as they fear us.

On this, the eve on the anniversary of 9/11, might I suggest that the words are the appropriate policy for the civilized nations of the world to follow regarding the jihadi Muslims who attacked the US five years ago -- and who have been permitted to conduct a campaign of terror against the civilized people's of the world for far too long.

Posted by: Greg at 01:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

This just in from the Watcher's Council!

the winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are ItÂ’s Not a War. ItÂ’s a Trendy Buzzword! by The Sundries Shack, and Hezbollah Probably Lost the War, But They May Never Have Been In It To Win by Mere Rhetoric.  All members, please be sure to link to both winning entries (and to the full results of the vote) in a post.  I actually had to break a three-way tie in the council category this week...  I thoroughly enjoyed Rick Moran's piece about the utter refutation of the wacko 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I also enjoyed reading Freedom Fighter's pessimistic take on the troubles Jews are having in Western Europe, but Jimmie Bise's spirited defense of Bush's "Islamic Fascism" riff ultimately won me over.  Socratic Rhythm Method was the only member unable to vote this week, and the only member affected by the 2/3 vote penalty.  Thanks to everyone for all the great entries this week...  I'm eager to see next week's entries!  Here are the full tallies of all votes cast:

Votes	Council link
2  2/3	ItÂ’s Not a War. ItÂ’s a Trendy Buzzword! The Sundries Shack
1  2/3	It Is Time for Jews to Think About Leaving Western Europe Joshuapundit
1  2/3	9/11 Tin Foil Hats Are Melting Right Wing Nut House
1  1/3	Condi's Civil War Done With Mirrors
1  1/3	Reasons for Optimism: Part V ShrinkWrapped
1	Students Swearing In Class: Tolerating The Intolerable? The Education Wonks
2/3	The Law's Power to Combat Implicit Bias Socratic Rhythm Method
2/3	Translating Khatami -- Don't Worry, He's Moderate AbbaGav
1/3	New Orleans, One Year After The Glittering Eye

Votes	Non-council link
2  2/3	Hezbollah Probably Lost the War, But They May Never Have Been In It To Win Mere Rhetoric
1  1/3	Friday, September 01, 2006 Gideon's Blog
1  1/3	Repeal McCainFeingold Going to the Mat
1	UN: No Right To Self-Defense In International Law Daled Amos
1	MFers Tea Party Tom Rants
1	The Smell of Death Winds of Change
2/3	Friday in Jerusalem Izfone
2/3	Discontinuities, Positive and Negative, Great and Small Dinocrat
2/3	Carleson on Welfare Barone Blog
1/3	America Online: Making a Race Issue Where There Isn't One The Colossus of Rhodey
1/3	UN Report Denies "Right" of Self Defense Alpha Patriot

It was a great week with some great nominees, so congratulations to all who participated.

And if you want a chance o be nominated this week, take a look here for the Watcher's offer of Link Whorage.

Posted by: Greg at 09:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 6 kb.

Let me speak clearly in this regard -- I think that the ABC production regarding the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks should be broadcast, but without the particular scene that shows Sandy Berger calling off an attack in-place on Osama. It did not happen that way, and there was no such communication or refusal to grant permission to take-out a man who had committed acts of war against the United States -- at least not while he was in the sites of troops prepared to render justice upon Osama and his chief lieutenants. In that regard, I agree with the Democrats and Moonbats.

However, this is my position because of the fundamental truth that the Clinton Mal-Administration was so lax in its duty to safeguard the United States that the truth is much more damaging -- there was never such a plan of attack implemented because the Clintonistas were grossly negligent in their dealing with the threat posed by a man who repeatedly attacked America. I believe the movie scene in question lets Clinton & Co. off much too easily.

In particular, I am particularly troubled by this letter to the ABC network from leading Democrat Senators, effectively threatening to use the full power of the US government to retaliate against the broadcast of any viewpoint other than that accepted by them and their fellow-sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

September 7, 2006

SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP URGES DISNEY CEO TO CANCEL MISLEADING 9/11 MINISERIES
Washington, DC — Urging him to cancel the grossly inaccurate upcoming miniseries The Path to 9/11, the Senate Democratic Leadership today sent the following letter to Disney President and CEO Robert Iger. Disney’s subsidiary ABC erroneously claims the misleading miniseries is based on 9/11 Commission report and is planning to air it on September 10 and 11. Shockingly, the network is also planning to use the program as a teaching tool through Scholastic, potentially misinforming thousands of children about the most important event in recent American history.

The text of the letter, signed by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, and Senators Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, and Byron Dorgan, is below.

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger

President and CEO

The Walt Disney Company

500 South Buena Vista Street

Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease DisneyÂ’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your networkÂ’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin

Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Byron Dorgan

Remember those names -- each of them is a threat to American liberty and freedom of speech, and has abused their office shamefully by signing this letter. I question their fitness for office, their devotion to the principles of the Constitution, and their patriotism. I take that back -- I DENY THEIR FITNESS FOR OFFICE, THEIR DEVOTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND THEIR PATRIOTISM, and that of any elected Democrat who does not immediately condemn this letter and those who signed it.

Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee, one of my brother Munuvians and a stand-up guy, speaks my thoughts on the matter much better than I can at this time.

The Disney Corporation and ABC has a decision to make today, on whether the American people get to decide what they will watch on television, or if they will defer that decision to operatives of the Democratic Party.

The Path to 9/11, a mini-series based in part upon individual interviews and the 9/11 Commission Report, is being fought tooth-and-nail by grassroots liberal activists and top Democratic Party politicians in an effort to stifle free speech. The Democratic Party has gone so far as to threaten to attempt to challenge ABC's broadcasting license in a clear challenge to this nation's First Amendment. If ABC allows the Democratic Party to set a precedent of censorship through intimidation, then all Americans will have lost a part of their freedom.

Some elements of this mini-series are expected to be critical of the Bush and Clinton Administrations, and it does reputedly dramaticize some minor elements in the interests of accurately portraying the overall truth. that said, the overall treatment of the failings of the American government leading up to the horrific terrorist of September 11, 2001, must be shown. We must learn from our past mistakes to keep from repeating them in the future, and any attempt to prevent The Path to 9/11 from airing is an affront to the 2,973 people who died in lower Manhattan, Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. as a result of Islamic terrorism.

I strongly urge you to contact ABC, let them know that you support their right to provide the programming of their choice to the American people.

For 230 years we have been a nation of free men and women with the right to debate, dissent, and disagree. We should not forfeit that right to the whims of any political party.

Debate the merits and accuracy of The Path to 9/11 after the American people have had a chance to view it and form their own opinions about its content. That is the American way.

Censorship dictated by political operatives is not.

Amen, my brother. And let me note that this is one more reason that the Democrat party can never be allowed to acheive significant political power ever again.

Posted by: Greg at 12:35 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 1717 words, total size 12 kb.

And he's upset by those who look upon his three-year silence as a betrayal of President Bush and the American people.

Mr. Armitage, who has been criticized for keeping his silence for nearly three years, said he had wanted to disclose his role as soon as he realized that he was the main source for Robert D. Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, which identified Ms. Wilson. But he held back at the request of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. “He requested that I remain silent,” Mr. Armitage said.

He expressed irritation over assertions in some editorials and blogs that, by his silence, he had been disloyal to the Bush administration, saying he had followed President Bush’s repeated instruction that administration officials cooperate with the Fitzgerald inquiry. “I felt like I was doing exactly what he wanted,” he said.

Mr. Armitage testified three times before the grand jury, the last time in December 2005. “I was never subpoenaed,” he said. “I was a cooperating witness from the beginning.”

He never hired a lawyer and did not believe he needed one. “I had made an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake in any event,” he said. “I deserved whatever was coming to me. And I didn’t need an attorney to tell the truth.”

Only two problems with that apologia. It requires us to accept the notion that his failure to resign from office in October or November 2003 -- before there even was a special prosecutor -- was not not in and of itself an act of disloyalty to the President and the American people. The President had promised to fire the leaker -- and Armitage hid out and covered his ass for two full months. Furthermore, his compliance with Fitzgerald's request resulted in the undermining of the nation's confidence in the Commander-in-Chief while the nation was (and is) at war. The American people had a right to know the truth -- especially as the 2004 election rolled around. There was a higher obligation than cooperation with the Fitzgerald investigation -- it was to preserve the faith of the American people in the American government. Fitzgerald had no right, morally or legally, to undermine something so fundamental by swearing the guilty party to silence.

And by the way -- Armitage admits giving inaccurate information regarding his conversation with Bob Woodward, yet walked away scot-free from the entire affair despite being the individual guilty of the leak. Yet Scooter Libby was indicted for essentially the same offense. Why the disparity?

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, celebrity doofus Brad Pitt has made one of the most inane public statements of all time regarding his relationship with Angelina Jolie, who has been involved with most every sort of strange sexual kink.

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," the 42-year-old actor reveals in Esquire magazine's October issue, on newsstands Sept. 19.

Everyone? Really?

Does this just a pathetic way of saying/not saying that they support homosexual marriage? Or do they include incestuous unions in there, too? How about polygamy/polyandry/polyamory?

Knowing Angie, it could be all of the above -- that way she could have Brad, her brother, and her lesbuian ex-lover all tied up in her dominatrix lair. As noted above, she's done it all!

I won't speculate about the couple's position on the rights of the perverts who advocate Man/Boy love -- or whether he thinks freaks like John Mark Karr ought to be able to marry their pre-pubescent obsessions, just like Muhammad did.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 2 kb.

Admits he did it.

When will the Plamegate morons admit they are wrong?

In an exclusive interview with CBS News national security correspondent David Martin, Richard Armitage, once the No. 2 diplomat at the State Department, couldn't be any blunter.

"Oh I feel terrible. Every day, I think I let down the president. I let down the Secretary of State. I let down my department, my family and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson," he says.

When asked if he feels he owes the Wilsons an apology, he says, "I think I've just done it."

In July 2003, Armitage told columnist Robert Novak that Ambassador Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and Novak mentioned it in a column. It's a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA officer. But Armitage didn't yet realize what he had done.

So, what exactly did he tell Novak?

"At the end of a wide-ranging interview he asked me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?' I said I didn't know, but that she worked out at the agency," Armitage says.

Armitage says he told Novak because it was "just an offhand question." "I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had," he says.

Armitage adds that while the document was classified, "it doesn't mean that every sentence in the document is classified.

Now, will John McCain drop this man as a policy advisor? And will Patrick Fitzgerald end his rogue investigation? And will someone start disbarment proceedings against Fitzgerald?

Posted by: Greg at 10:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, TSU has taken their crooked ex-prexy out of the classroom, removing her from her position as an accounting profafter she was indicted on financial fraud charges.

Texas Southern University has relieved former President Priscilla Slade of her teaching duties and started the process to revoke her tenure, campus officials said Thursday.

The university's acting president, Bobby Wilson, notified Slade of the decision this week, saying her presence in the classroom poses "an ongoing threat of disrupting the academic process."

The move comes just days after Slade, who faces felony charges related to her spending of university money for personal expenses as president, requested and received teaching assignments this semester.

In June, the university's governing board fired Slade for using school funds to buy furniture, landscaping and a security system for her house, but did not take away her tenured faculty position. Her return last week provoked immediate controversy.

"There were a lot of people who were upset that the ex-president was allowed to teach," said board Chairman J. Paul Johnson. "It has been disruptive."

Slade has no place in the classroom -- and is one more example of what is wrong with tenure.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

The terrorist shills at al-Jizzbag al-Jazeera have released another propaganda tape from al-Qaeda proclaiming their guilt for the 9/11 attacks.

Al-Jazeera broadcast Thursday what it called a previously unshown video in which al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden is seen meeting with some of the Sept. 11 hijackers. The station did not say how it obtained the video, which was produced by As-Sahab, al-Qaida's media branch.

The video showed bin Laden sitting with his former lieutenant Mohammed Atef and Ramzi Binalshibh, another suspected planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings.

Atef, also known as Abu Hafs al-Masri, was killed by a U.S. airstrike in
Afghanistan in 2001. Binalshibh was captured four years ago in Pakistan and is in U.S. custody, and this week President Bush announced plans to put him on military trial.

In the video, bin Laden was wearing a dark robe and white headgear walking in a mountainous area. He smiled as he greeted several men, which the tape said were Sept. 11 hijackers.

Hopefully that will shut up the folks who claim that the WTC as brought down by a government plot -- including the Democrat candidate for Congress in Florida's 15th Congressional District, Bob Bowman, who claims that Dick Cheney did it.

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.

Here are a couple of low-lifes who just need killing.

Two Baytown men have been charged with capital murder in the death of Barney Goodman, a disabled Vietnam veteran who was robbed and beaten with a baseball bat.

Kenneth Dollery, 22, and Hollis B. Buckley, 21, both unemployed, were arrested at a mobile home park in Baytown Thursday.

Both have given statements admitting their involvement in Goodman's death, said Liberty County Sheriff Greg Arthur.

Goodman, 57, who had served a stint in Vietnam in the U.S. Marines, lost both his legs last year to diabetes, said his brother, Richard Ford.

"My brother had just learned to walk again with artificial legs," Ford said. Goodman also recently survived cancer.

Before his health deteriorated, Goodman had been striving to become a country music singer.

As for the two suspects charged in the killing, Ford said, "They didn't have to do it. He had no legs. They just didn't want a witness left behind."

Arthur said the two suspects, who are cousins, told authorities they were angry with Goodman and "wanted to teach him a lesson" because he owed Buckley's mother a month's rent. Goodman and the suspects were living in the same mobile home with Buckley's mother, said Liberty County Sheriff's Capt. Chip Fairchild.

Goodman died Saturday at a Houston hospital from internal injuries after being beaten on Friday. According to investigators, Goodman agreed to go with the suspects in their car without realizing their intent.

Investigators say the suspects drove Goodman from Baytown to a bridge on FM 2090 just over the Liberty County line. Arthur said they beat him underneath the bridge, threw his artificial legs into the San Jacinto River, and left him there.

Goodman took several hours to claw his way up a 40-foot riverbank and waited until a motorist stopped to render aid. Taken to the hospital, he identified himself and gave a vague account of an attack by two men before passing out. He was unable to be interviewed by investigators before he died.

A capital murder conviction carries a possible death sentence. Goodman was buried Thursday in Baytown.

To the prosecutors -- No plea deal; no mercy.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember this story about the brutal attack on a Houston-area teen last spring? Well, the victim has returned to school on his own two feet.

A youth savagely beaten and assaulted with a pipe five months ago in Spring has recovered well enough to take classes at Klein Collins High School, his mother said Wednesday.

The 17-year-old has come a long way since he nearly died after being beaten April 22, she said.

He relies on a cane, but his recovery has been quicker than relatives anticipated.

"He was supposed to use a walker, but he thinks it makes him look old," she said.

David Tuck, 18, and Keith Turner, 17, both of Spring, were indicted on a charge of aggravated sexual assault in the beating and torture of the student.

Turner put a plastic pipe used to hold a patio umbrella in the teen's rectum, and Tuck, a skinhead, kicked it up inside him, damaging his internal organs, authorities have said. At least one of the two yelled ethnic insults during the beating, authorities have said. The student is Hispanic.

The youth, whose name is being withheld because he was sexually assaulted, spent three months and eight days in Memorial Hermann Hospital's intensive care unit.

He was released and sent home in late July, his mother said.

He has undergone operations on his internal organs and will undergo others later.

And the victim, a former football player, has not been abandoned by his old teammates. They are escorting him to class and ensuring that he has any help he needs during the day. It is good to see kids react with class and compassion.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

Maybe they will launch on Friday -- or have to wait until next month.

NASA hopes to figure out what caused the latest problem keeping Atlantis earthbound: an electrical short in a 30-year-old motor.

If the agency determines by Thursday night that the cause of the short is not serious, NASA can try to launch the shuttle Friday morning.

If it doesn't launch Friday, the space agency may have to wait until late October _ or relax daylight launching rules instituted after the 2003 Columbia accident and try again at the end of September. Once the Russian Soyuz comes back, NASA may attempt a launch as early as Sept. 28 or 29 even though the launch would be in darkness, spokesman Allard Beutel said.

NASA rules say shuttles have to be launched in daylight so that the big external fuel tank can be photographed for evidence of any broken-off pieces of foam of the sort that doomed Columbia.

There is a slight chance of a Saturday launch, but NASA would have to shorten its construction mission on the international space station, something Wayne Hale, space shuttle program manager, has said he would not like to do.

Here's hoping that all can be resolved in time for a Friday launch.

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.

Will someone explain to me why certain busy-bodies have a problem with the butchering-up of horses for sale as food abroad? I guess I don't see the problem -- except that it gives ranting liberals one more stupid "cause" to whine about.

Imagine if 100,000 dogs and cats were slaughtered each year in this county for meat to be sold for human consumption overseas. Imagine if the animals were purchased at dark auctions, transported to foreign-owned and tax-subsidized slaughterhouses in deplorable conditions, stunned with a metal bolt into their heads, and then sliced while alive into body parts.

Now, imagine there is a congressional effort to ban this barbaric treatment. But instead of becoming the political no-brainer of this or any other election year, it comes to the floor of the House of Representatives with its passage in doubt. Why? Because the slaughterers and their hacks in government scare people into thinking that stopping the slaughter actually is bad for the cats and dogs.

Actually, given the number of dogs and cats euthanized each year as unwanted, I would have no objection to some good coming of their deaths in the form of feeding the hungry -- or even sating gourmet palates in places like France. And I say that as a dog lover whose own canine companion is spoiled beyond belief.

The article I quoted from above is long on emotion and short on facts. Here's hoping that Congress ignores the liberal hysteria and gives the legislation it advocates teh deep-sixing it truly deserves.

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

And its a damn site better than anything being done by leaders on the state and national level -- especially since Congress has abandoned the issue for this year.

Texas should deploy 10,000 state National Guard troops to the border and issue special worker cards for immigrants, gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman said Wednesday as part of his "Keep It Simple, Stupid Politician" plan.

* * *

Friedman said Texas should immediately deploy 10,000 National Guard troops to the border to reinforce several hundred who are there now.

"We've been waiting for 153 years for Washington to help us with the border. They're not going to do it," he said.

Friedman said he would require immigrants to buy "taxpayer I.D. cards" that would allow them to work legally in Texas, and proposed fines of up to $50,000 against employers who hire illegal immigrants without the card.

Now I don't know that Texas can issue its own immigration documents, but we at least have someone proposing a common sense plan.

For that matter, I suspect Kinky has scored points with some Houstonians with frank words about our other immigration problem -- Katrina evacuees whose presence has lowered our quality of life.

In a Houston campaign appearance, the maverick independent also expressed a dim view of Hurricane Katrina evacuees still in town.

"The musicians and artists have mostly moved back to New Orleans now," he said, according to KHOU (Channel 11). "The crackheads and the thugs have decided to stay here. They want to stay here. I think they got their hustle on, and we need to get ours."

He wants the state to give Houston $100 million for more police officers to deal with a spike in street crime related to the evacuees.

And yes, he does generalize a bit too broadly. But given the spike in crime associated with the low-lifes shipped here from New Orleans, the failure of many of the evacuees to take any part in supporting themselves, and the constant whining for hand-outs from those peole (we've got kids still using their evacuee status as an excuse for not bringing pens and paper to school -- a year after the storm), many Houstonians are ready to load them back onto the buses and send them back across the Louisiana state line.

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 2 kb.

If this were the work of fundamentalist Christians of neo-conservatives, it would be front-page news around the globe. Instead, it gets buried on page A23 of the Washington Post -- and not given any significant play elsewhere.

But then again, we are so used to the barbarism of the jihadi Islam that this barely causes a ripple in the cosmic force of the universe.

A Sudanese newspaper editor who infuriated Muslim fundamentalists last year by printing an article that concerned questions about the parentage of the prophet Muhammad was found dead Wednesday in Khartoum, the capital.

Masked gunmen abducted Mohamed Taha, editor in chief of Al-Wifaq, from his home Tuesday. His decapitated body was found Wednesday in another section of the city. His head was beside the body, and his hands and feet had been bound, the Reuters news service reported.

Groups of tearful Sudanese reporters gathered outside a mosque in Khartoum on Wednesday night, according to news reports.

Reporters Without Borders, a group that promotes press freedoms worldwide, condemned the killing.

"We express our solidarity with our colleagues in Khartoum, for whom this cowardly murder is a harsh ordeal," the organization said in a statement. "The Sudanese authorities must do their utmost to see that light is shed on this tragedy, so that both the perpetrators and those who instigated it are brought to trial."

Last year, Taha published an article that referred to a centuries-old text by a Muslim historian that raised questions about the prophet's lineage. Religious leaders in Khartoum denounced Taha's work, and scores of protesters called for his death.

That one would be convicted of a crime for offending the religious sensibilities of one's readers is atrocious -- especially when the offense is something so trivial as raising genealogical issues. That one would be murdered for it is intolerable -- but we go right on tolerating it out of sensitivity to the followers of jihadi Islam. At what point will we recognize that jihadi Islam is noting but a gigantic conspiracy to violate basic human rights?

Posted by: Greg at 10:04 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

Let’s make something clear – the First Amendment confers no special rights on journalists that are not granted to other Americans. Journalists are not a priesthood set apart from the rest of the citizenry, permitted to engage in activities that the rest of us are not. And there is no exemption from the law granted to the press that does not otherwise exist for the people in general. And that is why this whining column by sportswriter John Canzano grates on me so – it claims a privilege for reporters that is not recognized under the Constitution or statutes of the United States of America.

T he reporters working the story broke no rules. They violated no laws. They did their jobs, and like a lot of journalists, they probably believed that a free press protected under our Constitution was not only a good thing, but an integral part of a democracy.

It all sounds great.

Until you consider they're facing prison time.

Sounds dire – until you consider why they face prison time. They have been subpoenaed to provide evidence in a criminal investigation – in particular, evidence regarding who leaked secret grand jury testimony contrary to the laws of the United States. Indeed, these reporters were the recipients of that information, presumably from the criminal or criminals who did the leaking. They have evidence of criminal activity, and like any other citizen have been called to supply evidence in the course of a criminal investigation.

Except they have refused to testify. If this were you or I, we would be hauled off to jail on charges of contempt of court until such time as we testified. These two reporters, on the other hand, remain at liberty while defying the subpoena power of a court and a grand jury while they appeal their contempt citations to a higher court. They want a declaration that reporters, among all the professionals in the United States, have a constitutional right to defy a subpoena on the basis of freedom of the press. They want the Bill of Rights to grant them a special right, granted to no one else. What arrogance!

John Canzano wants to make this a matter of life or death for the First Amendment.

Journalism sometimes depends upon sources being able to share relevant information without fear of exposure and retribution. Reporters need to remain independent. There are times when the use of an anonymous source can have significant benefits.

Reporters are not above the law. And editors go to great lengths to restrict the use of anonymous sources, including weighing the public's need to know. In this case, the reporters reported relevant information that was presented to them. And for that, they've become the focus of prosecutors.

T his isn't a matter of national security. A child's life is not in danger. We're talking about stories relating to a performance-enhancing drug scandal -- important coverage that resulted in sweeping changes in sport. Federal prosecutors, frustrated and at a dead end in trying to root out the leak, decided the best way to proceed is to lock up the messengers.

The only thing being stifled here is a free press, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. If reporters are compelled to identify confidential sources, you might as well declare it dead.

As a matter of principle, most reporters will choose jail over revealing a confidential source. But time behind bars shouldn't ever be a consequence for those who have followed the rules.

There is a grand jury involved in this case, now. And it's in the hands of a court of appeals now. And lawyers have argued. And subpoenas have been issued. And the defendants are two reporters who haven't broken a law anywhere on the books.

Land of the free, we're told.

But journalists have no right to make such a promise. They are not privileged with the ability to defy laws of general applicability because they believe that “the people’s right to know” trumps the laws of the United States in cases that they consider to be relatively less important than giving protection to the illegal activity of their sources. And that this case goes to the very heart of our legal system – the ability of a grand jury to gather evidence and conduct deliberations related to the bringing of criminal charges without the content of those investigations and deliberations being made public – is certainly a matter of grave importance for the administration of justice.

For Canzano to declare that applying laws to reporters in precisely the same manner which they apply to other citizens constitutes the death knell for the First Amendment is simply absurd hyperbole. Furthermore, it indicates that John Canzano has an exaggerated sense of self-importance.

And it shows that he is a liar as well – for reporters in question have broken the law by their refusal to follow the dictates of the subpoena.

Liberty isnÂ’t license, Mr. Canzano, and the rule of law is a bitch. Deal with it.

Posted by: Greg at 01:00 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 848 words, total size 5 kb.

After all, that is how Democrats have told us to define those who link their faith and their politics and claim the two cannot be separated.

Or maybe they mean that the term only applies to those whose faith isn’t in the Democrat Platform first and the Good Book second.

How else can you explain this speech by the Texas Donks’ candidate for governor, Chris Bell.

Over the past decade, few issues have divided American voters more than the role that religion should play in our political discussion. And I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of faith being wielded as a source of division rather than a source of strength and unity.

At the same time, I disagree with those that think the solution to this empty cynicism is to banish any talk of religion or faith from the public sphere. Personally, I could no more separate my personal faith from my public service than you could separate the Lone Star from the Texas flag. My faith is a fundamental part of who I am, and it informs every aspect of my politics.

And then he goes on to wield faith issues as a source of division by accusing his opponents of being immoral and unChristian. I believe the proper word for that is “hypocrisy”.

H/T Lone Star Times, Voice in the Wilderness

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, that is how Democrats have told us to define those who link their faith and their politics and claim the two cannot be separated.

Or maybe they mean that the term only applies to those whose faith isnÂ’t in the Democrat Platform first and the Good Book second.

How else can you explain this speech by the Texas DonksÂ’ candidate for governor, Chris Bell.

Over the past decade, few issues have divided American voters more than the role that religion should play in our political discussion. And I donÂ’t know about you, but IÂ’m sick and tired of faith being wielded as a source of division rather than a source of strength and unity.

At the same time, I disagree with those that think the solution to this empty cynicism is to banish any talk of religion or faith from the public sphere. Personally, I could no more separate my personal faith from my public service than you could separate the Lone Star from the Texas flag. My faith is a fundamental part of who I am, and it informs every aspect of my politics.

And then he goes on to wield faith issues as a source of division by accusing his opponents of being immoral and unChristian. I believe the proper word for that is “hypocrisy”.

H/T Lone Star Times, Voice in the Wilderness

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

I’m serious as a heart-attack – which is precisely what you may get with these innovations in carnival cuisine.

This yearÂ’s Big Tex Choice Awards, given to the top two State Fair vendors for creative food ideas, may have proven that anything fried and dusted with powdered sugar is delicious.

The second annual contest is a preview of the many foods that patrons will see at this yearÂ’s State Fair of Texas, which kicks off Sept. 29 and runs though Oct. 22.

Winning this yearÂ’s contest was the battered Fried Praline Perfection for best taste, and the cup of dough-rolled Fried Coke was named most creative. Each winner received a trophy.
* * *
The six finalists

Deep Fried Cosmopolitan — A fried pastry filled with cheesecake and topped with a cranberry glaze and a lime wedge. Served on a stick.

Donkey Tails — Large all-beef franks, slit on one side and generously stuffed with sharp Cheddar cheese, wrapped in a large flour tortilla and fried until golden brown. Served with mustard chili sauce or Ruth’s salsa.

Fernie’s Fried Choco-rito — A flour tortilla stuffed with marshmallows, coconut, candy bar pieces, caramel morsels and cinnamon then dipped in pancake batter and deep-fried to a crispy, crunchy outside and sweet, gooey inside. Drizzled with honey and topped with whipped cream.

Fernie’s Fried Mac-n-cheese — Texas-sized bites of macaroni and cheese, covered with a layer of garlic- and herb-flavored bread crumbs and deep fried until crispy outside and hot and cheesy inside. Served on a stick with a side of dipping sauces.

Fried Coke — Smooth spheres of Coca-Cola-flavored batter that are deep fried, drizzled with pure Coke fountain syrup, topped with whipped cream, cinnamon sugar and a cherry. Served in souvenir contoured glasses.

Fried Praline Perfection — Plump coconut and pecan pralines, battered and fried to a rich golden crust. Served warm with powdered sugar.

I think I’m going to be sick – and I haven’t even been on the Tilt-A-Whirl yet!

H/T Lone Star Times

Posted by: Greg at 12:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

That quote from Euripides certainly ran through my mind when I read this description of the new documentary about the Ditzy Slits Dixie Chicks.

Filmmakers have created a nonchronological story to emphasize the Greek tragedy behind the Dixie Chicks' spiral into country music's public enemy No. 1. The Chicks vs. President Bush, the Chicks vs. Toby Keith, the Chicks vs. country radio -- every antagonistic angle is covered, and yet Maines, Emily Robison and Martie McGuire persevere, with their chroniclers providing a sympathetic tone to their every struggle.

And their actions following Natalie MainesÂ’ stupid comment about President Bush while on stage in England certainly appear insane to me.

Maines is seen backstage at Shepherds Bush Empire asking for an update on the just-launched war in Iraq; within hours -- with cameras rolling -- she offhandedly says, "We're ashamed the president is from Texas," the home state of both Bush and the Chicks. She makes the statement, turns to a bandmate and laughs.

The press makes hay of her comment, and the Chicks and management go into damage-control mode, which will last nearly three years. There's the famous nude Entertainment Weekly magazine cover shoot, the Diane Sawyer interview and the protests at concerts.

Yes. But there is something that gets out. Rather than apologize for offending their fans (which would have been sufficient for me, who was prepared to buy tickets for their 2003 concert in Houston), they sounded a defiant note. Rather than acknowledge that those who were offended had a right to disagree, the band instead painted themselves as the victims of some McCarthyistic furor. Not only that, but they and their supporters acted as if the band was entitled to airplay and album sales – an insane proposition that placed the band’s freedom of speech above the rights of the rest of the American public.

The Left likes to tell us the Ditzy Slits Dixie Chicks were censored for their political speech. There is some truth to that claim – but not the way that the advocates for the band would have the public believe. Millions of Americans did censor band by turning them off and refusing to buy their albums and tickets. Hundreds of radio stations, reacting to listener pressure, censored them by dropping the band from playlists. All of this censorship, though, was of a sort that the Constitution permits – and at no time did the government act against the band, which is prohibited under the First Amendment. The rights of the band were respected, but so were the rights of millions of Americans to express their disapproval with their wallets.

After all, while the girls have every right to speak and sing, they have no right to an audience or a paycheck

Posted by: Greg at 12:36 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.

This is a new and different excuse for speeding

A Swiss driver caught speeding in Canada explained that he had been taking advantage of the ability to drive fast without hitting a goat, police said on Wednesday.

The driver was caught traveling 161 km/hr (100 mph) in a 100 km/hr zone in eastern Ontario Sunday.

"A motorist from Switzerland, used to driving around hills and mountains, takes advantage of the ability to go faster without risking hitting a goat," read the traffic officer's notes of the incident.

Local police said it was the first time they had ever heard of such an excuse.
"I've never been to Switzerland but obviously they must have a problem with that there," said police spokesman Joel Doiron, adding that in his 20 years of service he had never found a goat on the highways of eastern Ontario.

In a related story, a Texas A&M alum was cited for moving too fast in a local singles bar. He claimed he was taking advantage of the ability pick up girls without hitting on a goat.

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Does the NY Times exist in an alternate universe? That is my conclusion after reading today’s editorial.

For three years, Washington has been periodically consumed with the question of who unmasked a covert C.I.A. agent to the columnist Robert Novak.

Or, at the risk of being accurate, who told Robert Novak the name of a non-covert CIA employee, the disclosure of whose identity has been conclusively shown not to be a violation of any law.

It has been a huge distraction for the White House, resulted in the unjustified jailing of one reporter, and led to perjury charges against the vice president’s chief of staff.

Or, to the contrary, it has led to the justified jailing of a reporter who refused to obey a lawfully issued subpoena that was upheld by every court that reviewed it – in other words, she was held to the same standard as every other American. What is unjustified are the charges against Scooter Libby, whose alleged misdeeds appear to be less a question of deception than a matter of faulty memory that caused him to fall into a perjury trap set by a prosecutor who had long since ceased investigating an alleged crime and had instead set him self up as the Grand Inquisitor.

Last week, it was reported that Richard Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, was the first to mention Valerie Wilson to Mr. Novak, and that the federal prosecutor knew this more than two and a half years ago.

And why didn’t we know until last week? Because the prosecutor insisted that the leaker not publicly acknowledge his wrong-doing – to the point of preventing Armitage from resigning his position in a timely fashion for fear of inadvertently leading people to the accurate conclusion that he was the leaker. Thus the source of the cover-up was – Patrick Fitzgerald himself!

The revelation tells us something important. But, unfortunately, it is not the answer to the central question in the investigation — whether there was an organized attempt by the White House to use Mrs. Wilson to discredit or punish her husband, Joseph Wilson. A former diplomat, Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons.

HELLO!!!!!!! Since when is it a crime to for the executive branch to seek to discredit the views of its critics? It isn’t – and in a prior age was known as “setting the record straight” or “getting the message out”. And since no less than the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has determined that Wilson publicly lied to the press and public about his findings, for the NY Times to claim that he debunked the claim of Iran’s attempt to buy uranium is completely wrong and constitutes proof that the editors live in some bizarre clintonian universe where black is white, up is down, and true is false.

Mr. Armitage, a White House outsider, would be an odd participant in such a plot. He is said to have learned from a State Department memo that Mrs. Wilson had recommended sending her husband to check the Niger story since he had worked there as a diplomat. The memo was prepared for Mr. Cheney, who was eager to prove that there was an Iraqi nuclear weapons program and to silence critics.

All of which is irrelevant – because the attempt to “silence critics” was based upon proving them be wrong on the facts and therefore not credible. This is not a case of the rights of a dissenter being violated – because Mr. Wilson had no reasonable expectation that his false statements would go unchallenged or that those he criticized would not seek to rebut his position.

It’s conceivable that Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor, has evidence that suggests the information in the memo was used in some illegal manner. Or his investigators may have learned something troubling about the second, unknown, source cited in Mr. Novak’s column, or about some other illegal activity. But whatever it is needs to be made public. The Armitage story is mainly a reminder that this investigation has gone on too long.

Yes, it has gone on too long. Since Fitzgerald had a mandate to determine who the leaker was and if a crime was committed, he had his answer within 24 hours of his appointment and should have wrapped up his investigation by Christmas of 2003.

While this page opposed calls for reviving the special prosecutor law for this case, we did say that someone outside the White House orbit should be in charge, rather than Attorney General John Ashcroft. Like most others, we saw Mr. Fitzgerald as a good choice. Now we fear he has succumbed to the prosecutor’s foot-dragging disease. He kept the case open after I. Lewis Libby, Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, was indicted. At the time he hinted that he would have more to say on the original crime he was investigating. That was last October.

Or, having discovered that he was a prosecutor without a crime to prosecute, he has found it necessary to manufacture one – the ultimate abuse of prosecutorial power.

It’s time for Mr. Fitzgerald to provide answers or admit that this investigation has run its course. Otherwise, he risks being lumped in with the special prosecutor who spent a decade investigating the former Clinton cabinet member Henry Cisneros, and wound up with nothing more than his conviction that he had yet to get to the bottom of things.

I can almost agree with this view – except that in this case there has always been less than meets the eye.

Posted by: Greg at 09:02 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 946 words, total size 6 kb.

Does the NY Times exist in an alternate universe? That is my conclusion after reading todayÂ’s editorial.

For three years, Washington has been periodically consumed with the question of who unmasked a covert C.I.A. agent to the columnist Robert Novak.

Or, at the risk of being accurate, who told Robert Novak the name of a non-covert CIA employee, the disclosure of whose identity has been conclusively shown not to be a violation of any law.

It has been a huge distraction for the White House, resulted in the unjustified jailing of one reporter, and led to perjury charges against the vice presidentÂ’s chief of staff.

Or, to the contrary, it has led to the justified jailing of a reporter who refused to obey a lawfully issued subpoena that was upheld by every court that reviewed it – in other words, she was held to the same standard as every other American. What is unjustified are the charges against Scooter Libby, whose alleged misdeeds appear to be less a question of deception than a matter of faulty memory that caused him to fall into a perjury trap set by a prosecutor who had long since ceased investigating an alleged crime and had instead set him self up as the Grand Inquisitor.

Last week, it was reported that Richard Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, was the first to mention Valerie Wilson to Mr. Novak, and that the federal prosecutor knew this more than two and a half years ago.

And why didn’t we know until last week? Because the prosecutor insisted that the leaker not publicly acknowledge his wrong-doing – to the point of preventing Armitage from resigning his position in a timely fashion for fear of inadvertently leading people to the accurate conclusion that he was the leaker. Thus the source of the cover-up was – Patrick Fitzgerald himself!

The revelation tells us something important. But, unfortunately, it is not the answer to the central question in the investigation — whether there was an organized attempt by the White House to use Mrs. Wilson to discredit or punish her husband, Joseph Wilson. A former diplomat, Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons.

HELLO!!!!!!! Since when is it a crime to for the executive branch to seek to discredit the views of its critics? It isn’t – and in a prior age was known as “setting the record straight” or “getting the message out”. And since no less than the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has determined that Wilson publicly lied to the press and public about his findings, for the NY Times to claim that he debunked the claim of Iran’s attempt to buy uranium is completely wrong and constitutes proof that the editors live in some bizarre clintonian universe where black is white, up is down, and true is false.

Mr. Armitage, a White House outsider, would be an odd participant in such a plot. He is said to have learned from a State Department memo that Mrs. Wilson had recommended sending her husband to check the Niger story since he had worked there as a diplomat. The memo was prepared for Mr. Cheney, who was eager to prove that there was an Iraqi nuclear weapons program and to silence critics.

All of which is irrelevant – because the attempt to “silence critics” was based upon proving them be wrong on the facts and therefore not credible. This is not a case of the rights of a dissenter being violated – because Mr. Wilson had no reasonable expectation that his false statements would go unchallenged or that those he criticized would not seek to rebut his position.

ItÂ’s conceivable that Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor, has evidence that suggests the information in the memo was used in some illegal manner. Or his investigators may have learned something troubling about the second, unknown, source cited in Mr. NovakÂ’s column, or about some other illegal activity. But whatever it is needs to be made public. The Armitage story is mainly a reminder that this investigation has gone on too long.

Yes, it has gone on too long. Since Fitzgerald had a mandate to determine who the leaker was and if a crime was committed, he had his answer within 24 hours of his appointment and should have wrapped up his investigation by Christmas of 2003.

While this page opposed calls for reviving the special prosecutor law for this case, we did say that someone outside the White House orbit should be in charge, rather than Attorney General John Ashcroft. Like most others, we saw Mr. Fitzgerald as a good choice. Now we fear he has succumbed to the prosecutorÂ’s foot-dragging disease. He kept the case open after I. Lewis Libby, Mr. CheneyÂ’s chief of staff, was indicted. At the time he hinted that he would have more to say on the original crime he was investigating. That was last October.

Or, having discovered that he was a prosecutor without a crime to prosecute, he has found it necessary to manufacture one – the ultimate abuse of prosecutorial power.

ItÂ’s time for Mr. Fitzgerald to provide answers or admit that this investigation has run its course. Otherwise, he risks being lumped in with the special prosecutor who spent a decade investigating the former Clinton cabinet member Henry Cisneros, and wound up with nothing more than his conviction that he had yet to get to the bottom of things.

I can almost agree with this view – except that in this case there has always been less than meets the eye.

Posted by: Greg at 09:02 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 953 words, total size 6 kb.

Of all the victims of 9/11, one of the most intriguing is Fr. Mychal Judge, who lost his life providing last rights to the dead and dying at the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Greater love hath no man than this,
that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13

A new film looks at the complicated life and work of the man who some call the Saint of 9/11.

“Saint of 9/11” is a touching elegy for the Rev. Mychal Judge, the much-loved New York City Fire Department chaplain who was one of the first to die at the World Trade Center when debris fell on his head as he was following firefighters into the lobby of the north tower. Although the film makes tentative gestures toward being a full-blown biographical portrait, it isn’t that. Directed by Glenn Holsten and narrated by Ian McKellen in a stately, funereal voice, it is a tender memorial to a complicated man who devoted his life to service.

Its hushed, reverential tone is established early on with an image of Father Judge’s body being carried from the rubble while a talking head compares the picture to a Pietà. As the stories of his good deeds accumulate, he is remembered as a charismatic, down-to-earth man of the people who lived selflessly and joyously.

Father Judge didn’t achieve his state of grace without struggle. The movie delicately approaches his twin demons — alcoholism and homosexuality — but offers no stories of carousing or of sexual misadventure. If the film doesn’t state outright that he was celibate, it strongly implies that he was. By the time of his death, at 68, Father Judge had been sober for 23 years and had saved countless lives by taking people to Alcoholics Anonymous. One man remembers living in a box on the street until Father Judge found and rescued him.

His sexual orientation, which he acknowledged to friends but kept largely hidden from his colleagues at the Fire Department, led him to work closely with the gay Catholic organization Dignity and brought him into conflict with the conservative Catholic establishment. He marched in a St. PatrickÂ’s Day parade organized by the gay activist Brendan Fay, a prominent talking head in the film and one of its producers.

In the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when even medical personnel were fearful of physical contact with quarantined patients, Father Judge ministered to dying young men at St. VincentÂ’s Hospital and physically embraced them. Even when he encountered hostility from patients who wanted nothing to do with religion, he discovered that rubbing their feet with holy oil before talking with them would usually break down their resistance.

If anything, this portrait of a man who repeatedly put his life at risk for love of his fellow man, and who died in doing so, proves the old adage that Christians are not perfect, just forgiven. It also reminds us that we each have our burdens to share as we walk the road to Calvary with our Saviour, carrying our own cross in imitation of him.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 3 kb.

Hat's off to Rusty Shackleford for making this pointed observations!

If Islamofascism and the Religious Right have so much in common, then how come the terrorists never quote Pat Robertson? Instead, they are constanting quoting icons of the Left to support their positions. They even use clips from Fahrenheit 9/11 in this propaganda film.

And when American Taliban Adam Gadahn decides to name drop, it isn't Jerry Falwell that he cites for moral authority. It's George Galloway, Robert Fisk, and Seymour Hersh.

Indeed.

H/T Right Wing News & Right On The Left Coast

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

It is hoped that the problem can be resolved in time for a Thursday launch.

NASA scrubbed plans to launch the shuttle Atlantis today on a long-delayed assembly mission to the international space station when it discovered problems with an onboard fuel cell.

The space agency made tentative plans to try again Thursday with a lift-off from the Kennedy Space Center at 11:03 a.m. CDT.

However, shuttle managers intended to spend several hours today trying to diagnose the cause of a voltage spike in one of three fuel cells that generate electricity aboard the shuttle once it lifts off, said NASA spokesman Allard Beutel.

* * *

The fuel cell problem was discovered just after midnight, before the launch control team began loading the shuttle's external fuel tank with liquid oxgen and hyrdrogen propellants.

If the problem cannot be resolved in time for a Friday launch, it will have to be delayed into next month to avoud conflicting with a Russian launch to the ISS.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

Imagine that -- President Bush would do something so shockingly unfair as to turn the words of the jihadi terrorists against them in order to make the case that they remain a threat!

President Bush issued a stern warning yesterday about what he called the continuing terrorist threat confronting the nation, using the haunting words of Islamic extremists to support his assertion that they remain determined to attack the United States.

Abandoning his practice of only rarely mentioning al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Bush repeatedly quoted him and purported terrorist letters, recordings and documents to make his case that terrorists have broad totalitarian ambitions and believe the war in Iraq is a key theater in a wider struggle.

"Iraq is not a distraction in their war against America" but the "central battlefield where this war will be decided," Bush said in an address before the Military Officers Association of America.

Citing the internal communications of terrorists was a dramatic new tactic to advance familiar arguments from Bush in defense of his strategy. The remarks came less than a week before the nation observes the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and two months before midterm elections in which the administration's national strategy and competence promise to be pivotal questions.

The terrorists in Iraq see themselves as part of the same struggle that brought about 9/11 -- why can't the president's opponents?

Posted by: Greg at 10:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

I've always accepted the argument that if "the right of the people to peaceably assemble" confers an individual liberty in the First Amendment, and the right of the people to be secure in their homes and their papers confers an individual liberty against government intrusion, then certain tly the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment (written by the same folks at the same time) must obviously recognize an individual liberty as well. After all, in neither of the other cases does the term "the people" recognize a right limited to the state government but not extended to the individual.

In line wih my thinking on that matter, I've always wondered if the anti-gunners are simply folks who are too scared of individual liberty to permit the unrestrained exercise of the rights protected by the Constitution -- or even to permit the crabbed, limited exercise of such rights. But rarely have I seen such a frank and startling admission of this reality by an anti-gunner. But the NY Times' Verlyn Klinkenborg makes it clear that such a fear of liberty is exactly what animates some anti-gunners in today's lament that even "progressive" Minnesota allows for "concealed carry".

Every concealed weapon, with very few exceptions, is a blow against the public safety. The new gun laws in Minnesota take away local discretion over concealed-weapon permits, and they cost the local authorities plenty too.

But there’s a bigger problem. By focusing so obsessively on an individual’s rights — in this case, the purported individual right to bear arms in the library — all other rights are shoved aside. Police departments are forced to grant concealed-weapon permits to individuals who have almost none of the training and certainly none of the restrictions that police officers have.

WhatÂ’s worse, by granting this right to individuals, the law strips the public of its right to occupy public spaces without the threat of being shot. The police are trained to handle guns. The criminals know theyÂ’re not supposed to have them but find them easy to get, thanks to the N.R.A. Let them fight it out. No one is safer if gun-carrying civilians believe their rights entitle them to pretend theyÂ’re cops.

Sometimes I think the N.R.A. isn’t really about guns at all. It’s about making certain that the public — our political and civil society, in other words — has no ability to limit the rights of an individual. That is really what the logic of the “concealed carry” and “shall require” and “shoot first” laws says.

Guns make a perfect test case, because the end result is an armed cohort that is very prickly about its personal rights. The N.R.A. has armed the thousands of Minnesotans who applied for a permit once the “concealed carry” law passed. But it has disarmed the public by making sure that legislators will no longer vote for gun laws that protect the rest of us.

Yeah, you read that right. This NY Times editorialist is upset that the people and their representatives allow for too much freedom. What of the right of the state, we are asked, to crack down upon individual liberty and guarantee that we are not "too free." The same paper that wants to protect the rights of terrorists to plot their assaults on the United States free from effective monitoring is concerned that Americans might have too great a liberty to protect themselves. Those who insist that there is a right to privacy that guarantees an abortion and prevents the state from accessing abortion records to investigate criminal sexual assault of young girls laments the fact that gun-ownership records are not freely open to the general public.

Interestingly enough, what is lacking in this article is evidence of Klinkenborg's purported reason for opposing gun rights -- that the increased availability of guns makes us less safe. The statistics don't show that, so it is merely presumed, assumed, and asserted.

But when it comes down to it, Klinkenborg admits it is about fear of freedom -- and a willingness to restrict the rights protected by the Second Amendment that Knlinkenborg and the Times would never accept if applied to the First Amendment rights of the New York Times.

Posted by: Greg at 10:31 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 717 words, total size 4 kb.