C14 H9 CL5

"So. The unanimous scientific choice is to use DDT. But they don't, and instead go with a more expensive insecticide... now why would that be, I wonder?"

Not familiar? How about Dicholoro Diphenyl Tricholorethane? Maybe you know it better as DDT.

DDT was the first in a long line of chemicals and scientific innovations that activists managed to get banned or financially destroyed. It was 1962 when Rachel Carson wrote the book Silent Spring, the title describing a world without birds singing at springtime. She alleged that DDT weakened the eggshells of birds, causing them to collapse and kill unborn birds. A public outcry resulted, and eventually DDT was banned in the USA, then later in many other countries in the 1970s. The World Bank has a policy of refusing loans to any country that does not ban the use of DDT. In 2001, the Stockholm Convention was signed by128 nations, a treaty that called for the elimination of DDT and many other "persistent organic pollutants" barring health crises.

According to the UN's World Health Organization (WHO), DDT can be sprayed directly on clothing or used in soap with no ill effects to human beings, and although some studies have suggested a correspondence link between exposure to DDT with breast cancer, a direct study of the topic does not support this conclusion. Lancet's review of the data (Lancet 366 (9487), pp 763-73) reveals that:

In humans, DDT use is generally safe; large populations have been exposed to the compound for 60 years with little acute toxicity apart from a few reports of poisoning. Doses as high as 285 mg/kg taken accidentally did not cause death, but such large doses did lead to prompt vomiting. One dose of 10 mg/kg can result in illness in some people. Subclinical and subtle functional changes have not been meticulously sought until the past few decades.

So why was it banned? For the same reason ALAR was banned; because activists and environmentalists screamed that it was dangerous, newspapers leaped on the story to be first to report it without understanding or researching the data, and the public cried foul. Did these alarmists know that ALAR was not dangerous and was not a carcinogen? The data was out there, but they might not have been aware of it. 17 years ago, the internet was not available for research as it is now. But they certainly ignored the voices who did know.

Why does all this matter? Because millions of people a year die from Malaria, it is the world's most deadly disease. DDT is effective at killing malaria-carrying insects (particularly mosquitoes), but due to the lack of it's use, malaria cases are growing in the world when other diseases are all but wiped out. According to JunkScience, a blog dedicated to examining scientific claims and psuedo-scientific advocacy, over 90 million people have died of Malaria since it was banned in the USA. It is estimated 2.7 million people per year die of Malaria, which DDT would be very effective in reducing.

J.F. Beck at the RWDB blog examined an article by Tim Lambert at Scienceblogs. Tim Lambert's article was short, but the response by Apoorva Mandavilli, senior editor of Nature Medicine was a thorough Fisking (subscription required, excerpted at RWDB). Mr. Beck concludes with these thoughts:

At this point an important question arises: Is there any aspect of the use of DDT against Malaria that has not been misrepresented by Tim Lambert?

Lambert, who averaged about five DDT posts a month earlier in the year, has only posted on DDT once in the past two months. I think that's because it has finally sunk into his great big thick head that the scientific community's anti-DDT position was moderating. The anti-DDT tide had turned.

The GMO Pundit (who tipped Beck about the fisking) has this to say about DDT and Genetically Manipulated (GM) foods:

The subtle nature and indirect effects of the de-facto bans on DDT reveals how behind the scene misplaced NGO activism, directed at influencing policy in developing countries so that it conforms with rich country environmentalist fads can, and has caused great harm.

This is the inconvenient truth that Lambert wants to avoid.

Sadly, the DDT delusional drama of a defacto ban is being replayed currently a second time with GMO crops, with even less evidence of actual harm. Here the stick is threats to ban imports of African food into the EU.

Namibia is a definite example that I checked when I was in Africa last year - if Namibia's cattle are fed South African GM maize they will be kept out of Europe say the behind the closed door EU officials. As if meat from cattle who eat GM maize are a "health risk". Similar blackmail is occuring in other African countries. This is voodoo activism at it's worst.

Truly Attaran chose an apt title for his DDT paper, "Balancing risks on the backs of the poor".

The effect of this second (GM) technology "ban" is to inhibit agricultural innovation in a continent where agricultural productivity is key to eliminating poverty. This is a vile and immoral outcome when it originates from misconceptions and falsehoods deliberately being spread in rich countries that have plenty of food.

Understanding the errors on DDT policy can allow reasoning open minded people to learn from history. The problem is that tunnel-vision zealots dedicated to a Green Crusade never will.

Just because the first time, DDT, was tragedy, there is no guarantee the second time, GM crops, will be farce.
-by GMOPundit

There was discussion at Lambert's site as well:

In debunking this DDT myth nonesense there is one aspect that is rarely or never discussed. Malaria was almost eradicated in the early 1960s--from the whole earth. The number of cases registered by health authorities were at a historic low and eradication seemed within our grasp. This was done largely without pesticides, through careful monitoring, early diagnosis and rapid treatment of detected cases and general sanitation measures (cleaning up sources of stagnant water such as old tires, tin cans and other garbage in marginal communities). It was an exemplary international program that got local people heavily involved.

Pesticides were added to these measures in the late fifties, and may have contributed, but probably they were not necessary. If the policies had only continued for a few years more as they were being applied, malaria would be history. It is an eradicale disease as it has no animal reservoirs.

However, in the late 1960s international policy changed and it was decided to rely primarily on pesticides to finish the eradication job, and reduce or discontinue the funds spent on community-based monitoring and environmental measures. Of course, we know who benefited greatly from this decision. But who lost are the over 2 million people who now die every year from malaria, and the 100s of thousands who get sick or are at high risk. Because practically the first year after the new policy was implemented, the number cases began to increase again worldwide as they have done every year ever since then. Besides the usual venality of chemical companies, this story is a major moral and political failure on the part of the world public health establishment, which is why it is never told.

Now no one mentiones 'eradication' as a goal anymore. Who have killed millions are the pesticide companies and others who pushed for this mistaken policy that has utterly failed to control the disease. Malaria is completely out of control and will get worse as things heat up. Spraying, bed nets and now vaccinations are simply admissions of a major failure to eradicate this terrible disease when we had the chance.

Alicia Colon's stuff is more than rubbish. It is a criminal cover up.
-by Rob

Ron -You are generally on target in saying that a multi-pronged attack on malaria was making rapid progress until the 1960s, when it slowed dramatically. But we should be cautious about saying that total victory was just around the corner. In my view, it would be more accurate to say that part of the problem was (as you point out) a naive and overly optimistic belief in the enduring power of DDT, but also that another, very important part was that we had already won most of the easy battles. Gordon Harrison describes, in Mosquitoes, Malaria and Man, how the protean nature of the Anopheles mosquito stymied attempts to use a single breeding control strategy worldwide. The damn pesky critters just come in so many varieties, with a different behavior for each, that what works in Borneo is worthless in Bangladesh. Where the local malaria vector prefers to lay its eggs in (for example) wheel ruts and rainbarrels, the odds are excellent that you can mobilize the town and interrupt the breeding cycle. But where the mozzies would rather breed in the swamp and come to town on holidays, you face a much more difficult fight. The hard-won wisdom of the last fifty years is that any successful strategy against malaria must take into account all the local variables, and use a combination of targeted methods against Plasmodium and its vector. The CDC summed up our present state with a bit of determined pessimism:

With the success of DDT, the advent of less toxic, more effective synthetic antimalarials, and the enthusiastic and urgent belief that time and money were of the essence, the World Health Organization (WHO) submitted at the World Health Assembly in 1955 an ambitious proposal for the eradication of malaria worldwide. Eradication efforts began and focused on house spraying with residual insecticides, antimalarial drug treatment, and surveillance, and would be carried out in 4 successive steps: preparation, attack, consolidation, and maintenance. Successes included eradication in nations with temperate climates and seasonal malaria transmission. Some countries such as India and Sri Lanka had sharp reductions in the number of cases, followed by increases to substantial levels after efforts ceased. Other nations had negligible progress (such as Indonesia, Afghanistan, Haiti, and Nicaragua). Some nations were excluded completely from the eradication campaign (most of sub-Saharan Africa). The emergence of drug resistance, widespread resistance to available insecticides, wars and massive population movements, difficulties in obtaining sustained funding from donor countries, and lack of community participation made the long-term maintenance of the effort untenable. Completion of the eradication campaign was eventually abandoned to one of control.

-by jre


National Review Article on DDT
-by dumbcisco

Malaria was almost eradicated in the early 1960s--from the whole earth. The number of cases registered by health authorities were at a historic low and eradication seemed within our grasp. This was done largely without pesticides

What are you talking about? This was precisely when people were using massive amounts of DDT.

Also, from Lambert's second link:

From the outset, pyrethroids were identified as the insecticide to be used in the spraying component of the LSDI. However, with the discovery of high levels of pyrethroid resistance in An. funestus, meetings were held with the RMCC, national and international experts to recommend an alternative to the use of this family of insecticides. Based on scientific data, it was unanimously agreed the best course of action would be to use DDT. In the light of Mozambique not agreeing to the use of DDT, an alternative recommendation was that a carbamate such as Bendiocarb be used.

So. The unanimous scientific choice is to use DDT. But they don't, and instead go with a more expensive insecticide... now why would that be, I wonder?
-by tc

TC, Ron is referring to the fact that Malaria was elminated from most of Europe and most of North America prior to World War II and the introduction of World War II.
-by Ian Gould

DDT was examined by the US government in 1972, according to JunkScience:

In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. ... The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. ... The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”*

Two months later, EPA head [and Environmental Defense Fund member/fundraiser] William Ruckelshaus - who had never attended a single day’s session in the seven months of EPA hearings, and who admittedly had not even read the transcript of the hearings - overturned Judge Sweeney’s decision. Ruckelshaus declared that DDT was a “potential human carcinogen” and banned it for virtually all uses.

Maybe it's time to reexamine this and quit presuming there's a problem with this chemical without the evidence to back it up. And if you read any more articles at scienceblogs, be aware that despite the impressive name, many advocates and junk scientists post there on various hot, activist topics.

*UPDATE: The World Health Organization is apparently going to endorse the use of DDT because whatever risks it might have are outweighed by the benefits in fighting Malaria and other insect-carried diseases.

Science

ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION - EDUCATION

The quality of education in the United States is constantly under scrutiny and the subject of debate. For many if not most public school districts, the quality is lacking, students graduating with minimal skills and sometimes without the ability to even read. In Oregon, for instance, one test ranked the state in the bottom 5 states in quality of education, but at the same time, the spending per student was among the 5 highest in the nation.

In a recent column by Linda Chavez, it was revealed that teachers are failing the grade as well. 34 states were notified by the federal Department of Education that their teacher testing had major problems.

In the District of Columbia, for example, teachers can be certified by scoring barely above the 20th percentile on the Praxis test, an exam used by 29 states to test who is fit to teach. The other states aren't much better, granting certification to teachers so long as they score above the bottom third of all test takers.

This reminds me of the state of Massachusetts where 60% of the people seeking teacher certification failed the test. The state education board made the test easier, and over 40% failed again.

Johnny can't read, can't add, and can't find his own state on a map. Johnny doesn't know history, doesn't know grammar, and certainly doesn't know science. But he knows what's on TV and how to use a cell phone text messenger.

Who's to blame? What can be done? Are ventures such as charter schools a viable alternative? Is home schooling a good answer, or does a student miss out on too many social opportunities by staying home?

I've invited some of the most intelligent, consistent, and informed commenters I could find around the internet to discuss this problem, to examine the issue of education, at all levels. If you want to join in feel free, but unlike my usual policy toward commenting, I have zero tolerance for trolls. Keep it polite, thoughtful, informative, and useful.
-Christopher Taylor

Roundtable Discussion

Quote of the day

“Neither good intentions nor efficiency of organisation can preserve decency in a system in which personal freedom and individual responsibility are destroyed.”
-Fredrick Hayek The Road to Serfdom

Quotes

TERRORISM REMINDER

"It will probably take a combination of discourse and military force to end terrorism."

I'm not a big Ann Coulter fan. The more fame and age she gets, the more unpleasent and deliberately provocative she seems to become. Bitchy, to use a word. She overgeneralizes and uses hyperbole far too often, attacking "liberals" when she means "modern, anti war radical leftists" for example. Lately, she's been saying things that seem calculated to get press and attention timed with the release of her new book.

That said, she often has good points in her columns, she brings up good points if you can wade through the snark and bitterness. Miss Coulter's recent article "More of John Kerry's retroactive campaign promises" is about terrorist attacks in the past, reviewing a partial list of terrorist strikes that US properties, people, and homeland have suffered over the years.

It starts in 1979, and I'll give you a partial list that she offers; the whole list of significant terrorist strikes from 1961-2003 is offered by the State Department:

• November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.
• 1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.
• April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.
• September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.
• October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.
• April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.
• December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.
• February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.
• June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.
• August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.
• October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.
• Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

There are many more, I trimmed it down to one a year. Miss Coulter also adds in attacks by terrorist groups like Hezbollah on military targets, which while bad, are not technically terrorism.

Her point? John Kerry's statement that the war between Israel and its enemies "wouldn't have happened" if he was President is simply ignorant and foolish. Terrorism isn't new. Hezbollah existed and was antagonizing, attacking, and killing Israelis long before he ran for Sentate, let alone the Presidency. Ann goes on to point out Kerry's contradiction of previous statements he's made, but that comes as no surprise to someone familiar with the man. Now, it's easy to dismiss John Kerry as an idiot, because he makes foolish statements of this kind regularly.

But he's echoing a more deeply held sentiment that some people have, and that's the delusion that we're stirring up and antagonizing terrorists who would be nice folks knitting at home and raising camels if only we'd stop being so mean and imperialistic. They point to the War on Terror as the reason for events, totally ignoring the history of the region and the recent history of terrorism. This isn't new, it's not because we're so mean to them, and it's not going to stop by electing John Kerry.

Commenters at Town Hall responded to Ann Coulter's article:

My Kerry-ish promise If I'm elected President, everyone in the US will be conservative multi-millionaires, and world peace will reign supreme.

Can I count on y'all's votes in 2008?
-by BrianR


What war would the Democrats ever fight? Every time there is a military conflict, they see more pressing business elswhere. We go to Afghanistan, the dems want to open talks with North Korea. We depose Saddam, the dems say we need to focus on Afghanistan; stand up to North Korea, dems want to confront Iran, and the beat goes on. The dems should change their mascot from a donkey to someone kicking a can down the road, because that is their foreign policy; kick the can down the road, avoid making any tough decisions and let the next guy clean up the mess. That way the dems can always say that it didn't happen on their watch, which is technically true, but they are always the ones laying the foundations for disasters.
-by Flagwaver


John Kerry is a tragicomic figure. He is obviously a man of some intelligence -- having graduated from Yale at virtually the same level as George W. Bush. He has a respectable job resume in many respects: county prosecutor, Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, U.S. Senator, author, Democratic candidate for the 2004 presidential race, etc.

The tragic aspect of the man is his self-delusion. It first became public in 1971 during his Senate testimony, which was largely fictional. It has continued mostly unabated since. For Kerry to delude himself into thinking Hezbollah's attacks on Israel would not have happened under his watch is what we have come to expect from this curious man.
-by gnucarsmell


Why even go after OBL?
After all, all of the actual perpetrators of the 9/11 hijackings were killed along with their victims. If a man kills his wife and then turns the gun on himself, we don't arrest his mother-in-law. Continue to narrow your focus and this is where you'll arrive.

What the left doesn't seem to understand is that our enemy in this current war is unlike any other we've faced before. In the past our enemies have been more like tumors, and we have been able to locate them and destroy them where they live. The current enemy is more like a blood-borne parasite that is festering in every organ of the world's body. Not as easy to remove, and just as deadly.

The enemy is intentionally anonymous. They want to look like everyone else. I have a friend who was in one of the first marine units to march into Baghdad. He says that most of the people did come out and greet them as liberators. There were some, however, who came out with the crowds, pretending to be excited to see the Americans, hoping to get close to the marines so they could injure or kill one of them. It didn't take long before they were forced to err on the side of caution and simply couldn't let any civilians close to them.

John Kerry and his ilk foolishly seem to think we're dealing with an enemy who would stop fighting if only we really understood them and they really understood us. We want to live in peace and liberty, and they want us dead. There's no way to come to any compromise when the two sides desire such disparate outcomes.

Q: "Hey, John. There's a jackal gnawing off your head. What are you going to do?"

A: "I'll go to the UN and have them pass a resolution which explains to him that his behavior doesn't pass the international test and he must therefore cease forthwi . . ." (faints, thankfullly, from loss of blood. Or we'd be reading his response until labor day).

In order for diplomacy to work, you must first be dealing with someone capable of rational thought. We cannot reason with our current enemy and should not be expected to do so. But, since ol' Johnny boy seems to think he's the only one up to the task, we should call his bluff. Let's give him a one-way ticket to Beirut.
-by Wingo


Any cause that's able to recruit members willing to die for it, is a formidable foe indeed, and is very capable of prevailing against a less committed adversary - and likely to do so. In the last century, the Japanese produced just such warriors but too late to make the difference. The Kamikazes weren't recruited by the State so much as they spontaneously volunteered in defense of it when defeat was clearly approaching.

We've been kept free by individuals who devoted themselves to the point of death should it be necessitated by circumstances - we didn't set out to purposely kill ourselves.

The Jihadists have taken this passion to a even deadlier level - death as a goal. It's been said that the deadliest fighter on a nuclear battlefield is the soldier, having been exposed to nuclear radiation and realizing he's finished, turns himself into a suicide weapon in his final hours alive. The Jihadists are even more deadly since they aren't restricted by time or deteriorating health.

Therefore, we are indeed fighting a war of survival and the sooner the West decides that this enemy needs to be taken much more seriously, the better it's chances for survival. Their successes can only strengthen them as more recruits are attracted to the cause. Appeasing them is their success since it is an indication of weakness that may be exploited. That's why we nor the Israelis cannot give in any longer.

Ann has made it quite clear that this world-wide Jihad is growing, expanding and widening. It is suicidal to give these people 'rights' - they extend none to their enemies. She is also exactly right that it makes no sense to put leftists in charge of our defense since, corrupted, amoral and bereft of traditional forms of honor though they may be, delusionally thinking they might 'do business' with these people - sort of one gang negotiating with another ('it's only business') or like Faust dealing with the devil - they're sadly mistaken if they think this animal wouldn't eat them too.
-by grubby


Now I'm just a crazy liberal so ya'll can probably ignore this post (or just skip to the bottom). I mean, I am hell bent on America's destruction.

After all, I only lived in New York City for a while and spent 9/11...and 12...and 13 calling (well, trying to get connected to) friends and loved ones, some of whom worked near the towers, desperately praying that they were alive. Even before my brother and his wife moved there last month I was really, really, really rooting for the terrorists to hit there again. Those were such fun days for me...after all, I am a liberal right? And that's what we want.

Oh yeah, and my grandmother, 2 aunts, 3 uncles, and 6 cousins live in Washington, DC. As a deranged liberal I'm hoping the terrorists nuke the whole town. Nothing would make me happier than to go to a whole bunch of funerals and console my mother and and any other survivors. After all, I am a liberal right? And that's what we want.

And I'm rooting for the North Koreans to kill my cousin serving in the Navy in Japan. And for the insurgents to kill another cousin and his wife serving in the Marines in Iraq. I'm a liberal right? So I really want them dead too.

And since I'm a liberal living in Atlanta - probably a target too - in my own liberal deranged way I'm obviously rooting for my own death.

And since I'm a liberal I'm really, really stupid too (ya'll can probably just ignore the Ph.D I'm working on...that's just a bunch of liberal garbage foisted on me by academia). Since I'm so stupid my math is probably really bad. So it won't help to point out that of the 19 terrorist attacks that Ann points out, 12 happened during Republican administrations. In fact, 11 happened from 1982-1988 during Reagan's administration. But he obviously stopped terrorism.

And it won't help to point out that 2 of the 7 attacks during Democratic administrations happened during the first 2 months of Clinton's administration. Obviously Bush bears NO responsibility for 9/11 - that happened 8 months into this administration, but those 2 attacks right after Clinton took power...definitely Bill's fault. If he hadn't been shooting missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan to kill terrorists...oh, that's right. That was just to distract from his receipt of oral pleasure. That, of course, was a national crisis.

Sarcasm aside, it would be really, really nice to have an actual discussion about ending terrorism. That does mean, whether people want to admit it or not, removing the conditions that lead people to think that strapping explosives on oneself and killing innocent civilians is an acceptable idea. Because it's not an acceptable idea. It will probably take a combination of discourse and military force to end terrorism.

And believe it or not, that's what (most) liberals want. An end to the death and destruction. Same as (most) conservatives and (most) Israelis and (most) Lebanese and (most) Palestinians...you get the point. Most people want an end to the death and destruction.

I wish I had the answer. I wish someone had the answer. I'm not sure there is AN answer. I know that some of my liberal friends don't have it. Yes, some of them have ridiculous non-solutions that blame the victims. But that's not much better than some of Ann's ridiculous posts that suggest (well, state) that we can just militarily wipe terrorists off the planet. If we could, I'd support that...within the limits of proportionate response (I know. Us liberals have this terrible habit of worrying about civilian deaths when those deaths are disproportionate to the value of the target. The damn military Uniform Code of Military Justice has those same stupid drawbacks...).

So, if you've read this far...why don't we not blame Carter, or Reagan, or Bush I, or Clinton, or Bush II, or liberals, or conservatives, or democrats or republicans for terrorism. Let's get past the notion that one side is rooting for us to lose and the other is looking to use this for purposes of advancement of an agenda. If anyone wants to do that, and frankly Ann is not at all interested in that from her consistent vantage of just bashing the other side (yeah, I'll try to make peace with conservatives, but I'll criticize Ann for the vitriol she spews), then I'll be happy to have the conversation. I don't have the answers, but I'm kind of smart (for a liberal) and lots of ya'll are too, and maybe we can come up with something reasonable and maybe Ann will notice, or someone else here, and well even if not, maybe libs and cons can have rational, reasonable discourse, and that's a good thing too.
-by Tybeeflip


My frustration with today's liberals is that they are putting party politics ahead of this battle we are in on a daily basis. I think if they get the white house they will continue the fight but today they can't join it verbally for fear that Bush' poll #'s will go up. I contrast that with 1998 when Bill Clinton called for regime change in Iraq and asked for Congressional authorization to bomb people. Now it was mentioned and a reasonable person could assume that Bill was just trying to change the headlines from his Lewinsky problem, but the Senate voted 98-0 to grant him this authority. The republicans would not play politics with our security in that case.

You cannot get today's democrats to do that, other than Joe Lieberman--who is a real hero. Today's democrats are like some kids I used to coach in basketball--they'd rather score 25 points in a loss than 5 points in a win. It's not good for the team. And the real question dems should be asking today about the war is not if we knew then what we know now about WMD would we still authorize it. Rather it is if we knew then what we know today about corruption at the UN and in the Oil for Food program would we still call for international approval of our efforts. Other than calling Saddam a bad guy--do ya think?--they refuse to mourn the innocents that died because of Saddam and Kofi Annan and France and Russia and Germany and China. Or even the thousands being killed by their terrorists country men in Iraq. Just those who are used as human shields and killed by Israel or the US. The liberal lack of support hurts us--it lengthens the war because the terrorists get the idea if they just outlast Bush we'll back off.

You sound like an adult but the Democratic Party and their officials try to please the whacko childish side in order to get their support. They behave like children in so many ways. I have read Kos and Huffpo to try to test my thoughts and see where we can find any agreement. It's not there.
-by GoBlue


I've been in the Air Force for 20 years now and I (like all other service members) pray for peace and would prefer to avoid conflicts when at all possible. However, we are in this war whether we want it or not and total defeat of these fanatics MUST be our only goal. I would never advocate the needless killing of innocents, but we can only win this war by the total annihilation of the enemy. In WWII, we didn’t seek to “hamper the Nazi’s war fighting abilities” or “discourage future attacks” - our goal was their complete destruction. We too often expect our military (and currently the Israelis) to get into the ring with boxing gloves – while our enemy uses a shotgun. Unfortunately, too many Americans (i.e. liberals) live in a “what should be” world and not in reality.

Liberals believe that “compassion and understanding” will end all disputes and that “we must have done something wrong” to create this situation. Read your history! This is not a new conflict – the same people have been trying to kill us and our ancestors for thousands of years. When your enemy’s only goal is your death, no amount of “compassion and understanding” will improve the situation. Unfortunately, this conflict may never go away; we can only kill or remove as many as possible and make state-sponsors pay an extremely high price for their support. We can all debate the “perfect solution”, but until, and if, that solution is found we must all be on the same side.

I would love to live in a perfect world, in which we all get along. However, the reality is that someone will always want what you have or disagree with your ideals and believe violence is the only answer. You can defend yourself or die – it actually is that “black and white”.
-by Icedog01


Let's not forget Ann Coulter forgot Yasser Arafat's involvement in the 1973 murder of the late U.S. Ambassador to Sudan Cleo Noel Jr.
-by Shovav


Of course, Democrats controlld the White House for six of the 27 years Ann mentioned. Not a good scorecard for Republican's protecting us from terrorists.

When the Islamofascists killed 241 of our US MArines in Lebanon, what did Ronald Reagan do? HE CUT AND RAN.

When Ayatollah Khomeni turned Iran even more nutty extremist, what did Ronald Regan do? He sent Khomeni a birthday cake and more guns to use to take hostages in Lebanon.
When those nuts took hostage after hostage in Lebanon in the 1980's, what did Ronald Reagan do? NOTHING.

ETC, etc, etc. And when Bill Clinton tried to do something, what was the Republican response? "Wag the dog! Wag the dog!" Stop distracting us from the really serious issues of the day, like the President having a girlfriend.

Maybe if the Republican controlled Congress had spent the CLinto years oing after Bin Laden as hard as they went after President Clinton, 9/11 might have been prevented.
I also don't recall George Bush once saying terrorism was much of a threat when he ran for President in 2000.
-by jsh


Great post jsh.

You complain that most presidents during that time frame were Republican but then whine about the GOP congress not doing anything prior to 9/11 under a Dem president. Might I point out that it was a fully Dem controlled congress for 40 years prior to 1996. Doesn't seem like they accomplished a whole lot in regards to terror in that time.

Besides who was in control, the whole point of the article is to show that Osama is not the only terrorist out there as Dems seem to think. And one of the first things you reply with is why didn't the Republicans get Osama?!

Besides pretty much validating everything Ann said, you also seem to leave out the fact that Clinton was offered Osama and declined. You also leave out the fact that his attempts to "stop terrorism" involved the brilliant strategy of bombing pharmaceutical plants in the Sudan. Quite a success that was.

But you're right about that Reagan guy, he really did nothing at all. That whole economic boom in the 80s that tripled our output, stopping communism (I know, I know, it was actually Truman even though libs didn't believe in communism until it was defeated), and shutting up Qadafi are all meaningless I suppose.

But hey, you raised some great points about how Republicans let 9/11 happen and how all they care about is Monica Lewinsky. Quite impressive and thanks for the two cents but I'd say its back to basic arithmetic for you.
-by neocon


jsh, I was gonna answer your rant but I had to stop laughing first.

Your cherry-picking argument is so full of bullsh*t I'll start with Iran. You may remember a President in need of a spine who allowed the Ayatollah to GET CONTROL of Iran because Carter felt the Shah violated human rights. Well LA-DI-DA, the Iranians today STONE people to death.

Reagan was well-advised to use the Contras to fight the Sandinistas, another kill as you go Commie group. Nicaragua is a free country today thanks in part to that.

The 80's burst of terrorism was due mainly in part to the ineptitude of the Carter regime whose spinelessness in dealing with 52 hostages that the Ayatollah held for 444 days led many Islamfascists to think that we were a paper tiger. Hence, the explosion of terrorism that Reagan had to deal with. In the same manner that Bush as to clean up Clinton's mess due to Bubba's lack of response.

You say Bubba was doing something about it? What pray tell? He shot missiles at an empty aspirin factory in the Sudan three hours after he gave them warning. He did nothing about the Khobar Towers. He did nothing but send an FBI investigation team to the USS Cole disaster. [explitive deleted], I could go on and on.

As I have stated elsewhere, Bubba and company were very effective in attacking Americans trying to practice their freedom of religion but to the left, that's okay, they're evil right-wingers huh?

Three more points. One, it wasn't about his bj in the Oral Office, it was about LYING UNDER OATH to a Federal grand Jury. Why do you libs have such a hard time understanding that PERJURY is a crime, a FELONY.

Two, if Bubba was so concerned with fighting terrorism why did his administartion overrirde FAA concern over Atta and his nutjobs being trained at a flight school in Florida?

Three, Sudan offered OBL to Clinton three times. Clinton refused all three times. Too bad, if he'd have bagged him, maybe 9-11 could have been averted.
-by GunnyG


You are asbsolutely correct: the Democrats controlled COngress for most of the period in question. I did not mean to absolve them of responsibility. I was just rying to point out that up until Sept. 10, 2001, neither party took this threat particularly seriously.

My statement "Reagan did nothing" was to the question of his repsonse to the ongoing abduction and humiliation of American after American in Lebanon in the 1980's. (It had nothing to do with the economy or any other factor.)

My overall point is that both parties have failed to see the real threat to America. Ann Coulter claims only Republicans will protect us.

The record shows otherwise. When the terrorists blew up the marine barracks in 1983 in Lebanon, killing 241 Americans, Reagan cut and ran. That sent a powerful message to the terrorists which we are still paying for.
-by jsh

See, the problem is that the Islamic extremists are becoming bolder and more active recently - after being cowed and crushed for a few years by successful coalition efforts in the War on Terror. But the question that isn't asked is "would they be doing this if they weren't attacked by the US?" And the answer is obviously, yes, they would have, because this has always been their goal. If there has been any motivation from the War on Terror, its come from appeasement and frightened leftists and European nations capitulating to demands by Islamofascists and echoing their rhetoric in trying to bring down the President.

TybeeFlip above is like many liberals today, who decry the use of violence and call for a "better solution" while simulntaneously unable to offer that better solution and rejecting President Bush's plan as unfeasible, warmongering, and imperialistic. President Bush wants to establish democracy in the Middle East, causing the ideals of liberty to flourish in the region and over time eliminate the radical extremist terrorists by showing them a better way... while fighting them to stop them from taking action elsewhere.

It's "a combination of discourse and military force" that TybeeFlip mentions... but he'd likely consider President Bush a horrible, evil man. And an idiot. And a super genius bent on ruling the world. All at once, somehow. Or maybe he's not so inclined and is more thoughtful and rational - some such modern liberals do exist. I'd like to think he's not but the more thoughtful kind are few and far between these days it seems.

Terrorism

THE END OF DEMOCRACY?

there is more evidence of an Islamization of democracy in the West than of any spread of democracy in the Islamic world.

Europe has managed to set up and is working on the final details of the European Union, which is intended to make the continent (at least the members they'll accept) a stronger economic power in the world and function as a sort of aggregate superpower - without a military to speak of. But in Brussels Journal, Fjordman expresses a concern over how the European governments work and what is happening to the region:

At the end of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama pronounced that we had arrived at “The End of History”, and that capitalism and liberal democracy would now be the only global system left. But when I look at Europe today, I see democracies under threat because of an elaborate Eurabian bureaucracy and Islamic fanaticism. I see countries unwilling or unable to defend themselves against massive immigration/colonization.

Has democracy become too soft to function? Have we arrived at “the End of Democracy” rather than “the End of History?”

Fjordman goes on to examine the new rise of communism and a strange nostalgia for the crushing tyranny and misery of Eastern Germany, but notes that the real threat to Democracy in Europe is not neocommunism, but rather "transnational progressivism."

Transnational progressivism is undemocratic and authoritarian to its core. It presupposes the rule of enlightened “experts” and élite groups over the ignorant masses, who are stupid and should not be permitted to make important decisions without supervision. Its goal is to establish a benign oligarchy, where power will reside within smaller groups which will conduct their affairs out of the public view.


In essence, a wiser, more enlightened few will rule over the idiot masses in layers of bureaucracy that insulate them from the people they are in power over. As John Fonte of the Hudson Institute points out, “transnationalism” and “Multiculturalism” are presented as unstoppable forces of history, but in reality they are “ideological tools, championed by activist élites.” Fjordman then goes on to point out that a key factor assisting this effort is immigration, which he describes:

One of the most serious challenges to democracy in the 21st century is the unprecedented pressure from migration, and the fact that certain groups can decide to permanently change the entire demographic make-up of a country without public debate and without public consent, by simply refraining from upholding its borders. It has been called “the greatest demographic experiment ever forced onto a people politically.”

Even in the USA, the most astonishing aspect of the immigration debate is that the élites “think they can override the clear and huge resistance of the American people.” As columnist Tony Blankley wrote, the Senate was prepared to “legislate into the teeth of the will of the American public.” Eight out of ten Americans wanted the borders closed to millions of illegal immigrants, yet nothing substantial has been done. There has to be a reason for this.

In Europe, Fjordman points out, immigration policy is being influenced by forces outside individual nations, to the detriment of liberty and democracy within those nations:

It cannot be dismissed as Leftist parties being merely “naive.” After a narrow election victory, Italian Socialists in 2006 almost immediately embarked upon expanding immigration and granting citizenship to tens of thousands of Muslims already in the country.

Fjordman asks the most pertinent, key question that is being deliberately avoided in any discussion: is democracy compaitible with multiculturalism? His conclusion is it is not, and I share that concern. It simply pits groups against each other in a constant struggle for power that requires an authoritarian government to control and stabilize. In essence, it creates a problem in a previously peaceful society that requires the transnational progressivist tyranny to deal with.

Political correctness and multiculturalism has a side to it that is more than annoying and foolish, it is actually sinister:

What should we label such undemocratic, top-down planning? The Rule of Experts, or the Tyranny of Experts? Or what about the Rise of Transnational Anti-Democrats and Stealth Fascism? I have warned against “Stealth Socialism,” Marxism masquerading as something else. Perhaps we should also look out for “Stealth Fascism,” the authoritarian rule of a small group of individuals, hailing the glories of an invented past as the path to a powerful future. All possible only if we give up our freedoms in favor of their enlightened rule, of course.

Commenters replied to this very lengthy, but highly recommended essay:

The final nail in the immigration coffin was nailed in by Labor/Democrats. They didn't want competition for union labor so in the name of fairness and tolerance in 1965 Ted Kennedy introduced a bill that essentially gave equal treatment to african goatherders as to european engineers. The only way to immigrate across the Atlantic US <---> EU is to apply for asylum or marry a citizen. Yes, there are a very few exceptions that I won't go into detail with but the current system insures that the vast majority of immigrants are unskilled and largely unwanted by their new host country. It is not an accident that there are problems now because the system made it INEVITABLE.

Giving priority to skilled immigrants needs to be done immediately and stop the insanity of allowing arranged marriages to be used along with family reunification as a valid criteria for immigration. Denmark is moving in the right direction. If Lena goes to Egypt and falls in love with Ahmed she can move to Egypt and get married and enjoy living under Islamic totalitarianism rather than the Swedish method of bringing Ahmeds entire family to Sweden for a marriage that probaly will only last 2 or 3 years at most. Insanity.
-by Amsterdamsky

Thank you for the excellent post. We are increasingly governed by elites who, no matter which country they come from, have far more in common with one another than they do with the people who they supposedly represent. They have been conditioned to believe that they are some kind of artist and the common people are just the canvas upon which they can paint their visions of utopia. The trouble they face in democratic countries is that there are not just mechanisms for organized opposition to their artistic endeavors but cultural resistance as well, which could, if offended deeply enough, result in them being thrown out of their positions of power. And the best way to cut this off is to dilute the culture by allowing mass immigration of people whose own culture is incompatible with the local one. Its happening in much of Europe, and its happening in the US.

The worst thing of all is the unshakeable confidence that the elites have in themselves. The countries that relied on central planning of the economy and society were abysmal failures, which in large part is probably due to the fact that, in mathematical terms, they are "complex systems." But in their arrogance the ruling elites think that they can accomplish what no one has ever been able to do before.

In your essay you had some question as to what such people should be called. Perhaps the best answer is a very old label indeed: the Kakistocracy--rule by those who are least fit or principled.
-by tcobb

The technocrats of the world seek to escape accountability, which democracy requires. And they can't stand being judged by "the people".

The escape route: bury accountability behind numerous layers of indirection so there is no way for them to be monitored by anyone who actually would risk firing them. To relate this to another thread: another trick is to figure out ways to get access to taxes, ideally those you can easily raise, without needing to consult the people. Or you can organize an NGO and raise money from "beautiful people" and be truly unaccountable, as long as you're working for a "good cause".
-by Foobarista

The difference between euroland and the USA is the difference between hume/kant/adam smith and dualism and Hagel/marx and monism.

the question is not islam yes or no? its what kind of islam, a secualar, dualistic islam might in fact be good for euorland just as a dualistic christdom is good for america.

If american wins and the islamists are beaten, the the winner is euroland, who will have to alter their monist ways to accomodate the islamic diaproa.

The problem for euroland is that america can afford to lose,and retreat to its side of the world and rebuild from there.

the trouble is the euors are too stupid to see the error of thier monist progressive ways.
-by Owls001

"the trouble is the euors are too stupid to see the error of thier monist progressive ways."

I don't know. Judging from the anger here I would say they are not as stupid as their leader. Bashing Bush used to be a certain conversation starter but now its bashing anything about the EU or Dutch government especially since the Hirsi Ali trainwreck. In typical eurowanker fashion the VVD chose a safe a boring leader despite the fact that Rita Verdonk could have led them to a near majority. Reminds me of Dole vs. Clintoon....yawn.....Rome is burning but I made good money this year.....yawn.....
-by Amsterdamsky

Politics

MANGLED GIRLS

OK this is a topic that is not for the squeamish or faint of heart. If you have a little girl reading this or are one, I'd suggest you send her away or read something else. Here's a better link for you to peruse.

In Europe, there is a crime which holds a sentence of up to 14 years in prison for it's commission, a brutality that is difficult to write about let alone read. This crime is specifically targeted against women, usually girls under the age of 16. So far, nobody has been convicted of this crime, despite an estimate by UK-based Foundation for Women's Health, Research and Development (Forward) that 279,500 women living in Britain alone who have suffered this brutal crime.

Reuters has the story of one such crime:

Sacdiya Hussein Ali was 7 years old when she was taken to a stranger's house in her native Kenya and held down on a mat by 10 women who pulled her legs apart while a woman cut her with a razor blade.

"The lady who was doing the circumcision came between my legs and she started cutting my private parts," Ali, now 34 and living in London, told Reuters.

"After the cutting I was screaming. They had put some clothes in my mouth so I couldn't shout, but they could still hear me screaming."

Ali is one of an estimated 3 million women and girls who suffer female genital mutilation (FGM) each year.

Seven years old.

Female Genital Mutilation is a real fact in Europe, despite laws against it. Hamilton, Detective Inspector from London police's Child Abuse Command, says "It's not something you can stamp out in two seconds -- it's been going for thousands of years." I imagine it is "difficult to combat" as she says in the Reuters story, if you don't bother convicting anyone of the crime. One would even say you're not even combatting it at all.

But what really struck me when I read this article - and it upset Michelle Malkin as well - is the PC euphemism that Detective Inspector Hamilton used: "crime of love." She used this term because she believes the people doing this think it's the right thing to do. Which is likely an accurate depiction of the situation. But I'm curious, would she have described Idi Amin's cannibalism as a "Gourmet Crime" or the systematic murder of Gypsies in Nazi Germany as a "Crime of Love" because the Sonderkommanden thought they were doing the right thing?

Why this euphemism at all, is it squeamishness on her part or a deliberate attempt to cast something in a multicultural light, to seem understanding and tolerant, while yet finding some way to condemn it? When you see the term Crime of Love, does that have the same visceral, powerful impact as Female Genital Mutilation" or is it a noted reduction in the horror of the crime? Shall we come up with a PC version of the word Rape so as to not offend the rapist culture? Crime of Desire!

This kind of thing is repulsive to me on the most basic level, it fills me with a violent, red haze that makes me reach for the nearest weapon. I cannot comprehend standing by, let alone assisting the horrific carving up in the most painful possible manner of a helpless, terrified, confused little girl. Every girl I've posted pictures of in this story is seven years old, according to Google's image search. Think of her held down and attacked with a razor. Think of her stitched up, without anesthesia, with a thorn.

This is the kind of thing that real men read about and feel a burning need to take action about, to deal with, to end. Something worth fighting for, a hill worth taking. But what can I do? What impact can a man have over an event taking place around the planet? Some days I wish I didn't read the news, didn't see this kind of thing, didn't know what was happening.

This is not a religious issue, despite it's practice in Europe being exclusively among Islamic peoples. This is not a mandate of the Koran, this is not required by Sharia law. It is a horrific, evil, barbaric, and hateful crime against little girls. This must be stopped, and the lack of any convictions in Europe does not strike me as a positive sign that the European government is particularly concerned about the issue.

Michelle Malkin also has a story up about a grotesque exhibit of "art" consisting entirely of children who have been deliberately driven to tears by the "artist," then photographed. Why would someone do this to toddlers and little children?

"The first little boy I shot, Liam, suddenly became hysterically upset," the Los Angeles-based photographer said. "It reminded me of helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation."
...
He started crying on his own, and I shot that, and when I got the contact sheets back I thought, "This could go with a caption, 'Four More Years,'" like he was appalled at George Bush's reelection...

Some days I just want to go hiking in the Jefferson Wilderness area and forget the world. Forever.

Islam, Children

Quote of the day

Words matter. Words convey moral clarity. Without moral clarity, we will not succeed in Iraq. That is why the terms the press uses to cover this conflict are so vital. For example, take the word "guerillas." As you noted, mainstream media sources like the New York Times often use the terms "insurgents" or "guerillas" to describe the Sunni Triangle gunmen, as if these murderous thugs represented a traditional national liberation movement. But when the Times reports on similar groups of masked reactionary killers operating in Latin American countries, they utilize the phrase "paramilitary death squads." Same murderers, different designations. Yet of the two, "insurgents" and especially "guerillas" has a claim on our sympathies that "paramilitaries" lacks. This is not semantics: imagine if the media routinely called the Sunni Triangle gunmen "right wing paramilitary death squads." Not only would the description be more accurate, but it would offer the American public a clear idea of the enemy in Iraq. And that, in turn, would bolster public attitudes toward the war.
-Steven Vincent (author: In the Red Zone)

Quotes

SPANISH TALIBAN WALKS

One man scorned and covered with scars still strove with his last ounce of courage to reach the unreachable stars; and the world was better for this.

Hamed Abderrahaman Ahmad was captured by coalition forces in Pakistan in 2001 and after spending three years in the Guantanamo Bay facility where terrorists and suspects are being held, was extradited to Spain. He was convicted there of being part of a Spanish al`Qaeda cell like the one that blew up a train in Madrid in 2004. He was sentenced to six years in prison.

However, the Spanish Supreme Court recently ruled that there was a lack of evidence against the man, and that he must be immediately set free:

The Supreme Court said the High Court had not considered Ahmad "innocent until proven guilty" and used evidence collected at Guantanamo that "should be declared totally void and, as such, non-existent."

They went on to describe the Guantanamo Bay facility as "impossible to justify on either legal or political grounds."

Now, however you feel about the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay, their status there does not negate the evidence that is gathered. Spanish prisons are no picnic - far worse than Guantanamo Bay (as are French jails) - and evidence gathered in a prison is hardly inadmissible in any court, no matter what you think of the prison.

As Barcepundit reports:

Actually, there was plenty of evidence against the man whom the Supreme Court declared had not been considered "innocent until proven guilty." But it came from the United States, a country that is always guilty until proven innocent.

Spain has been leaning more and more away from the west and more toward Islam in the war on terror, and this latest stunt by a court less interested in jurisprudence and more in political correctness is not a good sign. Recently the president of Spain showed up in public wearing the palestinian khaffiyeh, and PSOE [the political party President Zapatero is a member of] official José Blanco recently said that Israel is engaging in "indiscriminate attacks against the population of Lebanon." He went on to state that "the civilian deaths are not collateral damage, they are an objective."

The Spanish people have a long heritage of noble honor and dignity, a culture of fierce allegiance to right and wrong, and a laudable desire for justice. Has this all been lost in a sea of relativist socialism? Has Spain taken the route of France to abandon reason and bright tradition for a gray haze of political correctness? Or, like France, is this largely the big cities where the people in the country are less inclined to be this silly?

I have a theory that in two world wars the bulk of the noble, heroic, honorable, and traditional people of Europe were killed off, leaving the weak, the ignoble, the cowardly, and the politically correct in enough numbers to be in power. In the schools, the churches, the government, the media, these festered and grew, teaching and guiding society into what Europe now suffers from. Maybe this is unfair, but to me it explains a lot of what happens.

Spain, Terrorism

COUGAR ACE DOWN

"If I can paddle out and get one can I keep it?"

The Cougar Ace out of Singapore was transporting Mazdas when it had a mishap. The ballast of the huge cargo ship was adjusted in deep blue and off the shore of Alaska, one side took on more water than it should, resulting in a dangerous list to one side. Now the entire keel and propeller are out of the water, and everything inside took a predictable tumble. All 23 crew members were saved - if battered and bruised - but the damage to the 4700 Mazdas inside is unknown at this time.

The ship is rather remote, as this line from the AP report helps to illustrate:

Crowley tug Sea Victory left Seattle Tuesday night and was expected to reach the Cougar Ace Aug. 2, according to Beuerman.

That's a week's travel, in which we can only hope no inclement weather causes more damage or the sinking of this vessel. As Autoblog reports:
Mazda does not know the extent of the damage to its vehicles and will refrain from further comment until it has more solid information, but based on photos of the ship, it looks like it's safe to assume that the conditions in the hold are, at best, a gigantic mess.

Commenters at Autoblog honked:

I'll take three of any model and make one good one out of it.
-by The other Bob


Look for a Mazda "scratch and dent" sale.
-by Gardiner Westbound


How are the cars shipped? Are they in bubble wrap or that styrofoam popcorn? Are they strapped down super tight?
-by CJ


CJ, based on photos I've seen of that ship being loaded, the cars are lined up and driven on and off.
-by Alex Nunez


For you freaks who enjoy this kind of images, checkout www.cargolaw.com . They have up to the day pictures and detailed description of cargo losses around the world.
-by Cacho


I've been on one of these ships. The vehicles are strapped down tight to avoid movement in rough sea. If a car moves even slightly it would take out all of the surrounding vehicles. So my guess is that if the straps held (which they should) then the vehicles might be ok. It would be interesting to see the vehicles on their sides.
-by Mike


That much of a roll is probably caused by more than just the ballast imbalance...that's cargo shift too. The tie-downs likely aren't designed to support nearly full weight of the vehicles.
-by Matt

According to Mazda's press report, about 60% of the cars are MAZDA3s, headed to the ports of Vancouver (Canada), Tacoma and Hueneme in the USA. The Mazda3 is a very popular model, and from the pictures it looks like one of those little street racer cars made popular in movies like The Fast and the Furious.

Disasters, Cars

HEZBOLLOOPS

"I think what is happening is that Hezbollah deliberately provoked Israel in order to start a war, in which it would be the underdog and therefore the subject of worldwide sympathy."

Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun has a blog where he points out an error in judgment:

The truth is - let me say this clearly - we didn’t even expect (this) response (to kidnapping two Israeli soldiers).... That (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us. (Hezbollah expected) the usual, limited response. -Hezbollah spokesman Mahmoud Komati.

Much, much worse than idiots.

Wasn’t World War 1 started by exactly this kind of stupid miscalculation by terrorists?

Mr Bolt is referring to how Arch Duke Ferdinand was assassinated by Bosnian terrorists, using explosives and guns. From this event, alliances and anger built into a war that engulfed much of the world and resulted in millions dead. Apparently Mahmoud Komati expected Israel to simply sit back and take its punishment without retaliating, to be rocketed and have soldiers captured without taking action. Mr Komati was wrong.

Meanwhile, after years of building outposts next to UN buildings and attacking Israel from beside them, Israel fired back and four UN workers were killed. While I mourn the loss of these hapless "peacekeepers" I do wonder what the expected when even the UN report mentions this (highlighting courtesy Little Green Footballs):

Another UN position of the Ghanaian battalion in the area of Marwahin in the western sector was also directly hit by one mortar round from the Hezbollah side last night. The round did not explode, and there were no casualties or material damage. Another 5 incidents of firing close to UN positions from the Israeli side were reported yesterday. It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of four UN positions at Alma ash Shab, Tibnin, Brashit, and At Tiri. All UNIFIL positions remain occupied and maintained by the troops.

Commenters at Andrew Bolt's blog responded:

The aphorism that comes to mind is careful what you wish for because you may just get it. I find it most unbelievable that there are no death tolls for Hezbollah “fighters” in this war. According to the media all of those killed are civilians in Lebanon. Now how can that not be spin from Hezbollah?

Why do we not hear any condemnation of Hezbollah for their tactic of launching their attacks from within the civilian areas when they know that doing so puts civilians into the line of fire? We only seem to get condemnation of Israel when the blame for both the start of this conflict and the deaths of civilians lies with those who use women and children as human shields .
-by Ian Hall


During the first world war, there were Australian protestors who refered to the conflict as “Some silly European Civil war”. Now the same thing is happening in the Middle East, predominately because two cultures choose not to live together. Lets hope that this “Silly Midlle Eastern Civil War” doesnt spread, because for one of those cultures, that is the aim. I was wondering, Andrew, When will we see Australian Government sponsored evacuations from Isreal, or dont their lives count too?
-by Jason MC


John A of Melbourne (26/7/06 4.23pm)wonders if it is all worth it for two kidnapped soldiers. He conveniently forgets to mention the eight that were murdered in the same raid and that it was across Israel’s border. If Israel does not eliminate these terrorists permanently then who else will ? The UN are toothless.
-by Nigel Linnell

To John & Dave of Cheltenham, If you read the paper today, you would see the article showing the UN’s condemnation of Hizbollah tactics.

It’s convenient you two forget that Hamas and Hizbollah hide within civilian populations (the tactic condemned by the UN chief of relief operations). Also, keep in mind that Hizbollah cowards ("warriors", “soldiers”, etc wouldn’t hide behind women and children like they do) don’t distinguish themselves from the civilian population, so who knows how many of those “civilans” are actual terrorists.

And you’re right Dave - why all this aggression against “one small bit of land”? I mean, cmon, Israel has no oil or anything besides dirt. And where could the Israeli’s go? It was the same situation back at the start of WW2 for the Jews fleeing the Holocaust - nowhere.

Like what’s been said before, this isn’t about conquest or superiority - its about the continual survival of Israel as a nation and as a people.
-by Dave L

”...That (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us...”

What a ridiculous thing to say. Israel exploiting the situation to make war with Lebanon? I think what is happening is that Hezbollah deliberately provoked Israel in order to start a war, in which it would be the underdog and therefore the subject of worldwide sympathy. This war would enable Hezbollah to attack Israel with little or no international backlash, while hiding behind Lebanon. The only loss to Hezbollah are Lebanese civilians, a commodity it obviously cares very little about.
-by Sasha

Surprised indeed must the hezbollah be...as Andrew stated in the cover, this is not the normal response Israel employs. No wonder hezbollah and their “gang” are enraged, Israel changed the rules of the game. Instead of hezbollah raving about violations of muslim rights [because they sure dont worry about Israel’s or anyone else’s] to the UN, and the UN bowing to them, pressurising Israel to relent to the hezbollah’s demands, in return for promises that both the UN and hezbollah know they will never uphold...the Israelies have decided to play for keeps.

I mean...since the days of the Yom Kippur war 1973 - this has always been the accepted protocol (adaptable to any situation) and worked a treat!

The current rules are:hezbollah (terrorists} sends in human bombs, some get caught, most dont - fire rockets to add confusion - kidnap some Israelies and use them for ransom for those caught - Israel responds with bombardments and imprisonment of members of hezbollah - hezbollah plead to the UN about muslim rights - Israel releases those caught under pressure and promises from the UN - hezbollah (terrorists) go back to start of game without ever conceeding a thing - Israel are condemned by the west and remains the antagonist of the middle east.

This method has been used many times in the past very successfully. If it wasn’t for the fact that innocent lives are used as payment for this game, it would be almost humorous.
-by CharlesM


I’m surprised no one has pointed this out; Israel targeted the UN outpost because it was used by Islamic terrorists Hezbollah. The UN were photographed sipping tea with them, some say the UN people were colluding with them.

I blogged it here
-by Dan_W

It is quite obvious that the UN’s belated & token condemnation of Hezbollah acts has been made only because the US refused to play ball with Kofi Anan on “restoring peace” unless the terrorist-loving UN at least pretended to be even-handed.

Plus, I am sure Bush wanted to see some terrorist bleed, and I believe their bleeding is just beginning. Good.

“Restoring Peace” means protecting a civilian population who predominantly support the Hezbollah terrorists.
Why bother ?

Anan’s initial condemnation of Israel was blatantly biased and ignored that it was Hezbollah who started this fray; Hezbollah who chose to establish their strongholds amongst ‘innocent’ civilians. A nation’s right to protect itself against attack is above its responsibility to avoid civilian deaths.

Anan is no longer fit to hold his job and should be replaced. He has now proved to be a mouthpiece for a terrorist organisation, in my view, because the vast majority of those ‘poor’ civilians support Hezbollah, and because he did not at first condemn Hezbollah, who were the instigators of this conflagration.

While I am sure that the Israelis did not deliberately target the the four UN personnel they killed, you could hardly blame them if they had, because Anan’s first outrageous attack on Israel came close to being a UN Declaration of War on the brave and tiny state of Israel.

God help us if we ever get a real World Government led by a pinko creep like him.

As for the Red Cross vans which were hit, I ask the following - 1/. Does anyone seriously believe that these vehicles would not be made available to Hezbollah, given that most of the civil population regard them as heroes? 2/. Is anyone actually claiming these vehicles were being driven by members of the International Red Cross? No - you would hear the Red Cross screaming its lungs out from here if that was the case - so locals, almost certainly supportive of Hezbollah were driving them. Handy mini-buses for Hezbollah...valid targets for Israel. Even arrived with nice clear aiming marks on them.

As for the four UN personnel who were killed, I think it is very likely that Hezbollah were deliberately firing rockets from the vicinity of the UN tower, in the belief they would not be struck back at so close to the UN post. (The UN post has been there for a long time).
And,(of course) the good old even-handed neutral UN people would have kept that to themselves, knowing they were tacitly providing cover for terrorists. Seems it was a costly exercise for them.
Too bad - war is hell.

I hope the US stalls long enough to ensure that the Israelis have at least another week of bombing practice, and I hope neither Australia nor the US send troops. Raise troops from Sierra Leone or Nigeria, and set them loose in the streets of Lebanon to ‘keep peace’.
The less disciplined the better.

When a UN force does arrive in Lebanon, what will happen when Hezbollah fire some more rockets into Israel? ....and Israel responds, which it certainly will?

Hard to imagine the UN forces being able to do much against Israeli forces, because the UN always operates on a shoe-string.

Anyway, Israel will then be free to vent its spleen & its frustrations on the Palestinians, who have not yet paid a sufficient price for their crimes.
-by Pale Criminal

and to PALE_CRIMINAL...I think you went a bit too far blaming the Lebanese people and UN forces on the ground.

While I agree with most of your argument, you seem to have a lot of anger/hatred against the UN and Lebanese that doesnt do your otherwise impressive argument any good. Nice work predicting the UN accident would be due to Hizbollah operating within the compounds tho!

I’m sure most of the civilians in the region want peace. And the only way to do that is for Israel to prove to Hizbollah and Hamas that violence will never work to bring peace. It’s like poking a lion with a stick and screaming in surprise when it turns around and mauls you!

What you need to solve this is (unfortunately) force and strong leaders...unlike Annan who needs a complete spinal replacement. Wasn’t it his son who was caught doing shady deals with Hussein under the pretext of the Oil-for-food program?
-by Dave L

Yes, Dave, it was.

Something I wish would stop is the bizarre arithmetic that some use in regard to war. If a Western power kills any civilians (or those portrayed as such), then the effort is condemned as brutal and out of control. If the bad guys kill entire cities of civilians, they say "oh, they are bad" but seem to think nothing ought to be done about it. In war, it is impossible not to kill civilians, particularly when the enemy hides among them and refuses to wear uniforms.

As Bill Whittle points out in Eject Eject Eject! the reason for uniforms is to protect the populace, to protect civilians. If you dress just like everyone else, then anyone can be the enemy and the population you allegedly are defending suffers from your cowardice:

What is the obvious difference between an enemy Prisoner of War, and an Unlawful Combatant? Suppose two of them were standing in a line-up. What one glaringly obvious thing sets them apart?

That’s right! One is wearing a uniform, and the other isn’t.

And why do soldiers wear uniforms?

It certainly is not to protect the soldier. As a matter of fact, a soldier’s uniform is actually a big flashing neon arrow pointing to some kid that says to the enemy, SHOOT ME!

And that’s exactly what a uniform is for. It makes the soldier into a target to be killed.

Now if that’s all there was to it, you might say that the whole uniform thing is not such a groovy idea. BUT! What a uniform also does -- the corollary to the whole idea of a uniformed person – is to say that if the individual wearing a uniform is a legitimate target, then the person standing next to him in civilian clothes is not.

By wearing uniforms, soldiers differentiate themselves to the enemy. They assume additional risk in order to protect the civilian population. In other words, by identifying themselves as targets with their uniforms, the fighters provide a Sanctuary to the unarmed civilian population.

This is why the Geneva Conventions on war do not protect people who fight like this. This is why civilians get killed in this kind of conflict, and what's more it's difficult to defend civilians who support, assist, and harbor the enemy in any case. Are they really innocent when they take these steps? In criminal law this is called "aiding and abetting" and it can get you thrown in jail just as soon as theft or murder. John Hawkins has more to say on this idea at Human Events online.

Another point of annoyance for me is the kneejerk assumption that if someone is the underdog, then they must be right, or at least the target of sympathy. Was Pol Pot being brutally oppressed by a tyrranical superior power when Vietnam ended his evil regime? If Hitler had been the weaker power, would that have made him any less evil or it wrong for the allies to crush his evil regime? Size does not confer moral superiority.

*UPDATE: By way of comparison, Hezbollah has attacked and wounded UN observers in Lebanon twice this week (both PDF files). Both attacks were directly and intentionally on UN personel and not on Israeli sites which were next to UN personel. I don't seem to recall that being reported by the legacy media.

International

Quote of the day

"The greatest concentration of wealth in America is not with big corporations or with private citizens. It is in Washington, D.C. and the people that have it take it through the force of law."
-Rush Limbaugh

Quotes

Songs I Like - The Thing (Phil Harris)

"Oh, get out of here with that <bumpadump> And don't come back no more!"

Phil Harris was a songwriter, band leader and comedian. He was a fixture on the Jack Benny program for over 20 years, and one of the songs he wrote was a humorous bit called "the Thing." What exactly this Thing was nobody knew, and it wasn't ever explained. Part of the charm is imagining what on earth this poor sap found on the beach, because in place of the name was a bumpadump from the drums.

The version I have is sung by Vaughn Monroe, a terrific singer in the 30s, 40s and 50s with a great baritone voice and tremendous talent. The Thing was a top 40 hit in 1951, getting all the way up to number 29. It's just a fun song that is easy to sing along with, like most at the time. This was back when you had to be clear and easy to understand on low-quality radios, and couldn't rely on videos or slick production tricks to cover up your lack of talent and originality.

While I was walkin' down the beach
One bright and sunny day
I saw a great big wooden box
A-floatin' in the bay
I pulled it in and opened it up
And much to my surprise
Oh, I discovered a...
Right before my eyes
Oh, I discovered a...
Right before my eyes

I picked it up and ran to town
As happy as a king
I took it to a guy I knew
Who'd buy most anything
But this is what he hollered at me
As I walked in his shop
"Oh, get out of here with that...
Before I call a cop"
"Oh, get out of here with that...
Before I call a cop"

I turned around and got right out
A-runnin' for my life
And then I took it home with me
To give it to my wife
But this is what she hollered at me
As I walked in the door
"Oh, get out of here with that...
And don't come back no more"
"Oh, get out of here with that...
And don't come back no more"

--- Instrumental Interlude ----

I wandered all around the town
Until I chanced to meet
A hobo who was lookin' for
A handout on the street
He said he'd take most any old thing
He was a desperate man
But when I showed him the...
He turned around and ran
Oh, when I showed him the...
He turned around and ran

I wandered on for many years
A victim of my fate
Until one day I came upon
St Peter at the gate
And when I tried to take it inside
He told me where to go
Get out of here with that...
And take it down below
Oh, get out of here with that...
And take it down below

The moral of this story is
If you're out on the beach
And you should see a great big box
And it's within your reach
Don't ever stop and open it up
That's my advice to you
'Cause you'll never get rid of the...
No matter what you do
Oh, you'll never get rid of the...
No matter what you do

Music

NOBEL PEACE LAUREAT CALLS FOR VIOLENT DEATH

"One of the make love not war hypocrites."

Betty Williams won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976, shared with Mairead Corrigan. The two women founded the Ireland Peace Movement (later renamed Community of Peace People), and Wikipedia has this information on her:

She was drawn into the public arena after witnessing the death of three Catholic children on 10 August 1976 when they were hit by a car whose driver, an IRA fugitive named Danny Lennon, was fatally shot by British authorities. Williams was walking nearby, heard the crash, and was the first on the scene. Their mother, Anne Maguire, who was with them, eventually committed suicide in 1980 after a failed attempt to start a new life in New Zealand.

Within two days of the tragic event, she had obtained 6,000 signatures on a petition for peace and gained media attention. Together with Mairead Corrigan, Anne Maguire's sister, she cofounded the Women for Peace which later, with co-founder Ciaran McKeown became The Community for Peace People.

The two organized a peace march to the graves of the children, which was attended by 10,000 Protestant and Catholic women — the peaceful march was disrupted by members of the Irish Republican Army, who accused them of being "dupes of the British." The following week, Williams and Corrigan again led a march — this time with 35,000 participants.

The two women came from opposite sides of the conflict in Ireland, but their organization accomplished little if anything other than photo opportunities. That organization is defunct now, although Ms Williams currently is President of World Centers of Compassion for Children. She is also Chair of The Institute for Asian Democracy in Washington, DC. Apparently so is the peaceful philosophy of this woman is also defunct...

Recently, as the Australian reports, Betty Williams spoke at an event in Brisbane and had this to say:

"I have a very hard time with this word 'non-violence', because I don't believe that I am non-violent," said Ms Williams, 64.

"Right now, I would love to kill George Bush." Her young audience at the Brisbane City Hall clapped and cheered.

She went on to say "I don't know how I ever got a Nobel Peace Prize..." me either, Ms Williams, "because when I see children die the anger in me is just beyond belief. It's our duty as human beings, whatever age we are, to become the protectors of human life."

And I agree with this sentiment - except I recognize that terrorists are killing children, teaching them to kill themselves, and planning to wipe entire peoples from the face of the earth. She doesn't seem quite as unhappy with those events, however. Hussein's gassing of Kurdish children and his prison entirely dedicated to children (that UN inspector Scott Ritter kept under wraps) to keep parents in line seems to elude her attention as well.

Various blogs covered this story, including the Free Republic, whose commenters had this to say:

Par for the Nobel Peace Prize course. Consider Arafat and ElBaradei. One was a terrorist who killed thousands and the other got the prize for stopping nuclear proliferation (and what a whiz-bang job he did.)

"I don't know how I ever got a Nobel Peace Prize, because when I see children die the anger in me is just beyond belief. It's our duty as human beings, whatever age we are, to become the protectors of human life."

Tell that to the three thousand innocent civilians who died in the twin towers at the hands of a bunch of murderous, suicidal muslims. Many of the victims were crushed so completely by thousands of tons of concrete and steel that they had no body parts left to identify or bury.

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children who were brutally tortured and killed at the bloody hands of Saddam's brutal regime.

And if you are so 'concerned' about the protection of human life, would you mind telling us what your stand on abortion is and how that fits in with your statement?
-by Sub-Driver


My email to World Centers of Compassion for Children International (hopefully to Betty Williams):

Ms. Williams,

After reading that you are not non-violent and would like to “kill George Bush” I wondered if you held similar ire toward Hizballah terrorists currently firing rockets indiscriminately into northern Israel in order to kill Israeli children? How about those murdered by Saddam Hussein, including hundreds, maybe thousands of Kurdish children killed with chemical weapons? Do you feel like killing Saddam also? How about the murderers employed by the government of Sudan who continue to butcher men, women and children because they are either Christians or black Muslims? Would you like to kill Sudanese President Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir?

If you do feel like killing these other leaders when will you stand up and say so? The world is waiting to hear just how homicidal a Nobel Peace Laureate can be.
-by Dr Thorne

The most disturbing part of the excerpt that I read was the "clapped and cheered" part. Just what is this "Earth Dialogues" thing?

http://education.qld.gov.au/earthdialogues/

Brisbane Festival 2006 Earth Dialogues

Queensland schools can be part of a major international event! (And cheer on threats made against President Bush!)

Brisbane Festival 2006 is proud to host Earth Dialogues Brisbane 2006, a major international forum chaired by Mikhail Gorbachev, Chair of Green Cross International and former President of the Soviet Union , and Premier Peter Beattie.
-by geezerwheezer

Ace of Spades HQ also ran this story, and commenters there had this to say:

Another one to add to the roll of honor!
- Le Duc Tho
- Henry Kissinger
- Rigoberta Menchu
- Yassir Arafat
- Sir James Earl Carter, scourge of all rabbitkind
- the UN in general

I'm amazed they haven't awarded it to AhmadiNejad yet. What's keeping them?
-by David Ross

Damn drunken mics need to learn to shut up and sit still.

Times like these make me embarrased to be Irish. Then I have to acknowledge the inconvient truth that I'd otherwise happily ignore, that my forefathers were a bunch of worthless nazi-supporting commie-loving terrorist-bombing moonbat drunkards, to whom being curb-stomped by the English was probably the best and most important thing to ever happen in history even involving them.

But for once I gotta defend the MSM. "feisty Irish spirit" pretty much IS threatening murder and inciting political assassinations.
-by Entropy


Betty is a moonbat and her words cause huge embarrassement to many of us here in Northern Ireland. It seems that most often these days a Nobel Peace Prize is confirmation of a lefty dingbat.
-by David Vance


I think she exhibits perfectly the duality of left-wingers that leads to their schizophrenia of truth.

She is a Peace Prize recipient yet she admits to being violent.

She says in one breath that we are the perotectors of human life. Then in the next admits to not just wanting to kill Bush, but she would love it.
-by Pixelflash

Entropy, I have to agree. Man, our forebears had (and our cousins have) some awful, awful politics.

So, to Ms. Williams: "Go n-ithe an cat thú is go n-ithe an diabhal an cat"
-by Dr Steve

"We went to a hospital where there were 200 children; they were beautiful, all of them, but they had cancers that the doctors couldn’t even recognise. From the first Gulf War, the mothers’ wombs were infected.

"As I was leaving the hospital, I said to the doctor, ‘How many of these babies do you think are going to live?’

"He looked me straight in the eye and said, ‘None, not one’. They needed five different kinds of medication to treat the cancers that the children had, and the embargoes laid on by the United States and the United Nations only allowed them three."

God,what tripe.I can't begin to imagine the agony of being a legitmate Nobel winner,in say,medicine and having to pretend this woman is legitimate.

A few questions for her;
1)What was the teratogen that caaused these cancers?
2)SInce no atomic weapons were used,how did these cancers start in utero?
3)Where are the leukemias and thyroid cancers,that are linked to radiation effects?
4)Could she provide the name of the doctor,or even the hospital where this supposed conversation took place?

See even for a lefty,this is stupid, because it's so easily checked. Certainly no dr. would have made such a stupid statement. She continues by stating the dr. told her the childdren would die because needed meds were embargoed by the US.
I'm astonished at the audience believing this stupidity. And,yes,I know they were moonbats,but I didn't think they were that stupid.
-by Lincoln

[Medicines were not blocked by the embargo, but oil-for-food corruption and Hussein's taking materials for himself may have made them scarce, if reports are to be believed.]

Sweetness and Light also had the story, and commenters there responded:

So…where was Betty during Saddam’s reign of terror? What did she do to stop the acid baths, torture rooms and rape rooms. Maybe she would like to see him in power again huh? Where is her condemnation of Islamic terror in Darfur, Isreal, Phillipines etc…? Oh yeah, she’s fighting the liberal war(ciggaretes, hunger, Global warming, fast-food, etc..)

Please let her know that Castro has a warm seat for her in Cuba and the USA will kindly be helping the rest of the world while she blasts a true patriot and my prez.

President orders aid to Lebanon

Get real.
-by Dano88


From the vast trustworthy repository of knowledge, Wikipedia:

Note the 7th line of the first Declaration of the Peace People (the organization that she founded in 1976): We reject the use of the bomb and the bullet and all the techniques of violence. I’m not sure how that fits in with “…I don’t believe that I am non-violent…”

…at an early age she learned of relatives who had been murdered during The Holocaust…
That she could side with a people who would rejoice at having her murdered in The Holocaust is a mystery to me…

Side note: Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 30 years ago a still capitalizing on it?: Get a job!
-by Retired_Chief

Over at Whizbang, Lorie Byrd notes that Ms Williams has said this in the past, and commenters responded:

Shouldn't the Nazi president have her picked up and made to disappear.? If he was what they have in their confused (mentally retarded)minds there would be several thousand people simply disappear. Maybe a wood chipper or blast furnace would take care of them, it that doesn't work there is always the dog food plant, it they aren't scared of driving the dogs crazy by eating the brains of crazy people. The left gets crazier as every day goes by. I'm going to have my grand daughter change her major and become a whacko dr. She will have millions of new customers (crazies) in 2008, just in time to open a new office.
-by scrapiron


I certainly agree that the Secret Service should be informed of this sort of threat. They have knocked on doors for far less and this person is just so damned annoying I personally would enjoy knowing that this was the outcome of her running her mouth before her brain was in gear. If ever it is.
-by MichaelC


I wonder if Ms. Williams realizes that before the US lead invasion there were about 5000 women and children starving to death every month in Iraq?

Sure some childern do die in wars. A tremendously smaller number are dying today in Iraq than what there would have been had we not invaded.

Ms. Williams sounds like a typical lefty- blinded by hate and living in self-induced ignorance.
-by P.Bunyan

Moonbats

CHINESE LANDSCAPING

Google Earth allows you to view any area that satellites have photographed from space, zooming in to an amazing degree. It's fun for seeing your house from overhead, for example. The project isn't finished yet as there are millions of square miles still uncharted, but there is a lot out there you can look at.

At the Country Store, a blog I don't link much because they have no comments, the keen eyes of the Cracker Barrel Philosopher reported on an interesting find. Apparently someone used Google Earth to find an odd site:

Those among you who like your skies darkened by black helicopters are invited to mosey on down to the remote Chinese village of Huangyangtan which hosts what must be the strangest military installation ever spotted by the Google Earth Community.
...
Zooming in for a closer look, we have what appears to be a 900x700m (about 3000 x 2300 feet - ed.) scale model of a mountainous landscape complete with lakes, valleys and snow-capped peaks

The Country Store has where this area this represents actually is on earth (hint: it's where the Uighurs live) and also offers a wry theory about why this would be built:

Click through for the pictures and theories about why the Chicoms would go to all the trouble to build this. It may really be a pilot training aid, but my theory is they're building a really big model train layout for Jung Il Kim.

If you haven't taken a look yet, go peek at the Store, you won't be sorry. On a more serious side, is it just me or does this whole Google Earth thing seem like an amazing security problem?

Fun

Quote of the day

"We might think of dollars as being "certificates of performance." The better I serve my fellow man, and the higher the value he places on that service, the more certificates of performance he gives me. The more certificates I earn, the greater my claim on the goods my fellow man produces. That's the morality of the market. In order for one to have a claim on what his fellow man produces, he must first serve him."
-Walter Williams

Quotes

Comment Type #29

THE MUNCHAUSEN

Baron Von Munchausen was most recently memorialized by the incomparable Terry Gilliam in the movie The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Baron Karl Friedrich Heionymus Munchausen was a real person, a soldier that lived in the 18th century who was inclined to tell amazing, unbelievable stories. And by unbelievable, I mean "stories that no sane person would even begin to consider credible." But they were wonderful, inventive, whimsical tales like visiting the moon and pulling himself out of the sea by his own bootstraps - the origin of that particular idiom.

In the context of commenting, a Munchausen comment is when you create long, involved, complex scenarios featuring a variety of different characters, either attacking or defending. This is done to get attention typically, or to attack someone that is particularly disliked. It often involves using Sock Puppet comments to support or assist the commenter.

Another kind of Munchausen comment is one that describes the commenter in spectacular fashion, giving them a wealth of expertise, experience, age, and credibility. Claiming military service, experience in the topic at hand, claiming to be older than one really is, having kids, being married, and so on. This can blur into the Boast comment, but is more than self aggrandizement, it is an attempt to be important and portray one's self as an authority, and done to such a degree that it becomes implausible. Few people outside explorer Sir Richard Burton can claim command of over a dozen languages, world travel, being a published writer, soldier, and lover all in one lifetime.

A hat tip to Tungsten Monk for this one, who describes the phenomenon this way, referring to an odd episode between the bloggers Seixon and Truthout's Jason Leopold:

I've seen sockpuppetry like this before, usually on the fan fiction boards. Over there, we call it "trolling." The kicker? It's the exclusive domain of emotionally insecure fifteen-year-old Goth girls who make up secondary identities and have those identities announce that the fifteen-year-old Goth girl has committed suicide because of all the "OMG MEEEAN!" people who have cruelly victimized her.

A favorite tactic for trolls is, yep, pretending to be somebody else attacking them in order to gain sympathy. Often, they construct elaborate fantasy scenarios, featuring over a dozen different characters- all them- either attacking or defending them. It's the ultimate "Look at me! Look at me!" and if well-done, it can get you a lot of attention. It can also get you kicked off the boards, but that's secondary to the thrill of announcing via a fictional second party that you've just collapsed with a wasting disease and had to be rushed to the hospital. (The complexity of their sagas has given rise to their other popular nickname- MIB, or Munchausen by Internet.)

Such a comment type is somewhat amusing, but ultimately pathetic and sad. Don't do this unless it's clearly intended for comedic effect. This is usually a form of Trolling and is unwelcome almost everywhere. Often it will get you banned, and always it will get you mocked.

This is part of the Profiles in Commenting series.

*UPDATE: Expanded on the definition

Comments

A NUMBER OF SHAMAN

World of Warcraft has an expansion coming out that will add two playable races to the game. The blood elves and the draenei are the races, giving a cute race to the Horde and a wierdo race to the Alliance. Recently, Blizzard announced an expansion to the classes that these new races can be:

As we draw closer to the release of World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade, more of the secrets shrouding the draenei and blood elves are being revealed. In the upcoming expansion, you will finally be able to play classes that were previously unavailable to your faction. The blood elves have harnessed the power of the Light for their own needs, and the Horde recognizes the value of these renegade blood elf paladins. Meanwhile, the draenei have been granted the wisdom and strength of the elements, and a number of draenei now follow the path of the shaman.

A number. As in 99.8% of the draenei that anyone will create. Players have been wanting to play a Shaman on the Alliance side for a long time now, and not a few play Horde characters exclusively because that's where they can make a shaman. I predict the newbie zones for the draenei will be wall-to-wall totem slingers for months.

World of Warcraft has a message board for their fans and players, and here are some highlights:

Whoa! *head explodes*
-by Yarko

reatarded if you ask me

That's true. I mean, what difference big difference is there between the alliance and horde class-wise. I always thought it made it interesting to have a class that the other faction couldn't have.
-by Tephy

Well :

http://beta.wow-europe.com/thread.html?topicId=15281559&sid=2

If you read French, you already know.

The exit of World of Warcraft: the Burning Crusade approaches. It is time to reveal new secrecies of the draeneï and elves of blood. A legend speaks about the noble chief about the draeneï, Velen, and of its vision. This one was concretized in the form of Nobundo, a ex-priest draeneï who degenerated when the orcs massacred its people and destroys his world.

Like the others Coiled, Nobundo lost any contact with the Light, but it ventured in the depths of the deserts of Outreterre to meditate and request, in the hope to find a guide. After decades of silence, an unknown voice answered its prayers finally. It was not the Light which whispered to him with the ear, but the wind. The breeze spoke to him about lost truths, of the power of the elements, the delicate balance of power handled by the Shamans. Nobundo listened with fascination and learned all that it could.

When it estimated that the hour had come, it left the desert, determined to be useful itself of its knowledge to help the people draeneï. During this time, the elves of blood created the frightening knights of blood. Their foundation was made possible by the capture of a naaru in the keep of the Storm by prince Kael' Thas High-sun. Kael' thas sent the naaru to the Moon-D' money, where it was studied and subjected during months to various experiments by magistère Astalor Bloodsworn.

At the end of the day, Astalor and the other magicians learned how to handle and corrupt luminous energies of the naaru. Instead of nourishing its magic, the elves of blood could handle themselves the capacities which it held of the Light. Ram Liadrin, a former priestess, had given up her wishes because it estimated that the Light had given up its people. It intended to speak about the work of the magicians, and proposed to become the first elf to fold with his will these stolen capacities. Its decision gave rise to a new order: knights of blood. These paladins renegade is able to exploit the crowned capacities of the noblest heroes of Alliance.

These new developments within the people draeneï and elf of blood mean that in World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade, the players of Alliance will be able to create Shamans and the players of the Horde of the paladins, if they choose the two people recently discovered. The fact that the players of the two factions can use all the classes will offer new enthralling possibilities of play and will modify the dynamic ones of group. Those which were dedicated exclusively to a faction will have the occasion to discover a class which was not accessible before for them.

The Shamans of Alliance and the paladins of the Horde will share the majority of the talents of their counterparts of the other camp, but they will also profit from new techniques specific, similar to the racial capacities of the priests. Remain connected on WorldofWarcraft.com to discover other information!

That's what Google translated
-by Gregthegreat


I am so rolling a Draenei Shaman now!!! I can finally stick to alliance and be a Shaman! THANK YOU BLIZZARD!!! <3>
-by Sylvur


My main is a paladin.

I'm really excited about the possibilities of this change! Thanks Blizz, you just made the game more interesting. The combination of the classes... just wow. This will be a lot of fun!

Thanks again!
-by Solanya


The vile blood elves have perverted the holy light, and stolen the very soul of purity from our allies! Their light is nothing but a mockery, and an insult to our very existance! They have not earned their blessings, but stolen them from those who were deserving!

Join me my brothers, these "blood knights" are an insult to our very order and all we hold dear! Lord Uther weeps in his grave this day!

/roleplay off.
-by Karnwield


The discussion surrounding the decision to move forward with this change started long before World of Warcraft was even released, Waricelm. Making this change allows us an opportunity to blend all that's associated with this decision into future development.

The fact is, by allowing for this particular change we will be afforded the opportunity to open up many more options for both the Shaman and Paladin -- while preseverving the distinction between the two. We feel strongly that there is much more to gain by this route than there is from the flavor generated by keeping a class unique to a faction.

Something we have always held to as a core design philosophy is developing classes which are distinct from each other. This means developing a class with it's own abilities that clearly separate it from other classes in terms of how the class plays and operates, both for the player and from a design stand-point.

Early on in the inception of this game, it was a hot debate as to whether factions should have a specific class, which they alone have access to. Some wanted all classes to be distinct from each other, but accessible by all. Others thought that more flavor could be generated by keeping a class unique to a faction. Obviously, if you have one side with a unique class, you should probably give the other faction a unique class as well. Thus, Shaman and Paladins became those unique classes.

However, by linking them in a relationship as unique counter-points, options are closed for our main design goal, which is to keep classes distinct. We want factions to be balanced, but don't want to cut and paste abilities from one to the other and homogenize the classes. If we went that road, there would be little difference or need for a distinct class. We want classes to be different in more than just name-only or superficial appearances.

So, in our desire to keep the classes distinct and open up new possibilities for development of each class, shaman and paladins shall now be a playable class for both factions. This decision comes at a time when we have an opportunity to blend this decision into future development. Namely, with the new races in the upcoming expansion. Prior to the new races, the Paladin and Shaman lent themselves easily to their own factions and not that well to the opposite faction (Tauren Paladin? Gnome Shaman?) With the advent of the two additional races, the choice was made more clear in game design and lore.

In terms of game design, one of the options it opens up is for specific classes in dungeon encounters. We already have several encounters that highlight the abilities of a single class or make use of a classes specific abilities. Shaman and Paladins in the previous design could not participate in such encounters. If killing a creature required a Shaman, the Alliance could never beat the encounter and vice versa. This change allows the two classes to bring their own abilities into a situation which may highlight their class as an integral part of the encounter.
-by Eyonix [Eyonix is an official World of Warcraft representative]


I like the idea. It gives Blizzard the ability to balance the Shaman, and the Paladins as independant classes, and no longer off of each other.
-by Yarko


As a raid leader this is really going to screw up class balance in raids for established guilds. It takes a lot to balance a perfect mix of people and now I have to manage another class with similar abilities to the paladin. I'm going to have to divide pally spots between pallies/shaman now. which means some of our core pallies are ultimately going to get the boot (or shaman on horde side).

Bah. Don't like this change from a guild management perspective.
-by Loomer

Loomer is an exhibit A representative of the kind of overly controlling "can only do this one way" over the top anal guild I despise. The concept of being flexible, relaxed, and enjoying yourself eludes these people, replacing the fun of a game with rigid order and clockwork predictability.

One of the more amusing things in reading the forums is that Horde players (who previously had no paladins) think Paladins are awesome and will replace Shaman in "raids"... and Alliance players (who have no shaman) think that Shaman are awesome and can't wait to roll one up. The difference seems to be one of experience and perception. I'm looking forward to both, although the explanation to how the blood elves got to be paladins is kind of weak.

In any case hysterical claims that the difference between the horde and alliance has been negated are ludicrous. There are separate races, separate quests, separate cities, and even dungeons that only one faction or the other can even get into. This reduces the difference, but there's still a significant degree of distinction.

Quotes

OLBERMAN?

Keith Olberman continues in his quest to have no career in sports broadcasting and no career at all when President Bush is no longer in office:


This strikes me as a variant on the "live by the sword, die by the sword" rule, where you build a career on attacking someone and ultimately that's all you really amount to. Cable TV is a very niche market-oriented industry, with Golf channels and such but the "loony leftist O'Reilly hater" niche does not seem like a very lucrative one.

I used to like Olbermann on Sports Center until I read the Big Show book by him and Dan Patrick. Neither one came across as all that glowing a person, but Keith Olbermann really seemed like a cosmic jerk. He's done nothing to change that opinion.

LEFTIST GLOSSARY

Cartoon Nazi posted a glossary of leftist terms for the fourth of July this year. He was attempting to define words as the radical left uses them so that readers can understand what is being said by someone like Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan:

African Americans: Idiot stooges who will never vote Republican; and so can safely be ignored.

Republicans: Pick-up driving, beer guzzling, toothless old white bigots.

Christianity: Dangerous joke.

Affirmative action: Liberal-sanctioned racism and sexism.

Quagmire: A buzzword to equate all present and future military actions with Vietnam. To be shrieked like a broken record if said action lasts more than a few weeks.

Hidden agenda: All Conservative ideas that are known to work.

Stolen election: Any lost election.

Israel: The REAL problem; There'd be no discord with Muslims if it didn't exist.

Evil: (alternate meaning) An antiquated religious term that has been supplanted by moral relativism.

Go over and check out the site, he's got many more examples and plenty of political cartoons and fun stuff.

Fun

THE BEAUTY AND THE BURKHA

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because men spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those among you who fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them."
-Sura 4:34

In 1985, a National Geographic photographer took a picture of a beautiful girl whose eyes were mesmerizing and filled with dread and suspicion. It was an icon of the plight of the Afghan people, their lives torn by war and danger. For 17 years the photographer searched for this girl, and finally found her, now almost 30 years old, with her face carefully veiled from public view. For over a decade her image had represented the refugees in the war-torn nation, and now she was covered up lest a man see her. She allowed the photographer to take one more picture of her than moved on to avoid publicity, carefully veiling her face again.

In a way, this woman is representative of more than just refugees, she's a symbol of women in Muslim nations. The veil is a piece of clothing, something to show modesty in public, there is no inherent oppression in wearing or not wearing it, like the hijab (the head scarf). But it is emblematic of something more significant, something that got Theo Van Gogh murdered over.

It is difficult to find objective looks at how women are treated in Islam, because the Muslim community is defensive and considers there to be no problem (a poll taken among Muslim women around the world showed that they answered that they felt no oppression). When feminists or western writers do consider the subject, they tend to lump Islam, Judaism, and Christianity together in one evil patriarchal system that hold women in contempt.

However, the difference between how women are treated in Islamic societies and how they are treated in Christian and Jewish societies is stark in it's contrast. When the Taliban took over Afghanistan in the chaos after the Russians left, they imposed strong restrictions on women. For example, women were not to hold a job (some women earned a small income by baking bread, when discovered by the Taliban they were burned alive in their own ovens) and were forbidden to attend school. Without female doctors, women were also denied medical care because it was illegal for women to be examined by a male doctor. Being caught with a male who was not your relative was a death sentence.


"Honor killing" of women who have disobeyed their father or husband is a known problem in Europe and in Islamic nations, where a girl or woman is simply killed for disobeying what they were commanded to do. Recently in a famous story, a girl was raped by a man then killed by her family for becoming pregnant and having sex without being married.

Women are treated as little more than property, although Islamic Clerics do admit that women have legal rights under the Koran, just not as many as men. Muhammad had a 7 year-old wife who was 9 years old when the man in his 50's consummated the marriage. Girls are mutilated to prevent them from enjoying sex too much.

The burkha, while hot and likely uncomfortable is not in it's self an evil or cruel thing - it's a fashion statement of purity, chastity, modesty, and spirituality. Granted it's not something I'd care to wear, but that doesn't make it wicked oppression. But it is emblematic of something more, of a crushing tyranny over women.

ALa at Blonde Sagacity commented on an article from the Australian on women and the lack of response to their plight. She does not have a pleasant reaction to seeing a Burkha:

Every time I see a women sheathed in black from head to toe in 95° heat...my head feels like it's going to explode. I get mad at their husbands, at their religion and at them for allowing it to happen.

Have even the revolutionary feminists become to PC to speak out?

Which brings up a good question, shouldn't the feminist movement be outraged by the treatment of women in Islam? Yet when was the last time you heard or read a single leftist or feminist leader or writer condemn this treatment? Where's the support for Theo VanGogh's assistant and fellow filmmaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Where's the outrage and Hollywood protest at VanGogh's death? Where are the movies, the ribbons, the statements at the Oscars?

To be honest the last time I saw a single complaint about the conditions of women in Islamic nations was before the War on Terror started. Now, it seems, the Muslim is the oppressed minority and to criticize them might help the oppressor: the evil George Bush.

Commenters filled in for Naomi Wolf and Gloria Steinem, who apparently are not paying any attention:

I've wondered the same thing, many many times because they are so quick to chide Christianity for it's "subjugation" of women.
-by Miss Fire


The article is just flat-out inaccurate. Gloria Steinem called the Taliban religious fascists and spoke out in favor of the Revoluationary Afghan Women's Association (RAWA), an organization that has been fighting for women's rights in Afghanistan. Here's a statement from NOW condemning the Taliban way back in 1998, before opposing the Taliban was cool. Also, in that pre-9/11 era, I attended a fundraiser for RAWA hosted by feminist writer Katha Pollitt, who was very active with the group.
-by honestpartisan

[Like I said: before the War onTerror...]

It is easy to talk about the "Taliban". That is an easy target.

Feminists need to address Muslim men requiring their women to wear a blanket everywhere they are in the world especially American Muslims!!

Women being requried to wear a blanket in Florida's humidity and heat is oppressive.

Muslim women are too afraid to speak up for themselves and American Feminists know it, but still "condemn" the Taliban.

Whoop dee doo.
-by gunner

In a number of documentaries I've seen the women seem to want to wear the restrictive clothing.

You know i wonder how many want the beatings, the rape, the honor killings, the bigamy, and the forced motherhood that is as common here as reality TV and Mt. Dew is back home nate?
-by freee0352


Nate- that's because the fundies are more rampant over there than the Christian fundies that scare me over here. However, in contrast to your post, the number of women who like wearing burkas is also far and few, but the hardcore "it ain't that bad" crowd of liberals likes to focus on them instead of the majority.

Fact is, in a totally free society, those women would be able to choose whether or not they wore the burka. Those who like it can continue to wear it, and those who don't can take it off. I don't like them being forced to wear them, however it will be their choice, and their life that they will have to weigh in doing so - hence why I said they would have to be brave women.

I have no doubt that any woman who does walk around without her burka on, in protest of said cultural restriction, would be quickly put to death and someone would cover it up as an honour killing because she shamed her family. This is why I would hope to take care of the honour killings and other stuff first. The burkas will come off in time, but only after the fear of losing their life for speaking up is gone. Traditions are easily made, but they take a long time in changing. Especially, when it is as prevalent as a cultural tradition, where there are people within the community will step up and prevent a more moderate family from existing as they wish.

So please, if you are going to respond to something, at least think it out first.
-by freakchylde


Really, what is the idea behind the Burka. It is the idea (not without some truth) that Men like to look at women. Apparently, the Muslim faith thinks one can stop the lustfulness of men by covering up their women. It is a perversion of scripture (IMHO) in my world view b/c (well) I can see some of these women and (even if covered up) they still are obviously attractive. The problem is not neccasarily with the female but rather what is within the male "heart".

Additionally, men, b/c of their (usual) greater strength have the power to dominate the females in their country, therefore, they do so. Its not much different from the bully in the schoolyard.
People from our military (like Free) are their to help to try to reverse this trend. (And also to kick some Al'queda ass) HOPEFULLY, by their example.

If one reads the Bible carefully, and with discernment, we find that GOD believes that women are equal to men. For what it is worth, I believe that is true.
-by riceburner147


Steinem and Wolf are crying into their drinks because Ani DiFranco announced she was pregnant at the NOW awards last week.
-by courtney


ENOUGH! NOW needs to refocus their attention on the Masters and trying to get women admitted into Augusta National golf club.

What a joy it was to watch the Masters commercial-free after Augusta declined all sponsorship in response to NOWs threats to boycott said sponsors.

Come on girls, get your sh*it together and do something to help ol' Hoss out.
-by Hoss

Something I should note is that in a restrictive Islamic society, the women are not allowed to speak to strangers without their husband or father present. Thus, the responses one gets to a survey are likely to be, shall we say, influenced by the company.

Religion, Feminism

Quote of the day

"Bein' right's not a bulletproof vest, Freddy!"
-Gary Figgis (Ray Liotta - Copland)
Quotes

MINORITY SPEECH

"People trying to make the point that intolerance silences, are in turn using the courts to silence those they disagree with."

The 9th circuit court of appeals is the federal court with the highest rate of overturned decisions in America. They make more decisions that are later overturned by a higher court than any other federal court, in other words, which is another way of saying they're wrong more often than any other court, legally speaking at least.

For instance, the 9th circuit court found that the use of "under God" in the US pledge of allegiance was a violation of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution which protects the right of free speech, free exercise of religion, and bans the establishment of a state religion in the country. The Supreme Court took about an hour to rule that the man bringing the suit had no legal authority to do so, and threw the case out. This is something that the inferior courts should have noticed immediately and failed to for reasons of their own.

Most recently, the 9th circuit court had a panel examination of a case in which they issued a gag order, which Tech Central Station describes this way:

[A] panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision which may provide a foundation for applying preferential treatment to freedom of speech. If allowed to stand, the decision could authorize local governments to set varying limits to free expression, depending on the race, religion, or sexual orientation of the listener. Preferential treatment has proved one of the most divisive policies of modern America. The Ninth Circuit's decision could radically expand its scope.

The case was a San Diego area high school which held an official organized "Day of Silence" to "teach tolerance of others, particularly those of a different sexual orientation," according to an Assistant Principal. Some participating students wore duct tape over their mouths, or wore black T-shirts bearing a purple square and a yellow equal sign. The Gay-Straight Alliance, with the school's permission, put posters "promoting awareness of harassment on the basis of sexual orientation."

Some of the students didn't support the Day of Silence.

For example, one wore a T-shirt with the slogan "I WILL NOT ACCEPT WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED" on the front, and "HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL 'Romans 1:27'" on the back. The next day, he wore a shirt that read: "BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED."

School authorities refused to let Harper wear the shirt on campus, calling it "inflammatory" which under their guidelines was sufficient grounds to deny the garment. The student sued, basing his complaint on first amendment rights of free speech (and freedom of religion). Minors have greater limits on the expression of their rights in America than those who have reached maturity, and students have restrictions as well while on school grounds. This allows schools to control the kind of clothing and behavior, speech and such that students engage in to keep order and benefit education.

But the courts didn't make a decision on those grounds, they chose another route:

Instead, in a 2-1 decision, Judge Reinhardt used the case to articulate a new concept of free speech regulation. Focusing on the specific anti-gay content of Harper's T-shirt, he ruled that schools may restrict "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion, and sexual orientation." In a footnote, he wrote that the court would "leave ... to another time" the question of limiting derogatory remarks aimed at gender. But Judge Reinhardt proceeded to establish a new constitutional calculus, under which the protectability of speech would depend on the minority status of the listener.

Judge Reinhardt wrote that a different standard should apply to derogatory remarks aimed at "majority groups such as Christians or whites" because "there is, of course, a difference between a historically oppressed minority group that has been the victim of serious prejudice and discrimination and a group that has always enjoyed a preferred social, economic and political status."

Whether such a difference exists or not, and it seems like a plausible argument, no such distinction is noted or significant in the Bill of Rights.

In his dissent, Judge Kozinski pointed to the practical difficulties of applying Reinhardt's novel concept. If the Pope condemns gay marriage, could a student wear a T-shirt reading "CATHOLICS ARE BIGOTS"? On the one hand, Catholics are a minority with a long history of oppression in this country. So they would seem to qualify for Judge Reinhardt's preferential treatment. But Catholics are part of the larger Christian faith, which Judge Reinhardt described as having "always enjoyed a preferred social, economic and political status." Blacks are a minority nationally, but in many school districts they constitute a majority. May a white student wear a T-shirt bearing an anti-black message in a nearly all black school, since the white student would be a minority in that context?

Tech Central Station extraopolated this logic to other rights in the Bill of Rights, such as the 2nd amendment which protects gun ownership, and potential problems with this ruling. Commenters there responded:

The ruling of the Ninth Circus has ignored two important ideas that it rigorously applies to any case involving non-whites, non-heterosexuals, non-Christians or non-males: the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the concept of strict scrutiny. Don't expect the ACLU to come running to defend Tyler Harper.

The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment states that we are all due the equal protection of the laws unless there is some compelling reason why people should be treated differently. It never states that minority status should grant special priveleges, such as preferential hiring treatment or the right not to be offended. In this instance, the court has granted homosexuals the right not to be offended by Tyler Harper's shirt.

Furthermore, the Ninth Circus has denied Tyler Harper the right to express the fact that he is offended by the Day of Silence and the message of tolerance for homosexual behavior by wearing a shirt that expresses his religious beliefs. Generally, the court applies the strict scrutiny standard whenever a law restricts the freedom of speech. There must be a truly compelling state interest in this sort of speech not being allowed. Apparently, preventing homosexuals from being offended is right up there with protecting state secrets, preventing the advocacy of genocidal campaigns against Jews and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

The Fourteenth Amendment was put in the Constitution to stop the government from denying the rights provided therein to any of its citizens without a very good reason. The First Amendment was put in the Constitution to stop the government from silencing those who said things that they thought were offensive. They were great while they lasted, but the Ninth Circus just killed them. Of course, now we can bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts, Jim Crow and "seperate but equal." As long as we only apply it white, heterosexual, Christian males...
-by Publiusjr


PubliusJr, in my view your assessment is correct.

The important distiction in this case is that Tyler, a student, not an employee or representative of the school district, is acting on his own behalf without the (explicit or implicit) endoresment of the State.
-by Rhampton


People trying to make the point that intolerance silences, are in turn using the courts to silence those they disagree with.

I'm guessing that most liberals have had their irony genes surgically removed.
-by MarkTheGreat


The Ninth Circuit Court has had a long and dismal history of producing flawed decisions that are later overturned by the High Court. In any other arena, such a poor record would lead to the dismissal or even dismantling of the organization that created it. If, for example, a team of autoworkers produced such poor products that 15 cars out of 18 had to be recalled, would there be any doubt that members of that team would soon be looking for new jobs? Yet, year in and year out, the Leftist judges of the Ninth continue to produce their flawed product and we, the taxpayer, continue to finance them. Maybe it is time to do away with the Ninth.
-by DaveSmith


The school has no proper business promoting its social agenda. The administrators should be fired. The kid has no proper business promoting religion in a public school - not that public schools should exist, which is the fundamental flaw without which this whole nightmare could not exist.
The school is there to educate, and should have a dress code that forbids all distractions from the goal of education: no printing on shirts, no duct-taped mouths, etc..
The ninth circuit, of course, is just evil.
-by chrismaple


Exactly how was this kid promoting religion?
Was he button holing people to get them to chapel? Was he offering free tickets to the Knights of Columbus bingo night? Its a shame this nation has forgotten the first amendment.

The 9th court is the logical outcome of the Left's strategy of ursurping government by employing the judiciary to force law down our throats that no legislature would ever pass.
-by ThomasJackson


This sort of thing should be up to the school district. My take on this is that the administration of any school is incompetant if it allows: gang colors, hip-hop pants, revealing tops, any shirt on the boys without a collar, short pants on the boys, flip-flops or baseball caps on anyone. Ever. Appropriate Dress Codes.

Political, religious or social messages printed on T-Shirts? Nope. And any sort of name calling, bullying or confrontational behavior? Summary suspension.

They are minors until they are 18. Be adults! Treat the children like children. Why do we think that children should have such opinions?

This is one of the problems we have in America trying to sustain a rational society from generation to generation. We let the twelve-year-olds invent their own culture every five years. By asking around among themselves!

When people from a proper culture immigrate to the US their greatest sacrifice is the risk that their children will become Americans.

How in the world can a 15 year old child be a homosexual? Kids in foreign countries have some sense of personal discipline. At least when they are in the classroom. Is it any wonder that their students excel and ours end up working for them, over here? Do the math. This is our fault!
-by forest


If we can have Love your Neighbor day, why can't we have Hate your Neighbor day? Love and hate both are values and we want our schools to promote all values equally. When a federal judge allows a school to ask a kid not to wear "God hates fags", what's the world coming to?

One of your friends has a family member who is gay. Even if you don't know who, its a statistical certainty (if you have any friends) [The US census found that between 2-3% of the population is gay]. Mary Cheney is just one. Hating homosexuals is hating these individuals you know and care for. You want schools to promote good values. Hate is not one of them.
-by Liberal Goodman


BTW, the kid was not wearing a God hates fags tee-shirt, so stop with the inane strawmen.
-by MarktheGreat


I think "God hates fags" is a reasonable summary of: "WILL NOT ACCEPT WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED" and "HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL" and "BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED".

There are limits to free speech, particularly in schools. Students may be allowed to advocate truthfulness but not lying, etc.

It is disturbing that so many of you (bloggers) are upset that kids were prevented from saying things that you never would want said to your loved ones who happen (as a matter of statistical certainty) to be gay. It's not like they were trying to advocate tax cuts or even prayer in school.
-by LiberalGoodman


"It is disturbing that so many of you (bloggers) are upset that kids were prevented from saying things that you never would want said to your loved ones who happen (as a matter of statistical certainty) to be gay."

I've had plenty of things said to me in school that I didn't want to have said. Fat kids, skinny kids, socially awkward kids, computer-geeks, metal-heads, unathletic kids...all these kids have nasty things said to them and all of them constitute a "minority group" within the general population.

If teachers and administrators wish to enforce speech codes to protect children from having things "said to them that they don't want said", then schools should enforce such codes across the board - NOT just protect one group or another.

Schools that hold "Day of Silence" events must also hold events such as "Fat Acceptance", "Be Nice to A Geek", "Take a Cheerleader to Lunch" (because cheerleaders are clearly a tiny minority group in schools), and others.

It is patently unfair for one group of minorities to enjoy protected status from the schools and the courts while so many others must suffer daily the slings and arrows of hatred, ridicule and abuse.
-by aks451


"God hates fags" is a substantially different statement from "I will not accept what God has condemned." Comparing the two is like comparing "Kick the d--ned lazy wetbacks out!" to "Our borders are totally unsecured at a time when we face a threat of international terrorism, and we have 13 million workers living off of our welfare dollars to prove it." One is a statement intending to cause offense and possibly start a fight, the other is a rational, reasonable argument. One of them can be legally regulated, the other one cannot.

However, this has never seemed to matter to leftists. Anyone who says we should secure our borders is called a racist. Anyone who suggests that women and men are the slightest bit different is called a sexist. Anyone who suggests that homosexuality might be wrong is called a homophobe. All of these accusations are ridiculous, and intended to frighten people away from any debate on these issues.

As a further point, I would suggest that all the liberals out there review your definitions of tolerance and acceptance. People tolerate things that bother us, but which exist and must be dealt with. For example, we tolerate crying babies on the subway. Acceptance is learning not only to accept something, but also to acknowledge it as normal and legitimate. The two are miles apart.

The fact that an individual believes homosexuality is wrong based on their religion does not mean they hate or fear homosexuals. Similarly, if I declare that eating meat is a morally acceptable thing t do, it does not mean I hate vegetarians. I happen to be a Christian, and I believe that by doing what they do homosexuals are endangering their souls. Despite this fact, I do not plan to burn down The Manhole or shoot my local drag queen. If I did either, that would be an example of hate. Moral disapproval is not hatred, it is an ethical standpoint.

Tolerance simply means living with people who do and say things we do not like, especially if they are not injuring us in the process. It does not mean we have to consider what they do morally right. As MarkTheGreat pointed out, the real irony here is that those who argue "intolerance silences" are trying to silence those they are intolerant of with the courts.
-by Pbliusjr


Danish-Americans, Swedish-Americans, German-Americans, Polish-Americans, British-Americans, Irish-Americans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists, Lutherans, Mormons, Epsicopalians...you are all ethnic, cultural and religious minorities! Stand up for yourselves!

All of these Americans and all of these individual religious denominations are the ONLY MINORITIES IN THIS COUNTRY lumped together by the color of their skin or grouped under a generic "Christian" banner and then discriminated against in school, in the workplace, and by the Government to which they pay more than their fair share of the taxes. And if they wish to articulate a clearly minority viewpoint in today's left-majority schools, they are hushed not just by their "teachers" but by administrators, the ACLU, and now this gaggle of idiot judges.

Freedom of speech ought not to be only for the politically "correct", but for everyone. Even those with whom we disagree vehemently.
-by Anonymous

In my opinion, the school has a responsibility to keep people from wearing clothing that is deliberately provocative or incites anger and trouble in the school. Students, as I noted earlier, cannot exercise their rights as freely in school as adults out of school for the same reason you can't lie about someone without fear of lawsuit or cry "fire" in a crowded movie theater. This is one of the areas that in the social contract, the people have decided to agree to restrict freedom upon for the benefit of each person in the society.

Personally I think this is one more argument for school uniforms, which students tend to loathe but parents tend to love.

But this decision is idiotic and without merit, and worse, potentially a serious problem if unchecked by the Supreme Court. What's more, I find these politically-active days like "days of silence" to be improper and out of place in an educational facility. Leave that stuff alone, don't have any kind of displays of that kind, and you'll avoid this kind of trouble. In any case, stating an opinion on a shirt that happens to be from a religious source is no worse than or less worthy of protection than any other statement of opinion. It is the content, not the source that ought to be in question.

Legal Matters

PEDOPHILE'S DELIGHT

"I hope this doesn't mean we'll be seeing some of South Dakota."

Dakota Fanning is a child actress who most recently was famous for her role in War of the Worlds. Her talent makes her seem like an adult in a child's body, which might explain why she was considered for the next role she's due to play. In the movie Hounddog, Miss Fanning plays a girl who is sexually abused who turns to Elvis for inspiration. According to Cinematical, reports are now saying that Miss Fanning's role calls for her to be...

"raped in one explicit scene and to appear naked or clad only in 'underpants' in several other horrifying moments." Yeah, I'll let you sit with that one for a second.

Due to the alarming subject matter, a bunch of potential investors wanted nothing to do with Hounddog. In fact, production on the film had to shut down for awhile after its funds dried up. Luckily (?), the producers located some emergency investors and Hounddog resumed filming, with a wrap scheduled for today. Based on the description of these scenes, it appears Dakota goes a bit farther than Brooke Shields and Jodie Foster did when they were that age.

Like Erik Davis, I was dismayed to read that Miss Fanning's mother and agent liked the explicit scenes, thinking they had Oscar written all over them.

Commenters at the site responded:

That's sick. To think that a mother would subject her daughter for the sake of an award. It's called child pornography, and if a pedophile can get off on a scene like that why would a normal person want to pay to watch it too? One would assume scenes like that would be banned for children that young. Don't we have laws for that in this country????
-by Jo

Being the mother of beautiful little girl I think her mother is a disgrace!! No child no matter how old or how famous should be put in a situation like that! That is the problem with society today parents are not allowing the children, to be a "child" who cares if it is Oscar worth!!!
-by Desiree

Sometimes showing the full horror of a situation can turn an otherwise good movie into an important film. This sounds a bit like Bastard out of Carolina which allows real victims of abuse top see that they are not alone. Seeing how other people deal with tragic situations can be cathartic to people who have been in these situations. In holocaust movies, it is not "fun" to watch naked prisoners being led to the showers but it is an imortant part of what happened. I applaud Dakota for taking such a huge risk, and see nothing wrong with her mother allowing Dakota to choose her own roles. Dakota Fanning is a great actress and has been brilliant with her choice of film roles in the past. I'm sure this will be no exception.
-by Dollpenguin

We need to remember she's been in this business most of her life.

She's seen other actors do these scenes. She's capable of making decisions herself and likely things this is a good career move.

Sure, she's only 12. But she's probably more savvy to all of this than we are. And I'd imagine it's mostly her decision.

Odds are she knows what happens to most child stars and wants to try to distinguish herself before she ends up only to make news for running away with a hair dresser twice her age or rolling an 11 year old Saturn.
-by MosquitoControl

Oh, so we need to be reminded that child abuse is bad? We also need an explicit scene to drive home the point? Who's the audience for this movie? Ignorant soccer moms? recovering Paedophiles? Special Victims Unit cops in training? Who?

Does Dakota's mother think that unless she has an Oscar now her career will not survive? The child has 50 or more years ahead of her to make films.

Just because she has grown up making films doesn't mean that she has to be pushed into a harrowing scene that is orders of magnitude above anything else she has done to date. Cutesy family films or fantasy monsters don't count. Even the movie where she was kidnapped was nothing compared to this.

If the description of this film is correct, anyone involved will soon find out that controversy alone will not sell tickets and that the Academy will shun it for fear of creating monster parents abusing their child actors even more than they do now. Does anyone see Leno or Letterman interviewing the kid about this film as they do now? I predict that it will backfire so badly that poor Dakota will have to wait until she's 21 to make a comeback.
-by jmchez

At Ace of Spades Headquarters, this was also brought up. Ace had this to say:

There are people who will, and somehow I think they'll manage to miss the "message" of this film.

Does no one appreciate the irony that a movie about child-abuse will draw a huge number of guys with sexual designs on a 12 year old girl?

But the Oscar! The Oscar! The mom needs that Oscar for Dakota, at 12 years old, as if it's not pretty much an inevitability at some point.

Commenters there responded:

At least her mom didn't have to whore her off to Roman Polanski to get the part.

Thank God for small favors.
-by John

If its a mainstream movie, and it contains just one scene wherein a child is raped, is it really the mainstreaming of child porn?

Yes, it is.

You might say that child porn is like raw sewage. When you have a vat of water into which a teensy amount of raw sewage is poured, now you have a vat of raw sewage.

Wow. Edgy. Taboo-breaking. Good going, guys.

Great job, mom.
-by lauraw

The idea of a 13 year old girl being exploited for a movie is sickening beyond words. I asked my 14 year old phillipino live-in maid, and she also thought it was disgusting.
-by The Drizzle

There was a movie made some years ago called "Bastard Out of Carolina." It starred Ron Eldard and Jena Malone. At the time Jena must have been somewhere around the same age as Fanning is now. It pretty much covered the same subject matter as this, and they weren't terribly shy about showing Jena in compromising situations. It may have been the single most disturbing film I've ever seen in my life.
-by Carguy

To me this brings up a question I had when I first heard about Pretty Baby: isn't this child pornography? Showing a naked pre-teen girl in a whorehouse? I couldn't understand it at the time and I still do not. I'd like to go on record as saying "it's art, it's part of telling the story, it makes a point in a way that other methods would not, it's a message" does not justify every possible action or portrayal whatsoever.

Movies

Songs I Like - Solitary Man (Neil Diamond)

I know its been done/ having one/ girl who'll love me/ right or wrong/ weak or strong

Neil Diamond is a singer and songwriter few take seriously any more. Later in his career he became over sappy and Vegasized, singing ballads like "You Don't Bring Me Flowers Any More" with Barbara Streisand to middle aged women. But there was a time when he was a hip rock and roller with many top 10 hits. Quentin Tarantino recognized that side of Neil's earlier career when he used "Girl You'll Be A Woman Soon" in the movie Pulp Fiction (although he used an Urge Overkill cover that sounded almost identical to the original).

Solitary Man is the song of a man who tried love and found only pain and betrayal over and over. He resolves to be single, to avoid the trap until he can find a girl - if she exists - that will treat him right, be true, be trustworthy, be loyal, honest, and good. And in the end, it's far better to be single than be with the wrong person.

Melinda was mine
til the time
That I found her
Holding jim
Loving him

Then Sue came along
Loved me strong
Thats what I thought
But me and Sue,
That died too

Don't know that I will
But until I can find me
A girl who'll stay
And won't play games behind me
Ill be what I am
A solitary man
Solitary man

Ive had it to here
Bein' where
Love's a small world
Part-time thing
Paper ring

I know its been done
Having one
Girl who'll love me
Right or wrong
Weak or strong

Don't know that I will
But until I can find me
The girl who'll stay
And won't play games behind me
Ill be what I am
A solitary man
Solitary man

Music

LEGITIMATE TARGETS

"If you think it's bad that all these civilians are getting killed then you need to blame Hezbollah for not marking their vehicles, for storing their munitions in private homes, and for hiding in private houses. All of these activities are war crimes."

Most people - for now - are supporting Israel's right to defend themselves from aggression and being rocketed, attacked, and having citizens and soldiers kidnapped. While not everyone agrees on how much Israel may deserve such attacks in some way, most people agree that they need not sit and take it without response. The ones doing so are know terrorist groups (Hamas and Hezbollah) who hide in the populace and take shelter among the citizens of other countries and peoples. Iran is known to be supplying Hezbollah and assisting them in their attacks and their links are outlined in an article in the Sunday Times online. "You are the sun of Islam, shining on the universe!" is how the article quotes former Iranian president Muhammad Khatami in describing Hezbollah last week.

It would be no exaggeration to describe Hezbollah — the Lebanese Shi’ite militia — as Tehran’s regional trump card. Each time Tehran has played it, it has won. As war rages between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Tehran policymakers think that this time, too, they can win.

"I invite the faithful to wait for good news," Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last Tuesday. "We shall soon witness the elimination of the Zionist stain of shame."

Given Iran's constant work on nuclear weapons and repeated comments calling for the destruction if Israel, it is reasonable to say Israel has reason for concern.

But not everyone is so inclined to see Israel as having any right or reason to respond to attacks, and some even think they should hunker down and take it because deep down, the people there deserve what they are getting, that they are not justified or are wrong in responding to these attacks. Israel was condemned as acting "disproportionately" by the European Union and the United Nations for their response (Canada's Prime Minister by contrast called the response "measured self defense"). Other pundits were quick to find fault:

Matt Yglesias for example considers Israel's response "indefensible" and compared them to Hezbollah's:

The direct consequences of this have been a civilian death toll that's far higher than what Hezbollah's equally indefensible indiscriminate rocket attacks have done.

Whether that's accurate or not, one wonders what exactly he'd have Israel do, particularly as he portrays them as incapable of defeating Hezbollah militarily. The distinction between deliberately targeting civilian areas by Hezbollah and attacking strategic targets that Hezbollah puts human shields inside seems to elude Mr Yglesias.

At the Daily Kos, a diary was put up saying this:

Israel is showing the entire world why the Iranian President was absolutely right to suggest that Israel cease being a sovereign state as is. I will be clear I don't agree with Hezbollah's actions although I completely understand their logic. That being said does not give Israel the right to bomb all of Lebanon mercilessly.

Although it was later changed (without notification or update in violation of blogging protocols) to be less provocative, Tim Blair found and posted on a later Kos diary entry. He first started out with a statement by Margot Kingston (a columnist in Australia that is a regular target of Mr Blair) that includes the lines "I realised Bush was mad when his army chiefs starting calling suicide bombers and guerilla fighters 'terrorists.'" and if "Australia is attacked, it’s no longer terrorism. We have invaded Iraq. Iraq, or its new allies, have every right to attack back." Tim Blair then quoted a Daily Kos diary article The U.S. is now a legitimate target:

But with the U.S. actively sending fuel and missiles to Israel in the midst of a shooting war, a war producing hundreds of victims like the ones in the picture at right, we've moved way beyond that. The United States is now a legitimate military target in that war. That includes factories making the missiles or any parts or materials that go into them, refineries making aviation fuel, and trucks and railroads and ports and ships and planes being used to transport any of those things, not to mention any of the people involved in those activities.

Commenters at Tim Blair's site had this to say:

Lord knows I don’t want to question their patriotism, but these people are traitors.

The only recourse is chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (the Yanks used them in Vietnam

Uh, that’s news to me…

The U.S. ... has now declared war against the people of Lebanon every bit as much as it did against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Palestine ...

Well, there you have it… even when we intercede to stop genocide, with no national interest at stake whatsoever, we’re wrong.

But of course, they tell us we were wrong to not stop the Rwanda genocide…

Ugh. How do you make these people happy
-by Dave S.

If the US supplying munitions to Israel makes the US a “legitimate” target, doesn’t the same theory apply to Iran’s supplying munitions to Hizbalooza?

Simple logic would dictate that Kos has just endorsed an attack against the Mad Mullahs. Goody!
-by Spiny Norman

and that would legitimize also an attack on North Korea who has provided missiles to Iran… which would legitimise an attack on China who armed the North Koreans in the Korean war…

I like Daily Kos’ logic!
-by Williamº

The United States is now a legitimate military target in that war.

Oh, and by the way, Kos-sacks....the United States has been a target (legitimate or otherwise) of the Islamoterrorists for a long time. This is nothing new.

Congratulations, “elishastephens”, you are officially a tool.
-by The_Real_JeffS

Did the Soviet Union become a legitimate military target when they supplied nuclear missiles to Cuba?

Did Cuba become a legitimate military target of South Africa when they supplied weapons to SWAPO?

Did mainland China become a legimitate military target when they sent 1 million troops into the field against the United States in Korea?

Did the United States become a legimate military target when we chose not to delay the shipment of new sidewinder missiles to the UK during the Falklands War?

Sure, by this standard, I don’t think the Kossacks would have supported military action there.
-by Andrew

Of course if we are attacked by terrorists , then I presume we are entitled to attack back instead of moaning on about root causes.
-by Torontosteve

“With the U.S. actively sending fuel and missiles to Israel in the midst of a shooting war, a war producing hundreds of victims like the ones in the picture at right, we’ve moved way beyond that. The United States is now a legitimate military target in that war.”

Hell, they thought we were a legitimate target on 9-11, so what’s the diff? According to these people we are always a legitimate target. Their world view is perfectly encapsulated by Fat Fisk getting the snot beat out of himself by some Afghan punks and then proclaiming he deserved it.
-by Vangard of the Commentariat

At the Daily Kos, not everyone agreed with Elishastephens' article about the legitimacy of the US as a target:

Are Iran and Syria also legitimate targets? Do you really mean that the U.S. as a whole is a legitimate military target, i.e., that noncombatants and civilian targets are fair game? Or are you saying something else?

Have you considered the different status in international law between a country that sells munitions to a warring party and a country that uses or instigates action by a warring party? In other words, prior to Germany's declaration of war on the United States in December, 1941, did our supply of materiel to Great Britain nevertheless make us a legitimate military target for
Nazi Germany?

If legitimate military targets existed in the United States, and if those targets were located in areas occupied by civilians, then, yes, it would be important that any attacker give advance warning, as Irael often (generally?) does in Lebanon.
-by the Euston Manifesto

not qualified to construct an informed analysis of international law... but

Syria and Iran are not legitimate military targets. AND even if they were.... we would be ill-advised to attack either.

In the case of Iran, it seems to me that our government wants to bait Iran into attacking us so that it can in fact be a legitimate military target.
-by Cassidy 3

And would you agree that the US is not a legitimate military target?
-by the Euston Manifesto

I admit a strong bias.

And I say NO. Based on what I know about the way we behave in the world, I would say no. But we do have WMD. We have used them before and refuse to rule out using them again. I can see how a case could be made. I can picture some country's foreign minister going before the UN and making the case against us by using many of the same arguments Powell used in the run up to Iraq.

Who knows what our special forces are doing. There have been reports that we had black ops going on in Iran. If this were the case...if we had military presence within the Iranian border doing whatever clandestine crap they do, and they were caught, wouldn't Iran be able to make the case that we are a "legitimate" target?
-by Cassidy 3

The United States is now a legitimate military target in that war. That includes factories making the missiles or any parts or materials that go into them, refineries making aviation fuel, and trucks and railroads and ports and ships and planes being used to transport any of those things, not to mention any of the people involved in those activities.

Disagree. The United States military, its posts, weapons stocks, and weapons installations, and those elements of the US government who directly order the US military into action, are legitimate military targets. No one and nothing else.
-by Blueness

Why not our power stations, airports, and roads? Seriously.

Civilian infrastructure seems to be fair game in Lebanon/Iraq/Serbia, so why not in the US?

Once you buy into the Israeli tit-plus-one for tat strategy, it seems to me to lead to many very undesirable rationalizations, not to mention a rapid escalation of violence. And once the US moves from verbal support to material support, we've joined the game, whether we like it or not.

If your point is that military targets are the only ones that can ever be truly legitimate, then we might be in agreement.
-by Mad Dog Rakham

No, Israel started it. They crossed the border and took prisoners just days before. It's been in several news articles and diaries here, but Israeli-apologists seem to conveniently overlook that fact, as do all of our elected representatives (Democrats included) and the traditional media.

Mike Malloy, on Air America, was all over this FACT on his show on Thursday evening.
-by ginja

In violation of international law, Japan attacked the United States.

In violation of international law, Lebanon allowed Hizbollah to use Lebanese territory to recruit and form a military force, and to use that force to attack Israel. Indeed, since Hizbollah forms part of the Lebanese government, Hizbollah's conduct may be directly attributable to the government.

The United States fire-bombed Tokyo and dropped two atomic bombs on Japanese cities, weapons that inherently were unable to be used in a discriminating fashion, and which the U.S. did not try to use in a discriminating fashion.
-by the Euston Manifesto

Based on casualty figures, it's actually tit-plus-10 for tat...

10 Lebanese civilians and/or Canadians for every Israeli civilian. And they wonder why people are starting to compare them to Nazis.
-by expatjourno

as for tit-for-tat, i've never understood what that has to do with anything? this isn't a legal proceding, it's a war - it is absolutely israel's obligation to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. but tit-for-tat is the dumbest thing i've ever heard of in my life.

if there were 30,000 al qaeda in afghanistan, would we invade only 10% of the country because only 3000 americans died in 9/11? no. you get rid of the threat and keep civilian casualties to an absolute minimum. now you can argue about the legitimacy of any military campaign, but to argue they should somehow restrict themselves to the exact amount of casualties that have been inflicted on them shows a complete lack of understanding.

nazis, by the way, employed disproportionate responses whose targets were CIVILIANS under a regime of unprovoked terror. you should be ashamed of yourself.
-by nussbaumski

These were legitimate military targets. This was largely in response to recent Israeli attacks on Palestinians. Since June 9, Israel killed 20 and wounded 32, all of them civilians, mostly women and children, as documented here. Israel not once expressed regret for these killings and maimings.

The only conclusion one can make is that for Israel, dead Palestinians do not count as bloodshed. Or Arabs in general. Why else would Israel be indiscriminately bombing in Lebanon, committing war crime after war crime?
-by Alexander

It's pretty simple.

First off, this was one attack on Israeli soldiers. But Hezbollah has been attacking civilians for years.

Secondly, the Israelis have no obligation to let Hezbollah attack anyone - military or civilian - without hitting back.

Finally, as far as I can tell, the primary cause of civilian deaths has been the Hezbollah practice of hiding behind civilians or pretending to be civilians. Both of these practices are war crimes because they tend to get civilians killed and the laws of war place the blame for those deaths squarely on the people who hide behind / pretend to be civilians, not on those who kill them.

If you think it's bad that all these civilians are getting killed then you need to blame Hezbollah for not marking their vehicles, for storing their munitions in private homes, and for hiding in private houses. All of these activities are war crimes.
-by Xiang

I've been hesitant to post on the events in the Middle East because they have been covered so well and extensively by other bloggers that it seemed redundant. But I did want to highlight the fact that while presently most support Israel, some do not; just like 9/11 when most people supported the US's right to defend it's self, but some did not.

Within a few weeks, the voices of opposition began to raise and build and accuse and invent, and now we've got a cottage industry of US hating, US blaming folks who claim to be anti-war, but in fact are simply opposed to the US and all it does. Some of them even go so far as to be for the enemy rather than simply anti-war. Expect the same pattern here to be followed; using the logic expatjourno follows above claiming that since more people are being killed by the Israelis, that makes them the bad guys, for example.

All that Israel does will be cast in the worst possible light, without understanding war or military action, and all the evil that their enemies do will be ignored, shrugged off or weakly condemned while attacking Israel, again.

Middle East

Quote of the day

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."
-Dwight Eisenhower

Quotes

THE W.A.T.N. FAQ

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS BLOG

Thank you for visiting my blog, everyone. I've tried to come up with something at least slightly unique or distinctive at the very least. This F.A.Q. will be changed and updated as time passes and the blog updates and changes.

Your articles cut off at odd places! Indeed they do, because I'm trying to develop interest in what the rest of the article contains. At the bottom of many of my posts is a link that says
Read the rest...
And this can be clicked on to open up the rest of the article. Consider it like unfolding the newspaper to read beneath the fold, or turning to page A10. When you've read it or are uninterested in the rest, you can click on the
...Collapse post
at the bottom. This lets me type huge, long articles without taking up so much space on the main page, lots of blogs use this. If you see that read the rest bit, you've only read a small part of the full post!

What's with the flags up at the top? Each of those flags represents someone who visited my site and was from that nation. I haven't seen everyone because some people have enough security on their computer that didn't let the stat counter see where they were from. The internet is truly international, and I wanted to point that out.

Why don't you post more on the weekends? Weekends end up about half the usual traffic or less because people tend to have other, better things to do than read my blog. I take Sunday completely off, and I try to write a long form article, an essay, each Saturday to give people something to read and consider. If you look at the Weekend Essays portion in the right hand column, there's a list of these so you can read past weeks.

Whats up with all the comments in your posts? In addition to great blog and news articles that are out there, there's a huge wealth of miniature opinion columns being written on every topic around the world. These little articles are written by people on message boards and comment sections, and represent a broader slice of the internet than individual bloggers. Comment sections add a lot to a good blog and can expand considerably on the initial article in their discussion. For more on this, check out my essay Blog as Community. There aren't as many comments on my blog as there used to be, but its still an area of interest.

Who's the little kid in the picture by your profile? That's me, around age 10. I put that up instead of a more contemporary picture because I wanted people to think of me as harmless and cute. Don't hate me!

What's the Doughty Dozen? Doughty means "steadfast and brave" and these are the last 12 blogs that I've linked to on my blog. Rather than having a set blogroll, I decided to do it this way. Some time I might come up with one of those pull-down menu blogrolls and put EVERY blog I've ever linked to - and that's hundreds - but not for a while yet, I think.

Your weather information is different than what's going on outside! Yes, well it's for Salem, Oregon (where I live), so if you live somewhere else, it will likely be different.

What's the 101st Fighting Keyboardists? That's a blogroll I jumped on within an hour of it being posted at the Captain's Quarters blog. One of the more pathetic attacks the anti-war left launches at anyone who dares to support the war on terror is that you are a chickenhawk if you haven't served. That means "someone who supports war only if he doesn't have to be part of it," but they've expanded it to just anyone who has the audacity to support something they haven't personally experienced. The KeeBees are a blogroll of people who proudly support the war in the ways they can, and laugh at the "chickenhawk" attack. For more on the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, I have written an essay on the subject.

What's the Moronosphere? Just a loosely related group of bloggers that met at and read the Ace of Spades HQ blog. Check em out, they are great and have a good sense of humor!

What are those comment types? I'm putting together what Muslihoon calls a sort of Wikipedia database of different kinds of comments that people leave on the internet. Not commenters, but the types of messages they type in. Spam, for instance, is a type of comment, while Spammer is the person who does it. I have many listed in Profiles in Commenting for you to examine if you wish. As time goes on I post a new comment type once in a while. Perhaps some day this will be a standard for defining comments!

What is the Truth Laid Bear ranking? The Truth Laid Bear is a blog that has a ranking system they call an "ecosystem" where they break down blogs in size by various creature classifications. It goes all the way up to Higher Being, and starts at Insigificant Microbe. The rankings are based on blogs that link to you, and so far I'm only linked by about two hundred or so blogs - not counting blogrolls like the Flag Brigade and the aforementioned Keebees.

What are those boldfaced lines at the top of most of the posts? That's a kind of tag line, something to give a feel for the coming article or that I thought was either fun or insightful.

You use a few terms on your blog often what do these mean:

Drum Principle? This refers to a quote by leftist blogger Kevin Drum who read a book by Peter Beinart that questioned leftists like Mr Drum for their lack of criticism of radical Islam (in particular Iran) despite their standing for everything he opposes. He responded this way:

On the one hand, I think Beinart is exactly right. For example, should I be more vocal in denouncing Iran? Sure. It’s a repressive, misogynistic, theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring state that stands for everything I stand against. Of course I should speak out against them.

And yet, I know perfectly well that criticism of Iran is not just criticism of Iran. Whether I want it to or not, it also provides support for the Bush administration’s determined and deliberate effort to whip up enthusiasm for a military strike. Only a naif would view criticism of Iran in a vacuum, without also seeing the way it will be used by an administration that has demonstrated time and again that it can’t be trusted to act wisely.

So what to do? For the most part, I end up saying very little. And Beinart is right: there’s a sense in which that betrays my own liberal ideals. But he’s also wrong, because like it or not, my words — and those of other liberals — would end up being used to advance George Bush’s distinctly illiberal ends. And I’m simply not willing to be a pawn in the Bush administration’s latest marketing campaign.

In essence, he's saying President Bush is the greater evil, and that despite the fact that he is betraying his stated principles, he will ignore these evils, not speak against them, and stay silent because it might help the GOP and President Bush. Thus: the Drum Principle is the tendency of some on the left to betray what they stand for because it might possibly help those they consider the greater danger. It's why feminists stopped criticizing the treatment of women under Islam. It's why homosexuals stopped condemning Iran for killing gays. That's the Drum Principle.

Legacy Media? The Legacy Media is a term I use to refer to old media, what many call the "mainstream media." In technology, legacy tech is something that you used to use and still sometimes rely on, but have largely replaced. Legacy Software, for example, is a computer program that is outdated and has been replaced for the most part, but is retained because changing over completely is too much trouble and people are used to it. The legacy media - old style newspapers, network news, etc - is still around, still serves a sort of purpose, and still is used by some, but has been largely replaced by a superior model.

The legacy media is still useful in its place, but is on its way out and has been replaced by a superior, faster, and more flexible model: the new media. Now instead of waiting for the evening edition of the news, from a specific editorial standpoint, I can get the news as it happens, from dozens of sources, with commentary from various viewpoints, and usually from the location and source rather than filtered through editors and reporters. A car bomb goes off in France, and I can get the news from that town in France within minutes.

Who are you? I'm a freelance artist and writer who lives in Salem Oregon. I'm in my 40s and a Christian, and that's about all that really matters. That's me with my former cat Ash, it's a few years old but you get the idea.

Thank you for dropping by, I hope you are entertained, informed, and interested. If you have any ideas, drop me a line some time. Spam and personal attacks will be cheerfully deleted. If you like what you see here, please add me to your favorites/bookmarks and come back!

WHY I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT

"I didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left me"
-Ronald Reagan

When I first was able to vote in 1983, I registered as an Independent. At the time my political viewpoints were primarily liberal, but I could not see myself as being a part of either political party. I had basic problems with both parties, the Democrats were too socially permissive and the Republicans - so I thought at the time - were too big business, rich-guy oriented and I was terrified Ronald Reagan was going to plunge us all into nuclear holocaust that had visions of Threads and The Day After dancing through my head. I have never joined any political party to this day. Why not? One at a time, as they say.

The Democratic Party of today is not the creature it was in the past. There was a time when the party stood for state's rights, democracy, and the constitution as the ruling document of the country. The Democratic Party was the party that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a member of when he led the country to victory in the darkest hour it had faced yet during World War 2. The Democratic Party was the party of John F. Kennedy, who in his inaugural speech said

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

But the party lost its way in the late 60's and early 70s, with the most visible turning point being the nomination of George McGovern in 1972 to run against Richard Nixon. By choosing the most radical, extreme left man they had available to run for president and represent the party, the Democratic Party took it's path to the left and away from what it had stood for all those decades in the past.

The direction the party went has continued for decades now, moving ever more to the left. Each time Democrats lose a national election (such as in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004), they conclude not that the nation dislikes their policies and ideals, but that they haven't gotten their leftist message sufficiently to the public. Rather than realizing people do know what they stand for and reject it, they conclude people simply don't know what they stand for and they should push harder to the left to distinguish themselves from the GOP. In that, they have succeeded. But in the process, they've lost the House, the Senate, most Governors across the nation, many legislatures at the state level, and the Presidency.

In the place of leadership, ideas, and a plan, the Democratic Party offers little more than criticism, opposition, obstruction, and bickering. Even programs the party would ordinarily support and be glad of such as Medicare Prescription Drugs, they find fault, attack, and demonize. In the place of governance, we get filibusters. The most famous bills the Democratic Party has offered in congress are an attempt to reinstitute the draft and to pull out of Iraq. In the place of support of America, we get attacks. In the place of ideas, we get a rehash of what was said 30 years ago.

Today, the Democratic Party's platform is how the Republicans are bad and generalities about how Democrats would be better, with few specifics beyond what we've seen for 30 years such as abortion, gun control, nationalized health care, amnesty for illegal aliens, raise the minimum wage, and affirmative action. And in what's amazing is that most of the party is what the Republican Party is already doing or has done such as more incentives for alternative energy research, deficit reduction, cutting taxes on the middle class, rebuild and strengthen the intelligence departments, and so on.

But what is most disturbing is not their official paperwork or statements, it's the statements of their leadership in press conferences or speeches. This is where the heart of the Democratic Party is revealed. If it's not a memo circulated that describes judicial nominee Miguel Estrada as "dangerous" because he's Latino, it's idiot quotes from the Democrat party chairman Howard Dean or congressmen like McKinney and Kennedy, or it's John Conyers holding faux impeachment hearings for President Bush then saying thanks for support by the radical extremist left Democratic Underground. For example,

The LA Times carried this story in July of 2003:

In a meeting they thought was private but was actually broadcast around the Capitol on Monday, 11 Assembly Democrats debated prolonging California's budget crisis to further their political goals. Members of the Democratic Study Group, a caucus that defines itself as progressive, were unaware that a microphone in Committee Room 127 was on as they discussed slowing progress in an attempt to increase pressure on Republicans to accept tax increases as part of a deal to resolve the state's $38-billion budget gap.

The conversation was transmitted to roughly 500 "squawk boxes" around Sacramento that political staff, lobbyists and reporters use to listen in on legislative proceedings.

According to Republican staff members who captured parts of the meeting on tape, Los Angeles Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg and others discussed holding up the budget to dramatize the consequences and build support for a ballot initiative that would make it easier to raise taxes. [emphasis mine]

A few quotes:

“You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They’re a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It’s pretty much a white Christian party.’’

“The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong.”

"You think the RNC could get this many people of color into a single room? Maybe if they got the hotel staff in there."

“You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.”
-Howard Dean

"It's a new day. Communism is dead. It's even dead in Cuba. I hate to say it, it's dead."
- Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in May 2002

"The (Bush) administration works closely with a network of rapid response digital brownshirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for 'undermining support for our troops.'"

"(George Bush) betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!"
-Al Gore

"Many of you are well enough off that...the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
-Hillary Clinton

"Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management."
-Ted Kennedy

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not ... Iraqis should be doing that."
-John Kerry

"Just remember that in Florida 2000, the victims were black and Latino voters who were, who were, um, just so callously and openly denied the opportunity to cast their vote in a scheme that was cooked in a backroom by rich and powerful white people. And in 2004, with the electronic voting machines, your votes are at risk too."
-Cynthia McKinney

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."
-Dick Durbin

"Mayor Nagin and most mayors in this country have a hard time getting their people to work on a sunny day, let alone getting them out of the city in front of a hurricane."
-Mary Landieu

"As I saw the African Americans, mostly African American families ripped apart, I could only think about slavery, families ripped apart, herded into what looked like concentration camps."
-by Cynthia McKinney on Katrina rescue efforts

There's more. A lot more. That's just from politicians and party leadership. The Democratic Party has been taken over by the radical left who are willing to do and say anything for power. They opposed what they'd ordinarily support, attack what they ought to defend, and push for radical policies I cannot support. The Democratic Party of today is the party that believes the constitution means what society believes today, not what it meant when written and what the writers intended. The Democratic Party believes that morality is internal and personal only and has no bearing on policy, what we ought to do, or what the nation should use as a guide. The Democratic Party stands for the idea that deficits happen not because of excess spending, but because people just haven't been sufficiently taxed. The Democratic Party stands for ideas that have been discredited, disproven, and destroyed, yet clings to them because it's what they want to be true.

Quick, what are the top ten things the Democratic Party would do today if it had the power to do so?

• Impeach President Bush
• Amnesty for all Illegal Aliens
• Give felons the vote
• Raise taxes
• Withdraw from Iraq
• Fund failed and pointless embryonic stem cell research
• Fill the courts with judicial activists who consider foreign law precedent for US law
• Gut the PATRIOT Act
• Destroy any chance for school choice for parents
• Expand welfare even more

I'd like to be a Democrat. I'd like it to be a party that I'd want to sign up to a political party that I feel proud to be a part of. I would like the Democratic Party to be a viable alternative to vote for, so that national elections make me puzzle over who I'm going to vote for rather than run away from. In the first presidential election of the United States, the two candidates were George Washington and John Adams. The second was the same, the third Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Those are choices a man can feel happy about, even if your guy loses... you win.

But until the Democrat party kicks out the radical extremists that have their ear, lose the dinosaurs and extreme leftists that run the party now, and push toward the future, all we'll see is more of the same from the party. That's no leadership, that's a suicide mission with no goal.

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."
-Michael Moore

Next week: Why I'm not a Republican.
Quotes

DEAD COPS ON THE BORDER

"By the way, for those that care, similar crimes have happened in Acapulco recently and long before there was the Taliban..."

Three American Mexican police officers and an unidentified civilian were beheaded in Rosario Beach, 15 miles south of the US border in Mexico. Their heads were later discovered in Tijuana. The murdered officers were responding to a report of a possible kidnapping.

Experts said the attack bears the trademark of killings committed by increasingly violent drug cartels that are battling to control key smuggling routes.

"It's a disturbing manifestation of the latest drug war frenzy. The militarization of the drug war in many ways on the side of law enforcement has corresponded with the militarization of tactics and personnel on the criminal side," said David Shirk, director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego.

Did you hear about this story? Did you read it anywhere? Possibly, it was reported; but in the inundation of stories about the middle east and Israel in particular, stories like this get lost. News organizations only have a certain amount of time and space to dedicate to their work and in the process they have to make judgments about what gets priority and what does not. On a slow news week, this probably would have been all over the place, with official public statements by politicians.

The truth is, I'd not heard about this, until today, when Q and O blog snarked about a reactionary article written by Rodney Stubbs (again, had not heard of) entitled Media Cover-Up Blocks Major News Story of 2006.

In the meantime the main stream media failed to report the beheading of three law enforcement officers. Where is the outrage by the Senators Boxer, Reid, McCain, Feingold, and Kennedy. Why the silence? Why the cover-up? To make matters worse the video recording of the hearing was buried by CSPAN. No press, and the President said nothing.

I mean the man no disrespect, but he certainly was named appropriately, from the picture on his site. He just looks like a Rodney Stubbs to me. I appreciate his zeal regarding these dead men and his desire that it not be forgotten or buried. The problem is... it wasn't:

You know, when you hear about three police officers being beheaded, and it hasn't made it into the news, then maybe you should, you know, try and google it. Or go to CNN. If you do, you might learn exactly who these officers were. (They were, by the way, police officers Ismael Arellano Torres, 36; Jesus Hernandez Ballesteros, 42; and Benjamén Fabian Ventura, 35, and their names do deserve to be remembered, and honored for their sacrifice.)

There are stories that get buried, such as the stem cell research stories I posted two days ago. But this doesn't happen to be one of them, and it's important to not jump to conclusions. Sometimes stories get less coverage because other stuff gets priority, not everything the media does is a sinister example of left-wing bias. Crying wolf over bias simply gets the real thing ignored and dismissed out of hand when it happens.

Commenters at Q and O responded:

International news is usually under-reported in this country...
-by Keith, Indy


Yeah but this is a heinous crime. I mean if a panda is born in China we sure report that!

Scewed up priorties of the media.
-by x2master


I read about the three Mexican police officers several days ago in the Wash. Times. It was not underreported there. The problem seems to have been "assuming facts not in evidence" as the lawyers say.
-by timactual


Thanks for bringing this up and catching that post. For people that are working on border issues on a regular basis (not to mention 3 million people living in Baja California), the story was clearly not under-reported — the majority of the reporting was done in Spanish, however, and in Mexican papers (where it got plenty of coverage as a slightly-unusual-but-not-unheard-of type of narco killing). It was also covered by the SD Union Tribune for what it was - drug related.

The reality that the Congressional grandstanding/hearing failed to bring up (because it doesn’t serve their purpose) is that more terror-related groups and individuals are both being tracked in Canada, and have been caught trying to enter the US through our ports of entry along the Northern Border. Yet, very little legislation or public statements are made by such groups about "the threat of terrorism from Canada". No...Canadians are just nice people that look and sound like us....

While there is the potential for middle eastern terroristic influences in Mexico, there’s probably more already growing within the US in sleeper cells than exists in Mexico.

Okay, off of my soap box.

By the way, for those that care, similar crimes have happened in Acapulco recently and long before there was the Taliban, there were the Aztec and Mayans (that used beheadings in some of their rituals).

Context and understanding (as well as speaking a foreign language) come in handy sometimes.
-by Crossborder Ken


Keith;

Your point about international news not getting much exposure here is right enough, and your point is well taken. But I’m not sure how ’international’ this can be taken as, given the proximity to the American border.. one currently being discussed as a major security leak. Seems to be given the current geopolitical situation, that this story would have a great deal of importance to U.S. residents. Consider in contrast the response of the US media, were four headless bodies to turn up say, 5 miles north, particularly in light of the GWOT. Something seems a bit amiss here.

Derek;

Well, there are those who might like you to think that I jumped to conclusions.

However, if you read my original post linked by Dale, you’ll notice that I say clearly that I question, as a matter of course, the second of the two websites I quoted, and in this case, I mentioned how the site took the "incredible story" and took it one step farther. Even the headline on my original post had a question mark on it suggesting I wasn’t buying it. Sound to you like I’m jumping to conclusions, or that I have strong reservations?

The point of the piece, in my case, was questioning the lack of reporting on the matter. That point was one reason for my mistrust. Implication: Certainly, if the story were so serious, one would think the nets would be all over it. That they had NOT been would seem to suggest something else at work... as I suggested to Keith. Certainly, If the report were accurate, I’d have been able to come up with more than the small few I did find, even in the quick and dirty search mode.

Notice also, my mention of there being little if any mention of who was responsible for the crime. That also raised a suspicion or two, for no reason I could think of at the time I posted my bit last night. (Late night)

On the other hand, I had spent about an hour last night, following another thread; That of the idea that a goodly amount of the finaces of Islamic Radicals is currently coming from the Opium trade. Importing such through Mexico seems a lead pipe cinch... and, minus evidence to the contrary, it all seemed a good fit, one that counter balanced my suspicions about the content of the two links.
Still, as Kenn points out;

While there is the potential for middle eastern terroristic influences in Mexico, there’s probably more already growing within the US in sleeper cells than exists in Mexico.

Just so... And I consider that... It would have been eye opening if the Islamic morons had become that established down there, (It may be anyway for all I know now) but not unbelievably so. ... On the other hand that was counterbalanced with the idea that a beaheading was a little unusual for mere drug lords.

Guesswork, back and forth back and forth... and thus my comment "I don’t know what to make of all this". Based on what I had at the time there was little in the way of conclusions to be drawn, past what I’d posted. And so, my anger at the lack of reporting.

Added information from the mainstream press on this certainly would have been a help, but in researching it I only came up with two live links... both of which I posted.

Could this bit I posted have been worded better? Certainly. Such is blogging, I suppose. Kicking out a little under 6000 posts in three years, 2 and a half years of it alone, plus all the activity I engage in on other blogs and usenet as well, means you’re going to do some shooting from the hip occasionally, as every blogger knows.

Could it have been better researched? Possibly, though I don’t know as that would have made much of a difference to the point of the post... the level of reporting.... or more correctly, the lack of it.

However, even with all that being said, I can only conclude someone was "jumping to conclusions" about what I meant in writing it because the conclusions I see here had LITTLE to do with what I intended, as you see. Why, seems another guesswork matter. And at the moment, I’m not inclined to bother.

And by the way, credit where it’s due to Dale, for allowing a reply. Strictly speaking, it’s not something he had to do, and I would be remiss for not publicly recognizing that fact.
-by Bithead

There are two reasons I posted this. First, because I wanted there to be greater awareness of this crime and other events in Mexico. Second, because I wanted to highlight the dangers of presuming malice in the news media. There ought to have been more coverage of this in my opinion, but it was not buried, there was no cover-up, and the media wasn't demonstrating pro cop-murdering bias.

*UPDATE: As Dale notes in the comments, these were not American police officers, they were Mexican.

News Media

INNER CITY FAILURE

"Society needs to learn to be 'intolerant' of wrong behavior, period."

Star Parker is a black woman in the legacy of Dr George Washington Carver, who wrote the book Uncle Sam's Plantation (How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It). This work examines the welfare system and it's damaging effect on the poor of America and society, and what we ought to have and do as an alternative. She writes regular columns carried by newspapers around the country, and recently one was carried on Townhall that echoes some of the themes in this book:

So far this month there have been 14 homicides in Washington. Almost one a day. Nearly 100 people have been murdered so far this year in the nation's capital. Robberies are up 18 percent, assaults with a deadly weapon up 14 percent.

District of Columbia Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey has declared a "crime emergency."

This is the same Ramsey who, talking about homicides in the capital region several years ago, said, "The African-American community has to be central in the solution because that is where the problem lies and that is the community being hurt the most by this genocide. ... You've got generations of dysfunction, and that cycle has got to be broken."

It was Ramsey's words that, in part, inspired Bill Cosby to begin his campaign to deliver a message of personal responsibility into black communities and to black families.

Mrs Parker goes on to describe some of the negative reaction Mr. Cosby got due to his talks (responses Mr Cosby wisely ignores), then has this to say about morality, crime, and the lack of leadership in black communities:

Homicide is the No. 1 killer of black men. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks are six times more likely to be the victim of homicide than whites and blacks are seven times more likely to commit homicide than whites.

It should be clear that the problem is that America's black community is now suspended in a moral vacuum. Life is cheap and meaningless, and murder, sex, abortion and robbery are viewed with the same gravity as ordering a Big Mac and fries. There is no accountability, only blame. And this mindset continues to be nourished in both the street language of Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and now the fancy Harvard prose of Sen. Barack Obama.

In a recent speech of several thousand words about politics and religion, the Illinois Democrat never once mentioned personal responsibility, but did manage to talk about the importance of diversity programs and condom distribution.

There is only one hope for pulling black America out of oblivion: Re-instilling a sense of absolutes, of right and wrong, and doing this from the grass roots up, one person at a time. Anyone who thinks there is an alternative is kidding himself.

Blacks can continue to listen to the Sharptons, Obamas and the black intellectuals who have a thousand different ways to say "it's not my fault." The price will be a black community lost forever.

Readers at townhall responded:

I am reading a book by Peter Kreeft that addresses the same issues presented in this article. He says that all Americans are being misled by the compassionate, tolerant left that not only says doing wrong "is not your fault", but that actually tries to change true morality-with moral laws(moral absolutes) into something else, moral "values". This is a subtle, but important shift.

Kreeft says, "laws are objectively real; they come from above us and command us... But values have no such strong bite, no absolute demand. They suggest something subjective, not objective... Values are nice ideals to which we aspire to if we wish; laws tell us what we ought to do whether we like it or not." If we say there are no absolutes, then one can rationalize almost any behavior. If we rely on "situational ethics" to frame our choices, we will see more and more chaos.

This seems to be the problem our whole society is facing. The black part in this problem is made even worse by the "victimization" claims that give an excuse for any wrong behavior. Many people have been treated badly, grown up unloved and poor. But many of them chose to do good things, not bad. We all make choices. If we let ourselves make poor choices because we feel we have been treated unfairly, that does not solve the problem. It just locks us into an even worse situation.

Society needs to learn to be "intolerant" of wrong behavior, period. People's consciences need to be cultivated. Churches, schools, and government need to be clear that there is such a thing as wrongdoing and that it won't be tolerated. We need to "love the sinner, but hate the sin." Then there can be a change for good in our society.
-by C in AZ

.....I recently attended a dance recital where one of the dance instructors was the only black person in the room....she was cheerful...upbeat...and very popular with the students...she spoke with a slight British accent and I learned later that she had emigrated from a small African nation to escape religious persecution...her attitude and demeanor were in stark contrast to what one has come to accept as normal behavior in native born black Americans...she had not been poisioned by a culture which was shaped and formed by the Civil Rights Act and LBJ's Great Welfare Society...
.....an entire generation of Black Americans have been lost to this poisionous ideology.
-by baseballdr

Society supports unaccompanied minors in unbridled breeding and absentee child-rearing, all on the taxpayer's dime - and we're somehow surprised when the only thing the kids value is gaining "cred" with the other local urchins at any cost.
-by wingo

Think about it. For a couple of generations now, children have been taught that they evolved from animals. That's right. Your ancestors are beasts.

Why should we be surprised when this present generation behaves as beasts, i.e. animals.

Oh well...
-by Gary

When law enforcement targets high crime urban areas for stepped up inforcement, the black "leaders" cry racism.It would seem to be a no-brainer to put a massive police presence in these areas where drugs are sold openly and every dealer and sociopath has an illegal gun or knife,and doesn't think twice about using them. But even with this the penalty of jail or prison time is looked on as nothing and in many cases,a badge of honor.

These thugs terrorize to "earn" respect(read fear)so I say society should take this away when they are apprehended. Jails and prisons should issue them pink jump suits with teddy bears on them and publish their photos wearing these in the media.It might adversely affect their self esteem but that's the point. Maybe public humiliation will work where nothing else has. Their tough guy reps are all that they hold dear.
-by Magdog

Made a tragic error in disarming law-abiding citizens. Witness the recent drop in crime in Florida, and Jeb's crediting the concealed carry law! In DC only criminals and law enforcement carry, potential vitims are sitting ducks! In the absence of uniforms and suits any punk will act boldly, because he KNOWS his victim can't win!
-by bakedbones

I know my comments will appear to be racist, and maybe they are, but here it goes, anyway.

I’m 64, Greek, and still married to he same wonderful Italian woman for almost 43 years. I gave our heritage because it’s part of our history having been raised in Chicago, so one can imagine the racist, vicious attitudes we both were indoctrinated in while growing up. We now live in Florida.

Yet, my Mother never used racist words or typical derogatory words about Italians, Jews, etc. As the youngest of 5 she continued to raise me as my older brothers and sisters, continually saying that there are good and bad in every race and nationality. In fact, she said that if blacks did not exist, people would quickly find some other group to hate.

At any rate, my wife raised 4 kids using the same philosophy.

Zoom forward to 2006 and both my wife and I (and others we’ve talked too) find ourselves becoming racist and fight to stop the feeling. The reason is the Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, Maxine Waters, and others of their kind. Frankly, we’re tired of their viciousness and filthy comments. The only thing that seems to keep my wife and I on the straight and narrow is that we both feel that the above people actually “want” to create more racist people so they can enhance their own power, influence, and incomes.

To that degree, I think “they” are intentionally moving America backwards. By the way, I also think that Star Parker is one of the sharpest and right on people around.
-by Sonny Lykos

I wish I could say that as an African American, I was shocked and appalled by this type of behavior but I can't. This issue is not about race it is a crime of opportunity and about a the leaders we continually elect because this is how we have always voted and some of us can't rise above that mentality. These so called leaders of the African American community have but one agenda and it has nothing to do with being black other than convincing blacks to vote for them so they can continue doing very little. But hey who's fault is it really? One answer, the black community that votes for them.

The young men that committed this terrible act deserve no pity and the excuse of parents not raising them or whatever other excuses we can generate does not excuse them. Bottom line is, they don't care. No excuses everyone knows right from wrong it is inherent. We are so worried about appearing to the outside community as having ourselves together who are we fooling? Only ourselves. We our only ruining ourselves and our so called leaders are helping us get there by ignoring the problem altogether.
-by crimjust

As a society we have systematically attacked all the structures and traditions of morality for thirty years, then stand back shocked, shocked that people are acting immoral. The attempt to replace ethical behavior and societal pressure (shame, for example has been all but eliminated) with laws is a rank and easily predictable failure. The results are plain every day in the news, and the answers will take decades, even generations to take full effect.

Modern Culture

WHAT THE?

A friend sent me some interesting images in an email, if anyone knows where these came from originally, let me know. Take a look at each one and try to guess what they represent, answers at the bottom!

A.

B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.

Got em? OK I put the answers in invisible ink, no cheating now! (Drag your mouse over the section below to see the answers.)

______________________________
Answers:
a: Dr. Pepper
b: dandy (dandi) lions
c: eye (I) Pod
d: eggplant
e: card shark
f: gator aide
g: assaulted (a salted) peanut
h: light beer
______________________________
Now back to your regularly scheduled blog.

*Russell tipped me off in comments: this is from the website Worth1000 (as in a picture is...). Go check 'em out!
Fun

Quote of the day

"Nor is it miracles that bring a realist to religion. If he is an unbeliever, a true realist will always find the strength and ability not to believe in a miracle, and if he is confronted with a miracle as an irrefutable fact, he will rather disbelieve his own senses than accept that fact. Or he may concede the fact and explain it away as a natural phenomenon until then unknown. In a realist, it is not miracles that generate faith, but faith that generates miracles. Once a realist becomes a believer, however, his very realism will make him accept the existence of miracles."
-Dostoevsky (Brothers Karamazov)

Quotes

TOOTHY FISH CAUGHT, FILM AT 11

Good lord, we're evolved from fish? Or wait, are fish evolved from humans?

At the Ace of Spades Headquarters (yes, I'm linking him a lot lately, sue me - he's been on a roll), the story of a fish caught in Texas that temporarily baffled local wildlife officials got some play. This is no ordinary fish story:

The Last Time I Saw a Mouth Like That it Had a Hook in it.

No, really. Fish caught displaying human-like teeth.

Well, not movie-star teeth or anything.

I'd call shenanigans, but how the hell do you surgically implant a row of human teeth into a freakin' fish?

Now, the fish is a piranha, not the flesh-eating kind, but a plant eater (fruit eating, to be specific).

Looks like an ordinary fruit pirhanna (spelling) to me. They are MOSTLY vegitarians, hence the teeth, so I call shenanigans. It probably came from someones aquarium.
-by Steve #2

It turns out that most piranha varieties eat plants, although I'm sure if you got in their way they would bite you too like most fish. However, here's where the fun started. Ace got things rolling with this:

Deep Ones Involvement?: Was this fish caught near Innsmouth, I wonder?
Then the commenters took it away:

Sweet Jeebus, they killed Mr. Limpet!
-by dorkafork


Fruit piranha?? What are they, gay piranhas? Who the hell came up with that name? Was this the same guy who named the 'Demon Duck of Doom'?
-by entropy

Check that linked video. The teeth are the least odd thing about the big ol' freaky freak-fish from freakytown. It's still alive and thrashing around, too, further undermining the possibility of a carnival sideshow trick.

I thought this was going to be caught in Madagascar or something, but Lubbock, TX?
-by See-Dubya

It's happened before, in England.

Fruit-eating piranhas. Pacu.

More pictures of pacu and teeth.
-by Roy

It's a probably another one of those talking Jew fish. Good thing they killed it before it could spill the beans about Zionist world domination.
-by Sue Dohnim [who brought us the Berserk Ninja Jew in a previous thread]

Judging by its teeth, I say it comes from England. Yeah baby!
-by roc ingersol

IA! IA! CTHULHU! FHTAGN!!
-by Dagon

I bet that fish was *something* before electricity.
-by anotheranon

I've seen pacu as big as a trashcan lid, so you definitely would not want one nipping at your "fruit" while swimming at the lake. They probably find them in American lakes a couple times a year. They found one at a lake near my house about 3 years ago. People buy them because they're cute when small and then freak out when they find out they need a couple hundred gallons of water to keep them into adulthood.
-by digitalbrownshirt

Watch out! Those things can skeletonise a grape in thirty seconds!
-by pixy misa

Mind you, I'd be careful calling shenanigans. Captain John O'Hagen from Super Troopers might come and pistol whip you.

Fun

SEX INDUSTRY

"Perhaps one or more of them would have been fine doctors and even made lasting contributions to society; but we'll never know."

There are two women who were porn stars running for public office right now, both on the GOP ticket: Mary Carey and Mimi Miyagi. They consider the Republican Party a good fit for them because they consider themselves hard-working entrepreneurs. Mimi Miyagi describes the party as positive and upbeat and the party of "individualism and people who support free speech." Mary Carey wants to tax breast implants in her campaign for governor of California (which, come to think of it, makes as much sense as taxing other luxuries and would raise a great deal of money in that state).

The GOP doesn't seem to have any problems with these women on their ticket, but was so repelled by the campaign of David Duke, notorious white supremacist and bigot that they threw him out. In fact, many right-wing commenters on various sites met the news of Mimi Miyagi's political aspirations with double entendres and open arms. But what is the cost on the women who get into the sex industry? Blogger Anna Venger has run many stories on prostitution and this work in the past, including a story on official whores ran in Germany during the World Cup. As President Friedman on Right Wing News notes:

Speaking of which, I think that's why you see porn stars aligning with the Republican Party: Along with the GOP-friendly alcohol and tobacco industries, porn makes the trifecta of vices that the GOP doesn't seem to mind too much.

But why? Why is this morally acceptable when the GOP presents its self as the party of old fashioned family values? Stripping is one of those vices that gets a wink, good fun for the boys (or the girls, as the case may be).

Mike Adams has a column up on Townhall.com where he talks about a fictitious conversation with a girl who is looking for ways to raise money for college:

Immediately after she told me that she planned to work in one of the local topless bars to save some money, she saw my stunned reaction. So she tried to overwhelm me with the numbers. “The girls make $500 a night, tax free,” she said. Then she started to add up the numbers for a whole year of dancing and otherwise living modestly. My expression didn’t change and she got frustrated. She reminded me that some topless dancers make more money than professors.

And I dreamed that I resisted the temptation to respond sarcastically by reminding her that drug dealers make more money than doctors. Instead, I told her about Carolyn.

Adams goes on to describe several girls (names changed), students he's known in the past and what happened to their plans and dreams.

Commenters responded:

I am convinced that the sex industry is going to be the destruction of our culture. Trying to buy dresses for our 15th month old grandaughter, the majority of what is available is miniature versions of what the teens are wearing (down to revealing a little 'strap' over her shoulder). Sadly, whatever the age, sex sells.
-by Imishoe


My husband always gets sad when he sees these girls who choose to work in the stip clubs and even more so when he sees the girls who pose nude in the magazines. T.v., especially MTV loves to glorify the girls who work in the porn industry. When they do that my husband shakes his head and talks about how these pretty girls are someone's daughter or sister.
Dr. Adams is eloquent when it comes to writing about issues like this one and getting the point accross.
-by beachmom


money isn't easy is it? The only comment I can make is that most girls don't start doing drugs. They start by needing a 'drink to get through it.' Pretty soon, their pretty much drunk and then it's easy to get them to 'try this just once' drug.

Good column and a cautionary tale for all.
-by Ms Conservative


Great article! Like you, I have known numerous women who spent some of the best years of their lives in "the business"; to a woman, when they left the industry they had more debt than when they started; were that the only cost, you could write it off as a bad investment but as you so accurately described, they lost their youth, their self-esteem, and yes, a part of their soul. Talk about making a deal with the devil - this industry exploits women with the lure of "easy" money, and it takes full advantage of the pathetic men who, deep down, know that they are losers who have to pay to watch that which they could never have. It is a system that leaves the men and women with no respect for each other, or themselves. The women start off with a naive dream of riches and wealth and wake up to a nightmare of broken lives and a depressing future. Unfortunately we can only hope to limit the carnage by passing along these cautionary tales.
-by Jjan


Wonderful article Mike and thank you for taking the time to write it. Women are a dichotomy--they can add so much to a society by using their instinctive traits for Motherhood and they can take so much from society by wallowing in the depths of deprivation. What is the psychological explanation for a woman's desire to be an exhibitionist and then rationalize it by touting the earning of a few dollars. A sleazy man with a fist full of dollars in one hand and a camera in the other can get apparently decent young women to expose themselves and become a fleeting star in a movie like "Girls Gone Wild".

Women are easy to exploit--why? It cannot be the money; they do not make that much in these sleazy bars and posing nude to erase all the moral values they were taught. We are doing something horribly wrong or women just innately tend toward the base. The women's movement puts emphasis on women working but fails miserably to be active in protecting women against exploitation.

In Atlanta, I once had 3 girls in my Algebra class working as strippers in bars on week-ends. They would openly talk of the money they made and even invite their teachers to come watch them perform. Some went--I never did--I tried to dissuade the girls but the money was stronger than my admonitions. All 3 of these girls were from middle-class families and all were very successful in their school work. Nevertheless, they were more than willing to show strangers their God given attributes. I just don't understand this desire or need to entice men for dollars.
-by Warrior


I agree that the obsession with sex is going to be the ruination of our country. Billboards with scantily clad girls to sell tires, or pizza, or who knows what. TV ads that are embarrasing to watch in mixed company. My daughter-in-law is determined to dress her two daughters as little ladies and we have been frustrated when trying to find 'ladylike' dresses for this 8 and 5 year old. And even when they were much younger it was a trial to find something decent. I once hit six stores before finding a dress that I would buy for the oldest girl. I think the sex industry must have great influence on the youth fashion industry.
-by Snail

[This is a comment I've seen for years by women all across the country, frustration with the difficulty in buying modest clothes for their daughters. If I had any capital at all I'd start up an internet mail order clothing business for girls, but I don't and I don't have any idea what clothes to stock

There is another side though, Mike

I've known a number of women (acquaintances and friends) who'd been blessed with good looks -- not gorgeous, but just "nice." In some cases "pretty" didn't really cover it.... maybe "attractive" - - - and they had became dancers, or had recently retired from dancing (AKA stripping) and, contrary to your war stories, had saved bunches of cash, opened their own businesses and/or invested. And, at a relatively young age (35 or under) were thriving -- with no regrets...

Please don't paint with so broad a brush -- there is possibly a large majority who do succeed, and succeed very well, thank you.
-by frost


To many young girls think they can enter the stripper (or hooker) trade, take a shower and wash it all off, hardly. In this day and age when spanking a child might scar them for life does one think that hanging out in a bar for 8 hours a day 5-6 days a week for a couple years will leave a young woman (or young man) untouched? Much less hanging out in one naked shaking their money maker for dollar bills? There is a reason strip bars, hookers and dope dealers all hang out in the same part of town, misery loves company. Pretty Woman and Strip Tease were movies, real life turns out alot differant.
-by Hockey Goon


I once worked for a shuttle service, driving people to/from the airport, and one of our biggest clients was a cosmetic surgeon that did discount breast enhancements.

At least once a day, I would drive a vanload of "showgirls" to "Dr. Frankenstein's", as we called him, and I'd have about an hour to chat with the ladies. The conversations were invariably depressing. Every lady who had been in the business for more than a few months either hated the job but couldn't afford to quit, or they hated men and liked the "power" they felt from having the loathesome creatures fawning over them. The most depressing were the ones who said they were doing it for their kids.

It didn't seem to matter if they worked at the Tropicana or the Jiggly Room by the Bakersfield airport, one thing they had in common was that they all seemed to hate themselves.

Most of them were having the surgery (often on the advice and sometimes at the expense of their employers) because they thought it would increase their incomes.

So, it always came back to the almighty dollar. I wondered, and still do, if anyone ever told these women that a person's true worth cannot be judged by earnings or the approval of others. Yes, these women are somebody's mothers, daughters, and sisters, which gives their lives value and, one would hope, would lead them to act respectfully and be treated with respect.

The attachment to a family is how one should learn of his or her worth, but even that is not where one's worth originates. Human life has inherent worth in that we are sons and daughters of a loving God, and are his greatest creation. But we're not allowed to talk about that in today's society, are we. In the end, you do reap what you sow.
-by Wingo


Mike is right -- and so is Frost
Both these men are very, very correct -- Mike more so than Frost. Here's the deal:

Some women ARE properly mentally equipped to do that job -- and it is VERY much a job -- and not have deep deep scars, addictions, pregnancies (and the abortions almost sure to follow) but most ARENT. At the age most of these women make the decision to strip for a livin', they are NOT mentally mature enough to make that call. They are easily impressionable, revelling in the power they find they have, and the money they are making, and like many pro atheletes, all that money finds a way out of their pockets...

Frost is right, Mike should paint with a bit smaller brush... use the word most once in a while, at least. But Mike is more right. Just because there are women who WILL do these things, does not mean their counterparts SHOULD pay them to do it. Sure, they are of "legal age" -- but only legally. Mentally, MOST are not prepared for the sleaze they will be getting into.
-by craingctx


in another life, i have gone to strip joints and enjoyed a good time. but then i read a book written by "devon" who was the "dancer" at the center of the of the "Gold Club" rico trial in Atlanta. After seeing how the girls were treated I decided to enjoy my cigar somewhere else.

Sometimes young women need to be protected from themselves. Biblicly speaking, it is up to the men in the world to insist on some kind of decorum. But in the twenty first century we do a poor job of it. I'm embarassed to admit that it was only after my marriage to a single mom with three little girls that i began to get an understanding of my role as a man, as a father, and as a protector.
-by hand planer

One of my favorite B-Movie starlets was Jewel Shepherd. She never made it far in the movie business, but she's sold several books and wrote a column for Premier magazine for a while. The autobiography she wrote was very, very depressing as it told a grim tale of the inside of strip clubs, nude magazines, and B-Movies. She paints a real but saddening view of what it's like for the girls, something that most people don't consider. These girls are fixated on money, but dream of a millionaire who will show up and sweep her away from the life while showering her with cash.

She tells the tale of making lots of money and blowing it on stupid, small stuff like drugs, breast implants, clothes, gambling, wild trips, and such. But since the money is largely untaxed, they cannot make any large purchases (any purchase over a certain amount of money and the business has to report this to the IRS, who will come hunting someone spending lots without reporting it). So dreams of a new car, a house, of anything major are replaced by a cruddy apartment near where they work - they bad parts of town - and junker used cars.

Just something to consider when you think the girls make a lot of money and nobody is hurt. The internet is not for porn. And those were the most demure pictures I could find of the ladies.

Porn, Popular Culture

JUNGLE LOVE

"Stupid! Its because of global warming that the hybrid sales are down. People want air conditioning to beat the heat!"

Some time ago, the word "jungle" went out of fashion and "rain forest" began to replace it. Which is rather like the "Oriental/Asian" change: from the specific to the general. Jungles are a type of rain forest, a tropical one with various kinds of jungle creatures. This was done by the kind of person who buys a Prius because it's a visible indicator of environmental piety. If a Prius looked like any other sedan on the road, they wouldn't be nearly as popular. They had to look special, distinctive so that everyone could see that you're driving this environmentally friendly car. South Park mocked this by renaming it the "Pious" and claiming it created toxic clouds of smug.

But are they all that environmentally friendly? The Reason Foundation examines the hybrid car phenomenon and how efficient and environmentally friendly they really are:

Ford Motor Company did itself a huge favor recently by backing away from its pledge to bump-up its hybrid production ten-fold in four years. But, as it turns out, the company might have done the planet a whale of a favor too.

Just last fall, CEO Bill Ford was valiantly promising in a mega-million dollar ad campaign that the company would never, ever turn away from its hybrid pledge because these vehicles were central to the company's reputation as an "innovator and environmental steward."

Never mind that at the time Ford was losing $2,000 to $3,000 for every hybrid it sold because consumers won't pay the entire $6,000 extra that it costs to produce a hybrid over its gas-powered counterpart.

Ford, unfortunately, reported a second-quarter loss of 150 million dollars. Shikha Dalmia goes on at the Reason Foundation:

According to Art Spinella, the uber-auto analyst and President of CNW Marketing Research, hybrid sales every month this year have been down compared to the same time last year. Even sales of the Toyota Prius – the darling of the greens – have dropped significantly. The only segment besides taxis where hybrids are still holding steady – taxpayers will be happy to note -- is the car fleets maintained by the government.

What's particularly interesting is that individual consumers are defying all expectations and turning their backs on hybrids at a time when gas prices are soaring. (The average U.S. retail price of gas spiked to a record high of $3.01 last September following hurricane Katrina, and just last week it hit its second highest price ever at nearly $3.00.) Nor is the reason all that mysterious. Spinella's customer satisfaction surveys show that 62 percent of hybrid owners are dissatisfied with the fuel-economy performance of their cars given what they have paid for them.

This means that when gas prices go up, these people don't rush out to buy more hybrids. "They buy a Chevy Aveo," says Spinella. "It delivers the same fuel economy as a Prius, but at half the price."

But while these hybrids are expensive, they certainly are better than the evil SUV right?...

Spinella spent two years on the most comprehensive study to date – dubbed "Dust to Dust" -- collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a car from the initial conception to scrappage. He even included in the study such minutia as plant-to-dealer fuel costs of each vehicle, employee driving distances, and electricity usage per pound of material. All this data was then boiled down to an "energy cost per mile" figure for each car (see here and here).

Comparing this data, the study concludes that overall hybrids cost more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles. But even more surprising, smaller hybrids' energy costs are greater than many large, non-hybrid SUVs.

OK this sounds dubious, to say the least. My brother has an SUV and while it's a rugged, safe, and roomy ride, it gets like 3 miles a gallon. The story goes on:

For instance, the dust-to-dust energy cost of the bunny-sized Honda Civic hybrid is $3.238 per mile. This is quite a bit more than the $1.949 per mile that the elephantine Hummer costs. The energy cots of SUVs such as the Tahoe, Escalade, and Navigator are similarly far less than the Civic hybrid.

How can this possibly be the case?

But by and large the dust-to-dust energy costs in Spinella's study correlate with the fanciness of the car – not its size or fuel economy -- with the Rolls Royces and Bentleys consuming gobs of energy and Mazda 3s, Saturns and Taurus consuming relatively minuscule amounts.

As for Hummers, Spinella explains, the life of these cars averaged across various models is over 300,000 miles. By contrast, Prius' life – according to Toyota's own numbers – is 100,000 miles. Furthermore, Hummer is a far less sophisticated vehicle. Its engine obviously does not have an electric and gas component as a hybrid's does so it takes much less time and energy to manufacture. What's more, its main raw ingredient is low-cost steel, not the exotic light-weights that are exceedingly difficult to make – and dispose. But the biggest reason why a Hummer's energy use is so low is that it shares many components with other vehicles and therefore its design and development energy costs are spread across many cars.

See, what he's doing is comparing not simply the fuel economy of the car on the road, but how long it actually keeps driving without repairs or replacement and more importantly how expensive and energy-consuming it is to actually build the thing. In other words, there are a lot of hidden energy costs that hybrids have that other cars don't. There's more to the energy signature of a vehicle than what you pay at the gas pump. If a company has to spend twice as much energy to produce the parts and build the car, then it's not as efficient in the big picture as it seems. This is an interesting case to be made, and I'd think multiple trips to carry the same load or energy required to carry an equal amount of weight would need to be factored in as well.

One of the most perverse things about U.S. consumers buying hybrids is that while this might reduce air pollution in their own cities, they increase pollution – and energy consumption -- in Japan and other Asian countries where these cars are predominantly manufactured. "In effect, they are exporting pollution and energy consumption," Spinella says.

Of course, this all assumes Spinella's numbers are accurate and the math is valid. But it is an analysis I haven't seen before.

Tim Blair carried this story and wisely suggests you check out his comments section:

If consumers were offered a choice between an old-fashioned carburetted car versus the much more expensive and complex fuel-injected model, the “total cost per mile” would be even lower. A 1974 Chevy Nova, for example, is probably more “economical” in that regard than anything currently on offer, including the Hummer. Does that mean we should all go back to what is basically 1950s technology? Hey, a lot less energy would go into the manufacture of such vehicles.

The idea that a ridiculous ego-mobile like the Hummer is more “economical” in the long run than a Civic Hybrid and therefore gas-electric hybrids ought to be abandoned is short-sighted, because they are assuming that technology is static and will not advance. 25 years ago, electronic fuel injection and computer engine management was considered foolishly expensive gadgetry that would not only not improve the cars, but were just another way to rip off the car-buying public. (I still hear such claims from a couple of people I know, but they also think they’re being watched by the FBI...) Hybrid technology, and its costs, could very well improve to the point where most new vehicles will use it within a decade or two.

I personally have no desire to buy one at present because they are not enough of an improvement to justify the additional costs, but that does not mean I never will.

One last observation: while your typical Hybrid driver is a clueless left-wing dipsh*it, I’ve never met anyone who drove a Hummer that wasn’t an overbearing a*hole.
-by Spiny Norman

There are some astonishing numbers in this report. Perhaps too amazing. The critical numbers here are the lifetimes of the vehicles. Do Hummers really last for 300,000 miles? And is a Prius going to be trashed after 100,000 miles? If these numbers are wrong, the comparison between models falls over.

Still, even if it is in the right ballpark, it confirms what an engineer told me years ago - that a car will consume more energy in its manufacture and disposal than it ever will in fuel, during its lifetime.

Car fuel economy has reached a point where improvement will result in diminishing returns. This new technology needs to get cheaper to be worthwhile. Either that or fuel prices have to double again.
-by zscore

I’d be interested to see how diesel powered cars (e.g. Volkswagen TDI) fare in this type of cost analysis. You can get the fuel efficiency (my dad consistiently got 40+ MPG, even reaching 45 regularly out of commuting with one for several years) minus the sanctimony and the gutlessness (which, as I got to see for myself this weekend at the Utah Grand Prix, the Audi R10 will attest to.)
-by Vexorg

The same kinda logic applies to solar cells - the production and disposal of the rare-earth elements required is something rarely taken into consideration.

Although - the Sliver Cell technology from the Australian National University looks somewhat promising - much more efficient use of materials.
-by the-invigilator

Like all of these types of studies the actual results will depend on various assumptions and need to rely on an assessment of technology at a point in time. Like Zscore i thought the 100,000 miles versus 300,000 assumption looked a bit doubtful, but i’m no expert on this.

Regardless, the overall point that you have to look beyond the fuel consumption of a vehicle and into its manufacture, lifespan and disposal to properly assess its environmental impact is sound and, even if hummers aren’t environmental saviours, the research would suggest that, at the very least, the difference in energy consumption between hybrids and larger non-hybrids is considerably less than the hybrid lobby woud like to have us believe and should reduce peoples’ ability to feel morally superior for owning one.

If you read the report (which i scanned quickly) you will see that the authors acknowledge that technological change and changes in oil prices will increase the energy efficiency of newer hybrids relative to others. Looking at the correspondence in the report is also predictable. Seems like every second person wanted to know their funding sources!

and even if the assumptions might be rubbery - boy am i going to have fun at my next dinner party with this one.
-by Francis H

Well, shaky methodology or not, the Prius still gets worse mileage than an ‘80s Honda CRX HF, and has a giant battery that’s going to be a joy to dispose of.

Whatever. Hybrids seem like belt’n’suspenders to me.
-By Dave S.

The 100,000 mile life of the prius prolly has something to do with the life of the batteries.
Anyway, Mrs Entropy regulary drove one for work, as the good public service health professional she is. She quite liked it, even though it was a bit unnerving starting off from the lights, quite unlike the corolla sx I got for her (a go kart in sheep’s clothing, I tells ya).
But the premium for the prius over an ordinary 4 cylinder car completely negates its possible economy benefits, which in mrs Entropy’s observation, wasn’t that flash anyway (although the qld govt. was picking up the fuel bill, so why drive carefully?).
-by entropy

Kaboom (quite an appropriate name for this question, BTW!):

I’ve often wondered what would happen when two or more Priusses (Priae?) are involved in a collision.

See, normal car’s batteries are dangerous and cause arcing in an accident - who knows how much more dangerous 100 volt battery packs would be in this situation.

The Newhouse News Service had an article in 2005 titled, “Hybrids Raise Safety Issues for Rescue Crews” that explains some of their dangers. This is how it begins:

The driver loses control of the car, which careens off the road and flips several times. The driver is trapped inside. But just as rescue personnel are about to slice through the wreckage with the metal-cutting “jaws of life,” they notice the vehicle is a hybrid.

They pause, wondering if it’s safe to cut into a battery-powered vehicle packing hundreds of volts of electrical current.

As more and more fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles hit the roads, it is a question emergency crews are confronting with growing frequency.

Depending on the hybrid model, voltage in the vehicles’ electrical systems can deliver up to 650 volts, enough to cause a serious electrical jolt.

"It could kill you,” says David Schimmel of the New Jersey State First Aid Council.

Schimmel, the council’s director of mobilization and disaster services and its lead extrication instructor, says hybrid vehicles are “absolutely” on the radar screen of emergency first responders.

“We have extrication training and it’s part of that,” he says. “It should be part of any training program."

Maybe these are the proverbial killer cars that Monty Python warned us about!
-by Ed Driscoll

Bottom line: Prius is a petrol-driven car that costs 30% more than other petrol driven cars.

In the country the petrol engine runs full time resulting in fuel economy no better than a regular car (probably worse given the weight of the battery pack). Result: hybrids are uneconomical in Australia and the US where long distance driving is the norm. OK for the UK and Japan where 100kms is a ‘take a packed lunch’ drive
-by edlinge

It’ll be interesting to see what effect Subaru’s foray into the Hybrid Hype will have: The theory behind the B9SC sports car is that of a diesel locomotive; a small engine, running at constant speed, turns a generator, which then drives an electric motor, with no large bank of batteries involved. Should be a lot lower “dust-to-dust” than any other hybrid, and no collision/electrocution factor.

OTOH, I’d be just as happy with a SMART roadster as a “commuter car”....
-by Challeron

Technology

THE LONGEST COMMENT THREAD EVER!

Over at Everyday Thoughts Collected, Randy Thomas has started what he wants to be the longest comment section ever for a blog entry. At over 600 comments and growing, I think he's got it. Right Wing News has had some whoppers at over 300, but I've not seen one as long as what Randy has generated here. Drop by and take a look!

Commenters talk about diets, the frozen yogurt fixation of a wife, favorite colors, the virtues of Typepad vs Blogger as a blog host, Christianity and homosexuality, television shows, music, advertising, kite-surfing, pictures of kids, and so on. Go by and take a look, contribute to the longest thread, maybe you'll be one of the milestones!

Comments

Quote of the day

"...socialism is not just a question of labor organization; it is above all an atheistic phenomenon, the modern manifestation of atheism, one more Tower of Babel built without God, not in order to reach out toward heaven from earth, but to bring heaven down to earth."
-Dostoevsky (Brothers Karamazov)

Quotes

Songs I Like - Romeo and Juliet (Dire Straits)

You promised me everything, you promised me thick and thin
Now you just says oh Romeo yeah you know I used to have a scene with him

Dire Straits was one of the greatest bands of the 20th century, although their music defies exact classification in the way Social Distortion does (are they Punk? Rockabilly?). The album Making Movies is one of those discs that is one solid, excellent work without a weak point in it. Every song is worth listening to over and over, the entire album is a work of art.

Dire Straits put out several in a row like that, and even weaker work like On Every Street is great. Listen to the song because only half of it is the lyrics, the rest is Mark Knopfler's singing guitar and the band's wonderful blend of music. There's only one flaw in the song: Knopfler certainly can do a love song like it's meant to be.

A lovestruck Romeo sings a streetsus serenade
Layin' everybody low with me a lovesong that he made
Finds a streetlight, steps out of the shade
Says something like you and me babe how about it ?

Juliet says hey its Romeo you nearly gimme a heart attack
He's underneath the window she's singing hey la my boyfriend's back
You shouldn't come around here singin' up at people like that
Anyway what you gonna do about it?

Juliet the dice were loaded from the start
And I bet and you exploded in my heart
And I forget the movie song
When you wanna realise it was just that the time was wrong... Juliet?

Come up on differents streets, they both were streets of shame
Both dirty both mean, yes and the dream was just the same
And I dreamed your dream for you and your dream is real
How can you look at me as if I was just another one of your deals?

Where you can fall for chains of silver you can fall for chains of gold
You can fall for pretty strangers and the promises they hold
You promised me everything, you promised me thick and thin
Now you just says oh Romeo yeah you know I used to have a scene with him

Juliet when we made love you used to cry
You said I love you like the stars above I'll love you till I die
There's a place for us you know the movie song
When you gonna realise it was just that the time was wrong Juliet?

I can't do the talk like they talk on tv
And I can't do a love song like the way its meant to be
I can't do everything but I'd do anything for you
I can't do anything except be in love with you

And all I do is miss you and the way we used to be
All do is keep the beat and bad company
All I do is kiss you through the bars of a rhyme
Julie I'd do the stars with you any time

Juliet when we made love you used to cry
You said I love you like the stars above I'll love you till I die
Theres a place for us you know the movie song
When you gonna realise it was just that the time was wrong Juliet?

A lovestruck Romeo sings a streetsus serenade
Layin' everybody low with me a lovesong that he made
Finds a convenient streetlight steps out of the shade
Says something like you and me babe how about it?

Music

BIG PROJECTS IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM

"13 years later and we have a tunnel that plays whack a mole with the drivers. Super."

In the previous 100 years, the United States engaged in some pretty amazing projects to better the nation and benefit its citizens. The Hoover Dam, the Interstate Highway System, The Apollo Program to the moon, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Panama Canal, the Manhattan Project, and so on. Through these efforts and ones like the railroad system built in the 19th century, vast, amazing things were accomplished by the effort of many workers, the millions of treasury dollars, and the planning and engineering of brilliant minds.

I don't think we're capable of anything like that these days.

If it isn't protests and lawsuits to stop the project, it's cost overruns, corruption, and riders added to the bills to bury it, or it's incompetent engineering, or it's strikes by union workers, or it's "Not In My Back Yard" complaints by senators or groups of citizens. Such a project would get bogged down, every failure, death, and setback trumpeted across the front page of a dozen newspapers and given wall-to-wall coverage by the 24-hour news channels. The delays would grow and be emphasized by constant attention, the lawsuits to protect the spotted newt fly would drag through court for decades.

Consider the Boston Big Dig project.

According to Wikipedia:

Big Dig is the unofficial name of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project (CA/T), a massive undertaking to reroute the Central Artery (Interstate 93), the chief controlled-access highway through the heart of Boston, Massachusetts, into a 3.5 mile (5.6km) tunnel under the city, replacing a previous elevated roadway. The project also included the construction of the Ted Williams Tunnel (extending Interstate 90 to Logan International Airport) and the Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge over the Charles River.

The Big Dig is the single most expensive highway project in American history. Although the project was estimated at $2.5 billion in 1985, when the last major highway section opened in December 2003, over $14.6 billion had been spent in federal and state tax dollars as of 2006.

Cost overruns and delays are standard in construction; there is simply no way to accurately and perfectly predict what something will cost or how long it will take. But this project has gone above and beyond the call of expense and delay.

On July 10th, a steel tieback that suspends the concrete drop ceiling inside the tunnel structure broke and four three-ton sections of the ceiling collapsed, including one that fell on top of a car, killing a woman and injuring her husband. A subsequent examination of the structure found at least sixty other potential failure areas and the entire big dig tunnel was shut down. The construction has been plagued by mistakes, mismanagement, and criminal misconduct for years.

At Ace of Spades Headquarters, Ace notes this as signal to the end of the ability for the US to do these great projects:
Few bridges are built in America anymore. In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century bridges and other big civil engineering projects were going up like crazy. Now-- not so much. Perhaps it's that we don't need further big infrastructure projects, or perhaps... America just doesn't do big things anymore.

It was the last part that made me support the Big Dig. The idea that we just didn't do big things anymore. Well, the Big Dig was big. So we could do this sort of thing, if we wanted. And I just loved the idea of construction on such a grand scale, overcoming so many difficult engineering problems. I've watched the documentaries about this on the Discovery and History Channels so much I can pretty much quote them. I feel at this point I could pretty much direct the construction of a refrigeration-hardened slurry wall, if it was required of me.

But now, it seems, we can't do these big projects anymore. Our idiotic and corrupt bureaucracy will just piss money away on shoddy workmanship.

So the Big Dig was a test for American government. An important test. A test American government failed.

And the next day, a story ran on Reuters that echoed this very sentiment:

BOSTON (Reuters) - Boston's $15 billion "Big Dig" was meant to inspire awe, an engineering marvel on scale with the Panama Canal that would thrust U.S. cities into a new era.

Instead, it faces a crisis of public confidence after a fatal tunnel collapse that could derail plans for other U.S. urban mega-projects.

But cost overruns, leaks, delays, falling debris, criminal probes and charges of corruption plague the nearly completed 15-year project, giving ammunition to opponents of similar plans in other cities considering tearing down aging elevated highways built in a construction boom in the 1950s and 1960s.

Ace noted this recent story seemed kind of familiar to him and wrote:

...whichever way you slice it, this stands as an indictment of the government's basic competence, and the corrupt, clueless, mobbed-up machine-politics governance of cities especially.

And let me say this: conservatives split on their objections to big infrastructure improvements and mass-transit projects and the like. Some object to them on principle, believing the government has no business in such matters.

Others -- like myself -- object to them not in principle, but for practical reasons. I have no objection in principle to big civil engineering projects, or new mass-transit systems. In fact, I rather like them... in theory.

But I object to them because I know the government is going to screw them up beyond belief and cost the taxpayers' billions for their shoddy execution.

Commenters responded:

Actually, ace, between the levees in New Orleans and the Big Dig in Boston, we show that when we fail, we fail big.

Makes me feel less than confident about the Freedom Tower or whatever they're calling the building being put up in the place of the WTC.
-by Johnny Catbird

The incentives are incorrect (low price bidders, public works competing for public funds, politicians buying votes via works projects) and accountability is non-existent (who should take the fall for the Big Dig disaster?). The bigger the project the more involvement and coordination required from a broader spectrum of people and organizations. Herding cats as they say. Time and money pressure lead to shortcuts that ultimately kill people - regardless of whether we are talking about levees, tunnels, or space shuttles.
-by too many steves

America just doesn't do big things anymore.

I'd be interested to see a comparison of (inflation adjusted) costs now vs then; I suspect you'd find (relative) costs were dramatically lower then due to different efficiencies of scale.

Back then lack of automation made manpower cheap and plentiful, and less advanced fabrication technology made it cheaper to throw up largescale brick and ironworks projects (i.e. nowadays a big fancy brick building with gargoyles and wrought iron would be a luxury item whereas back then it was standard).

But that's just speculation for now...
-by Scott

I commented on this issue once at a forum, about how we're not doing many large-scale engineering projects anymore. The Big Dig was the only one I could think of. It is kind of depressing to watch those same History and Discovery Channel programs on all the cool high-speed rail lines they're building in Europe and Asia and everywhere, and the Channel Tunnel, blah blah blah, and here we have to wrangle for 10 years just to build a stupid third runway at an airport.

We're actually going through some of this angst here in Seattle where various people want to do largely the same thing: Tear down an existing elevated roadway through downtown and put it in a tunnel. They're estimating about $4 billion. That is to laugh uproariously. (check SoundPolitics.com for some commentary on it) I kind of feel the same way: Ideally, it would be marvelous. The viaduct is butt ugly, noisy, makes driving and parking difficult in the area, and opening up that part of the downtown waterfront would be an absolute boon to the city.

Yet, you know it's going to cost at least 3 times what they estimate and that's being conservative. And who knows what they'll decide to do with the extra property in the meantime.

Do the Europeans and Asians just do the work better? Do they spend far more money doing it than we would, just because they accept higher tax rates? Do we Americans prefer to keep our infrastructure the way it is and spend our money on more personal luxuries? I don't know.
-by Frank Black

I don't want to live in an America where Americans, for whatever reason, stop dreaming big.

I want the Big Dig to succeed, even if it still seems far more harebrained than Robert Moses' original highways-through-neighborhoods. Still, Americans are often better at building something half-assed and then fixing it later.

Regarding building bridges, (your comment was something I remember saying years ago), we sort of are still building bridges, but usually we're building them in and around an active bridges. The Williamsburg bridge in NYC has been basically replaced over the past 10+ years. All supports on the Manhattan side were taken out and rebuilt, while the bridge was in use. Not as spectacular as a new bridge, but a damn impressive feat of engineering.

Watching the Space Shuttle land today I was struck by hold old and clunky it looked. Sort of like how school buses have barely changed since WWII. Why haven't we done better than that yet? I'm looking forward to Boeing's Dreamliner. Airplanes look old too.

What is a travesty is the base of WTC7, honestly closed bodega security gates are more welcoming. They're going to have a hard time renting that out until something is done about ground floor exterior.
-by SomeJoe

one of the few things I think the government should be doing is building and improving roads and bridges and the like

I know that most people think this way, largely because government socialized the road-building business so long ago that no one who is alive today has ever seen anything else, but why would government be any better at road-building than it is at anything else? Why would we trust government with roads but know instinctively that government-run medical services is a disaster waiting to happen?

Whatever it gets its fingers into, every government activity immediately stops being guided by economic concerns and starts being driven by political concerns. Every time.
-by Phinn

We're actually going through some of this angst here in Seattle where various people want to do largely the same thing: Tear down an existing elevated roadway through downtown and put it in a tunnel.

There was a hilarious letter in the Seattle Times a couple of days ago where the writer thought it was absurd we were even considering burying the viaduct along the waterfront when global warming would casue the water level to rise by 30 feet anyways.

Seriously, the reason we don't do stuff like this anymore is that the review process (environmental assessments) and property rights make doing anything big too expensive. Remember the good old days when you could just take someone's property and build public infrastructure on top of it?

Okay, I'm too young to remember that, but can you imagine condemning Los Angeles beachfront property to build an airport in today's world?
-by jmn

Privatization of infrastructure construction isn't a panacea, but include me in the group of people that think a big company like KBR/Halliburton would have done a better job on the Big Dig. But this assumes good oversight and strict accountability, which was really the problem with the Big Dig from the start -- lousy contract oversight, sweetheart deals, low-bid (or no-bid) contracts, and Union ass-kissing.

I think that if the government (Federal, State, or otherwise) is properly motivated they can accomplish Big Things. The Apollo lunar program is one example; the Manhattan Project during World War II is another. But infrastructure projects aren't sexy, and their benefits are often hard to explain to the voters, especially if said benefits will only be manifested ten or twenty years in the future.

Private corporations have shareholders and boards of directors to answer to, who tend to be more hard-nosed than your average voter who is used to getting keestered by politicians on these big construction boondoggles.
-by Monty

Can you imagine what the Hoover Dam would be like if these guys built it?

Yes. It'd be the Colorado River.
-by Johnny Catbird

governors

You can call it an issue of leadership, I suppose. There's always some truth to that. I have spent the last 7 years working for the federal government and being deeply involved with state government (State of Washington). The overriding assessment is that the bureaucracies are stifling, inexperienced, mediocre, and have no problem pushing style before substance as they rush to spend their budgets so they can get the mandatory increases next year.

There is corruption, but that's not so much the problem - there are a lot of good people working in government. But that's the equivalent of saying that "she has a great personality" - trying to highlight a positive trait to make up for an overwhelming deficiency. The real problem is that three un-motivated people who will punch out at 4 PM make bad decisions, especially as visibility and importance increases.

There are a bunch of people who are simply unqualified to be making the decisions that they are making. That and the fact that the incentives in a tenure-based system are mis-apprehensions at best. So take Romney to task for not injecting more oversight, but I'm sure the problem is much deeper than someone simply claiming to see a problem (or 1400+ problems). I'd say the problems started 15 years ago as every agency wanted their piece of the action. Then separately, the people managing this boondoggle now were probably deep seeds of the problem 15 years ago. It's pretty standard to promote from within - no government agency ever goes away. So there was no outside oversight or evolution away from failure. In truth, by year 4 or 5, people should have been fired left and right for this mess.

BTW, I'm projecting my experience with other government failures here - I am not up on the Big Dig, except with what I've read.
-by john

Ace, you're splitting hairs. The principle that government should not do certain things doesn't come out of thin air; it arises from the recognition that government is going to screw it up.
-by bgates [my second choice for the tagline]

i'm so frustrated . I love big engineering projects. I love to read books and watch documentaries on how the George Washington bridge, the Golden Gate bridge, Hoover dam, Grand Coulee dam and other projects of the 30's and 40's were built in what now looks like superhuman efforts. I'm also saddened to see that prossible corruption and graft may have lead to shody building practices. This is very common in third world countries, where highways and bridges look awful and rickety and are dangerous because the kleptocrats stole all the money. How could this happen in the USA? What is becoming of us?

The best that can be hoped is that, instead of killing more future projects to replace shore highways with tunnels, that we will learn from thesemistakes and make the new ones better. The first airplanes were very dangerous and unreliable as were the first space rockets, yet we persevered.
-by jmchez

You want to know the reason why these projects were successful and the more recent ones aren't? I'll tell you: because we had to do them.

1930s: Large infrastructural projects were done simply because the government was trying to soften the blow of the Great Depression. Unemployment was high, so you put people to work.

1940s: World War II occurs. Suddenly we put ourselves into war machine mode, building at a rate unheard of before. Once the war's over, we reapply that inertia back into infrastructure.

1950s: Beginning of the Cold War. The largest (usually overlooked) infrastructural project is started: interstates. Why did they get built? So that we could easily transport troops and artillery from point A to point B.

1960s: The space race. We had to be the first to the moon because the Soviets had beaten us to space. NASA is in its prime, making us unparalleled.

And then? Not much. Now it's more of a "It'd be nice if we had this", but there's no real incentive.

Who really cares if we can use a train instead of a plane to get from NYC to DC in almost the same amount of time? Not the commuters, who are used to flying or taking cheaper ground transportation.

Who really cares if a city puts in a more streamlined means of moving around Boston? Not the drivers that grew up there and are used to the insane tangle of roads.

If you want a project to become important, you have to have incentive. The next major project for this country will probably be something like prepping for hydrogen powered cars after the Middle East sets up an embargo. There has to be a need before there will be a success.
-by Johnny Catbird

The Acropolis was built from money essentially stolen from the Delian League of Greek city-states. Just pointing this out because I've always hated when people use the Acropolis as an example of how wonderful government spending is, especially on the arts.
Although I do prefer the idea of financing projects like the Big Dig by stealing from Europe.
-by Rooster

Modern Culture

BUSH FINDS VETO!

"Why don't we embrace what is working and has no ethical problems?"
-Senator Brownback (R-KA)

The President of the United States has the power to veto any legislation that congress offers him, who then in turn may vote again on the bill. With a 2/3rds majority, congress can override this veto and make the bill law over the President's objections. President Bush has not vetoed a bill since he took office in January of 2001, although he has opposed several he's been sent.

Why he has not done so is a matter of some speculation, although I suspect it has to do with his strong understanding of the separation of powers in the US Government. Each branch of the US Government is equally powerful and sovereign in their area (legislation in congress, for example), and I believe President Bush thinks that a veto should only be used in the most egregious examples of moral or legal corruption.

With the recent Stem Cell research bill passing both the Senate and the House of Representatives, the bill should reach President Bush today. He has promised to veto that bill:

"I made [it] very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life, I'm against that," Bush told reporters. "Therefore if the bill does that, I will veto it."

What is this bill that has the President finally reaching for his dusty, cobwebbed Veto stamp? It is a bill that issues federal funding for stem cell research. The federal government already funds stem cell research, but since 2001 has not funded any research using embryonic stem cells. Congress is offering a bill that extends funding for that sort as well.

Some Congressmen are pleading with the President to sign this bill and put it into law - likely aware that they have not the votes to overrule his veto at this point.

"Please, Mr. President, don't veto this bill," said Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., noting that his family has a history of Parkinson's disease. "Such a veto, I fear, may only throw out hope, healing and human life along with the unused embryos."

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said scientists think stem cells offer the possibility to treat myriad diseases and disabilities, such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, strokes, diabetes, spinal-cord injuries and osteoarthritis.

"I see no reason why embryonic stem-cell research should be treated any differently than other research," Wyden said. "Without expanding the research beyond the bounds of current policy, people will never know what might have been."

So what is stem cell research, and why such claims? Stem cells are specialized cells that help with healing and growth in the body. They act as a sort of latticework or framework for other cells to grow around, such as to heal a broken bone. Research with these cells is intended to find out why and how they work so that greater healing can be achieved to cure some diseases and regenerate tissue.

Scientists hope and postulate that such research could cure diseases such as Parkinson's by regrowing nerve cells, regenerate lost fingers or even limbs, and even stop or reverse ageing. At present, there have been successful treatments using stem cells, such as a treatment that recovers hearing loss, generates cells for the production of insulin for diabetics, reverses kidney failure, and reversal of crippling paralysis, various neural diseases such as polyneuropathy, lupus, and multiple sclerosis all show improvement. So why veto the bill?

1) Because the bill funds embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research "harvests" frozen embryos by killing the cells and taking the stem cells from them. President Bush accurately considers this horrific because in order to research to aid the living, it requires killing someone else. Consider this quote from Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA):

He described a conversation he had with his conservative colleague Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

"He said his concern was the question of when life began," Specter said Tuesday. "I told him my concern was when life ended."

The problem here is a concern for health and extended life at the expense of the helpless and innocent. Without a clear legal and scientific definition of when human life begins - which we lack at present (although I'd argue it's obvious that these cells are human, and alive) - then we must follow the dictates of morality. I sympathize with Senator Specter in his battle with cancer and understand his desire for a cure, but not at the expense of another's life.

It is the depth of horror and the subject of many sci fi stories to kill the living in order to make rich adults and elderly more comfortable and live longer. The term I use is "necromancy."

2) Because all those successful treatments from stem cell research I listed have been from adult stem cells. These are very plentiful and available from such odd sources as the ears and nose of donors and especially the umbilical cord. Given that thousands of babies are born each day in the USA alone, this is a very plentiful and cheap source of stem cells. Such research does not require the death of anyone and has been successful and very promising.

4) Because embryonic stem cell research has been not only a failure thus far in almost all cases, but actually damaging and destructive to the people it has been tried on. For example, while researchers have successfully produced insulin-secreting cells with embryonic stem cell research, the result is not transplantable because they don't have a tissue match for the patient. Further, the embryonic results often cause tumors and cancer in the patients, and in at least once case caused uncontrollable seizures. The cells grow out of control and in areas the research does not intend. No viable therapy has been generated from embryonic stem cell research. Dozens have been generated by adult stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research characteristically results in the growth of tumors and other unpleasant side effects.

5) Because Japanese researchers have discovered that adult stem cells can be as effective as embryonic stem cells, a story that skated past the press and most people's awareness. These doctors used mouse stem cells (from the tip of their tail):

The ES [Embryonic Stem cell] -like cells the group produced with the four introduced genes seemed to have almost all the key properties of ES cells derived from embryos. They formed several kinds of tissue in the culture dish and produced tumors called teratomas when they were injected under the skin of immune-compromised mice--both classic characteristics of ES cells.

Researchers at Tufts University came to the same conclusion, saying that they believe they have discovered an adult stem cell that has the same potential as embryonic stem cells. The head of the research team said "I think embryonic stem cells are going to fade in the rearview mirror of adult stem cells." In any case, stem cells from the placenta - again present in every birth in the world - are also considered adequate replacement for embryonic stem cells.

6) Because the federal government has no constitutional authority or power to fund any kind of stem cell research, no matter how nice it might be. The US Constitution is very clear on what the government may and may not tax people for and spend money on, and the 10th amendment makes it very clear that anything not listed is forbidden for the government to engage in. Funding medical research is not one of those things.

7) Because even were it constitutional and not either a failure or a ghastly moral violation, embryonic stem cell research is being done by thousands of companies worldwide without the requirement of the US government's - your - money. The common complaint about pharmaceutical corporations is that they are grossly wealthy and overcharge for their product, that they are greedy and price-gouging. If they have these vast sums of money, why do they need your tax dollars to do the research? If companies and research labs around the world are already doing this work why do they need your tax dollars to do it?

WRONG
It's wrong, it's a failure, its unnecessary, and yet some persist in strident, often insulting calls for this funding. So why on earth would anyone anywhere want this? Because embryonic stem cells show incredible powers of healing and growth. They are what scientists believe allow a newborn baby to heal rapidly from harm and even regrow a joint lost from a finger or toe in some cases. They believe this is what makes a fertilized egg grow into a newborn baby in a short 9 months. So they want to tap into this immense growth and healing power to see what it can result in for adult humans.

The original claim was the Embryonic Stem Cells lasted forever in storage while adult stem cells did not. This has been demonstrated to be inaccurate (ES don't last forever, according to this report), and even were this true, the source of embryonic stem cells is dwarfed by several magnitudes by the sources of adult stem cells. Researchers have ideas and dreams and need money to test these theories out. They can get money from private research, but the government is an almost endless source, and they want at that vast sea of taxpayer dollars. So they push for their personal agenda.

And I am fine with that, I respect the desire. Just don't do it at the expense of helpless, innocent human life. Murdering babies to make adults feel better or live longer is one of the most evil things I can imagine.

The worst part is the gross and often willful ignorance in regard to this debate. Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, constantly acts as if not only has President Bush banned stem cell research but that embryonic stem cell research is the only kind that exists. You will read again and again that the President "banned stem cell research" from people who know better but will say that because it sounds better and makes him look like an anti-science clod. You will see people claim that the president banned embryonic stem cell research, when he did no such thing, he simply banned federal funding for such research. Even though President Bush no doubt would like to ban all such research he does not have that power.

That's why I wrote this long entry this morning. Because of the misinformation, ignorance, and deliberate lying that goes on about this topic.

Dr. Michael Gazzaniga in the New York Times called an early cloned embryo just a “hunk of cells,” and said that human dignity resides in a “lifetime of experiences and discovery.” Thus, according to this fellow, the older you are, the more worth you have - and an unborn or just born human is nearly or completely worthless? This is the kind of "reasoning" that led Dr Josef Mengele to his research which while it revealed a great deal of useful scientific information was judged so ghastly and immoral that it was sealed and never used.

Most of the people backing embryonic stem cell research and its federal funding are pro-abortion, they consider an unborn baby at most subhuman and unworthy of the considerations we give fully born humans. For them, a magical transformation occurs when the baby exits the mother.

Jacki Rabon from a wheelchair in the US Senate gave a speech to the assembled body about adult stem cell research that is helping her and has been so effective. In this speech she talked about the dehumanizing of someone for the convenience or advantage of another:

At one point in time, we have all started out as an embryo. Whether you are Sam Brownback, the Presiding Officer, or anybody in this room, we all started out being a human embryo. We didn't start another way. If you destroy us at the earliest stage, you never end up with us at this stage. That is a basic fundamental of the argument.

It is an old, old, old debate for human societies. We have had this debate. Typically, in fighting around the world, people try to dehumanize the other side.

I remember watching a film on Rwanda, "Hotel Rwanda,'' about the Rwandan genocide. I was just in Rwanda last year and in the Holocaust Museum. The one side persecuting the other side, killing nearly 800,000 in 3 weeks, in the very typical fashion of human beings demonizing the other side and calling them less than human, they were subhuman--they were roaches is what they actually referred to them as.

I agree with Senator Brownback. Let's focus on what does work, and has no ethical horrors attached. How could anyone in good conscience possibly argue with that?

*UPDATE: President Bush vetoed the bill. Now congress has to decide if in the coming months they want to try to overrule this veto.

Medical Ethics

Quote of the day

Demanding scientific proof for the existence of God is like demanding geometric proof for the existence of art.

Quotes

OVER RATED!

In line with the previous post on Hollywood's alleged going away from big stars, I have a partial list of actors and actresses I consider overrated and not worthy of their continual work, status, or pay. This is in no particular order other than "I thought of them next":

Susan Sarandon - Aside from her idiot politics, this woman is not attractive and has been annoying in every movie I've seen her in. She almost ruined one of my favorite movies of all time, Bull Durham by her continued grating presence. Her politics have made her unwatchable beyond simple incompetence and poor talent. When you get her doofus husband Tim Robbins together with her it's a festival of clueless moonbattery.

Rene Russo - Once more, a woman who seems to continually get work despite her bland abilities and so-so looks. She also about demolished a movie I like: Major League. The Fast Forward button almost broke on the VCR remote rewatching that movie. She's almost tolerable in Get Shorty though, I'll give her that. Rene Russo is one of those women like Sarandon who jars the movie without fitting in, they are like walkons who are just saying lines.

Julia Roberts - I understand some find her attractive, but like Rob Dibble, I can't help but hear whinnying when I see her face. She looks like Eric Roberts with breasts, and she's rarely even interesting to watch on screen. Julia Roberts for a long time was the highest paid actress in Hollywood, for some odd reason, and no movie she starred in did I consider even a good flick. Erin Brockovich was just woeful (and grossly lacking in factual content).

Sarah Jessica Parker - whinnying also, and virtually no talent. Women seem to love her, perhaps because someone this bland and unattractive gets so much work and on-screen sexing up. Her only real attractive part was in LA Story with Steve Martin, where she plays a brainless fluffball.

Orlando Bloom - only has two acting styles (confused and tormentedly fixed on the subject). He's boring on screen, but apparently very pretty so the ladies love him. Pirates of the Caribbean would have been awful without Johnny Depp to light up the screen. As Legolas he at least had stylish combat maneuvers and pointed ears to liven up his performance. The good part about Orlando is he doesn't seem to take himself seriously, almost like he's winking at you and saying "yeah I know I suck but I'm getting paid."

Kevin Costner - I can count the good jobs he's done on screen on one hand after dozens of movies. Silverado, Bull Durham, Tin Cup, and Open Range. He's almost wholly lacking in charisma and talent, his delivery is as flat as John Malkovich, and he's so clearly out of his depth in most of the parts he gets.

Ben Stiller - Apparently his movies make a mint, because he gets like 5 parts a year, but I've rarely even been able to stomach a single scene he is in. Not funny, not interesting, little talent. His father has more charm and charisma. Ben Stiller is one of those comedic actors that fails to make me laugh or even smile most of the time, although I did enjoy Zoolander despite his inability to amuse or act.

Viggo Mortenson - Not only is he a colossal twit politically, but he's just a sleaze in every movie he makes. He took the dirty, unkempt Aragorn and turned him into something sordid that you wouldn't trust around the hobbits without a chaperone. Viggo Mortensen is making a career of making advocacy movies at this point, do yourself a favor and never listen to him talk about Lord of the Rings or what he thinks of the story.

Denzel Washington - I don't know if it is affirmative action or what, but this man is the least talented actor to be so acclaimed since John Wayne. And unlike Wayne, he's not iconic or charismatic. He plays the same guy every role: Denzel Washington. Unlike a lot of these, I have liked movies he's been in, but not due to his onscreen presence or abilities as an actor.

Lorraine Bracco - Even Scorcese could barely get a tolerable performance out of this hack. She's somewhat attractive but her voice destroys that, and she is without question the worst actress I have ever seen on the silver screen. She is so woeful you want to gouge your eyes out with a soda straw.

James Dean - Iconic, sure. But he really didn't show any talent, and he's considered a great legend along with giants like Bogart. No, I'm sorry maybe if he'd lived a while longer and gotten some more experience he'd have shown me something, but he is way overrated. Mostly I think he's an "emperor's new clothes" sort of cool, everyone says so therefore you have to agree and nod. Similiarly I'd include Audrey Hepburn but I haven't seen any of her movies that I can remember so it would be kind of unfair. Somehow I seriously doubt she deserves the hype either, though.

Tom Cruise [photo in previous entry] - Even before he started to act like a demented hyperactive child, Tom Cruise always struck me as a really dedicated but esencially talentless guy who played exactly the same character in every single role. Whether it's Joel Goodsen in Risky Business, Lestat in Interview With the Vampire, or Ethan Hunt in Mission Impossible, he's just Tom Cruise. And just Tom Cruise simply isn't compelling or charismatic enough to carry a movie.

Will Farrell [photo in previous entry] - Comedy is subjective, but I've yet to see this man in a single role that made me more than grin a little. His entire job is to make people laugh and he utterly fails in every movie I've seen, for me at least. He can be funny, but usually he's just embarrassing.

Gwyneth Paltrow - Although she's more or less vanished from the big time scene, for a while every movie seemed to have this stick figure in it, and I could not for the life of me see the talent or attraction. Throw a few cheeseburgers down her neck and put her in buddy roles, but she's no star, and while she's not terrible as an actress, she was way overrated.

Fun

BIG NAMES, BIG COST

"I'll do the lead in any picture for a half-mil, and do my own stunts, and not whine about blue M&M's or stupid [expletive deleted] like that."

Hollywood is an odd combination of expertise and incompetence. While very skilled at the technical end of making movies, merchandizing, and distribution, the place seems nearly clueless about what people really want and are interested in. All too often the industry gets into ruts where they will put out a certain kind of movie and little else, until something "surprising" and different comes along, making stacks of cash... and they start making knockoffs of that movie.

According to the UK Independent, the blockbuster movie isn't making as much money as it used to compared to costs, and studios are looking at smaller movies without as many big name stars. While this is not exactly a new report - it seems like every year they say this - lately it seems to be more true.

Studios have taken note of the fact that only three of the 10 highest-grossing films last year - War of the Worlds, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Mr and Mrs Smith - were star-driven. The rest of the major hits - such as Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and The Chronicles of Narnia - had no stellar names, or fat salaries, to speak of.

Ace looked at this and has some observations that I think are very astute:

Why pay Tom Cruise $30 million when you can pay, say, Clive Owen $7 million? Why pay Harrison "Block of Inanimate Rock" Ford $20 million when you can pay Kurt Russel $8 million?

What I think is odd is that these a lot of these high-cost genre pictures started starring A-list stars with their requisite A-list celebrities. When I was a kid, big, dumb movies like War of the Worlds never starred someone like Tom Cruise. They always had an "all-star cast," which usually meant a list of old-Hollywood faded stars and cheap younger talent like (at that time) Gene Hackman, plus O.J. Simspon, for some reason. O.J. Simpson was in every genre picture made in the 1970's.

If you're making a Juraissic Park, it's smart to put Sam Neill and Jeff Goldblum in as its stars. They're not really stars with drawing power, but they're good actors, and no one's going to see Juraissic Park to see big-name celebrities anyhow, for crying out loud.

The missing key of course is that while movies based on beloved characters, established settings or classic literature did well, remakes of old movies, tv shows, and lame concepts did not.

Commenters at Ace of Spades Headquarters scripted this:

Ace,

Actually the best example is 'Forbidden Planet' released by Paramount. Check the list:

Walter Pidgeon
Anne Francis
Leslie Nielsen
Warren Stevens
Jack Kelly
Richard Anderson
Earl Holliman
Robby the Robot
George Wallace
Robert Dix
Jimmy Thompson
James Drury
Harry Harvey Jr.
Roger McGee
Peter Miller
Morgan Jones
Richard Grant

Pideon, his acting career cooling was doing broadway when this gig came along. Francis was the draw and 'hottie' in the film (Hey it was the 50's you know!) Neilsen, Holliman and Anderson were nobodys when this film aired. They all went on to be returning always employed 'B' level stars. Drury went on to appear in one of the longer running westerns - 'Rawhide'. The balance doing TV in the 60's.

And that Robot? He is still appearing in bits to this day. It has to be classified as the longest running prop in film history.
-by johnmc


In any movie involving a romance, I would rather see 2, mature, B list actors who can act and have chemistry than the current crop of *stars* who cannot act and are so full of themselves they can't even relate to their co-stars.
-by PattyAnn

A perfect example: the whole "A Series of Unfortunate Events" franchise was screwed by casting Jim Carrey. You had a generation of kids pre-sold on as many Lemony Snicket movies as you can make, they show up for Movie One, and it's a Jim Carrey movie. No matter how good his improvised scenes were, they weren't in the books, and the kids don't want to see it.

I feel bad for the kids in the movie, who were terrific. Somewhere, Emily Browning is polishing off her fifth lemonade and muttering, "I coulda been Emma Watson."
-by Bob Hawkins


The one I never understood was Julia Roberts. She is an okay actress, but not worth all the money she gets. I liked some of her movies, and she was really good in Sleeping With The Enemy, but in many of her movies, she just annoys me. I especially hated her in Erin Brokovich. Ugh. And she won an Oscar for that. I just don't get it.
-by Lorie Byrd

Movies, for the most part, have been pretty "meh" lately. The best entertainment I've seen in the past few years has been on television. 24, Rescue Me, The Sopranos, Lost - all of these shows have some great writing and acting and you get the sense the egos are still there, but smaller.

Plus, most of it is free.
-by Slublog

All in all, I was very amused to see the works of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien doing so well in the theaters in recent years - all with 2nd tier actors or unknowns. Forbes lists the highest paid actors and actresses, with some odd names I didn't expect in the group.

Movies

I SUPPORT THE TROOPS

"I'll simply say that I support the troops and their mission and pray that they come home safely."

By this point in our history, the anti-war left (with some exceptions) has realized that condemning troops and attacking them like during the Vietnam War is a mistake in public relations. So they came up with the idea of supporting the troops while opposing the war. Which is a lot like saying you support your wife while opposing your marriage. The claim is that they like the troops fine, consider them great fellows that they hope come home safely, but that the war was illegal, wrong, evil, expensive, and BUSH LIED!!!!1!!1!!

Grayhawk at the Mudville Gazette has an example of what he considers someone who is managing to pull off this dichotomy, quoting an interview in Stripes magazine:

Stripes: It’s been quoted that you’re against the war in Iraq but for the troops. Explain that. Help me understand that. How can you be against the war but for the troops?

Cher: I don’t have to be for this war to support the troops because these men and women do what they think is right. They do what they’re told to do. They do it with a really good heart. They do the best they can. They don’t ask for anything.

They just do what they’re supposed to do. So, my beef is not with them at all. I want to go to Baghdad; I’m really excited about doing that. I don’t want to go in the summer, however. I want to go when it cools down a little bit...

Commenters replied to this story:

I think that there would be a lot less frustration on this issue if the distinction was made between the war effort and the decision to go to war. Those who support the troops, but oppose the war EFFORT are hypocrites. It is, however, possible to support the troops and not agree with the decision to go to war, so long as the person actually supports the troops efforts towards achieving victory. To not do that is to hope for an American loss, and that is not supportive of the troops.
-by bandit.three.six


Henry Rollins is like that also. Very much against the war and GW, but very much supportive of the troops and has made a number of trips to Iraq. I disagree with nearly everything he says, but I dont doubt the level of support he gives the troops.
-by buzz


I'm not buying this. People with this dual take are saying, in effect, what you are doing is illegal, immoral, counter-productive, etc - take your pick. But you, personally, I think you're just fine. You may not have the moral courage or the intelligence to see that what you are doing is wrong, but you're just fine.

It is the biggest insult to a fellow citizen soldier involved in a life-and-death struggle that I can imagine. It is also patronizing as all hell.

This imposes an impossible psychological burden on the troops. There is a difference between a non-combatant war critic saying this, and a soldier on the battlefield left to ponder it.

It is, basically, nonsense; a tortured kind of self-serving moral equivalence. At least with pacifists and subversives you know where you stand. With them I have no argument on the field of honor. They are fighting for something they believe in.

This argument is a position without honor, and it imposes on the troops a narrative of their own combat history as dishonor foolisly conspired in, with which they are supposed to live for the rest of their lives . . . if they buy into this. It is the same bill of goods now being sold to previously/supposedly dishonorable Vietnam Vets like myself.

Don't do this to another generation of soldiers. Don't dare co-sign this knife in the back so sharp a soldier is not supoposed to feel it.
-by John Boyle


As much as I appreciate all the entertainers who 'support the troops', I do have a problem with that added "...but not the war". Here's why. Saying you support the troops but not the cause they are literally risking their lives for (as volunteers, no less) is a very patronizing attitude towards folks that deserve a little bit more respect than that. It's the short-hand and polite equivalent of saying, "Well, gosh, those Marines and Soldiers, they're just so friendly and adorable, I think the world of them. Unfortunately, they aren't very bright (unlike actors and singers, of course) or they would have seen through Bush and Cheney's schemes and refused to show up for this racist, illegal war for oil. Regardless of their mental and moral shortcomings, though, I really do support the sheep...er, I meant troops, and I really do hope they come home safe so they can come to their senses (with the help of me and my celebrity friends, naturally) and help elect a President who isn't a total fascist warmonger".

Thanks but no thanks, if it's all the same to me. I would just as soon have folks like Charlie Daniels, Ted Nugent and Tom Selleck in my corner, who support me AND the cause I'm fighting for, and leave Cher and the rest of the 'limosine left' out of it. If I want to be treated like a slightly retarded child by some pampered celebrities, I'll ask for it. Or not, as the case may be.
-by Pave Low John


OK... But where does that leave those of us on the left who are honestly and sincerely against the war - yet don't feel animosity towards the troops? "Some of my best friends are troops."
-by the Liberal Avenger


The major difference here is Cher is against the war, yet she got involved with a project to help protect the troops. She's not the most eloquent spokesperson out there, but her actions speak louder than her words.
-by SFC D


I support the troops. I want them to come home where they belong, rather than be ground up in the Liar-in-Chief's failed neocon imperalist adventure.
-by WW


I dont really buy into it either. I have seen people explain how they can support the troops but not the mission, but it is rare.

Inevitably in most, as in Cher's case, they come out and say how they feel the troops are just doing their jobs and that others sent them there. Cher pretty much says that when troops tell her they feel that they are doing the right thing, she takes it to mean that doing the right thing is following orders so as not to get into trouble. Wrong. When I say I think we are doing the right thing, I am talking collectively as in the mission is the right thing to do.

The condescention comes into play in that they know the average soldier is not a decision maker in the macro sense and has little say in the overarching mission. That does not mean that the avarage soldier does not have the ability to make these decisions if the situation requires it, or in their own personal lives.

I dont know, maybe she didnt mean that and I am just too sensitive to the stereotype of "poor dumb cannonfodder just doing what they are told" being spouted by people whose entire military education comes from Hollywood movies and HBO miniseries.
-by TJ

My problem with the support the troops/oppose the war attempt is that if someone opposes the mission and the effort, how can they rationally be said to support the people carrying out that mission? That's like saying you love your spouse, but oppose what they do, stand for, work at, and believe in. That's support?

I predict that within a year the "I support the troops" meme will be ended and most of the "anti war" radicals will be honest and simply oppose the military. If they were truly anti war, they'd have been raising a stink during President Clinton's military efforts as well. Where were they?

Military

GHEY

"I agree entirely. Americans should have the legal right to marry the person of their choice. I choose to marry Angelina Jolie. Please have the legislation declaring Ms. Jolie my wife drawn up immediately."

Eugene Volkh tackles the idea of same-sex "marriage" (I put this in quotes because marriage has a specific definition, much like "apple" and "walk," and in no way does this definition allow two people of the same gender) in an article today in the Volokh Conspiracy:

I've written about how the fears that recognizing same-sex marriage will lead to recognition of incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage are, as a practical matter, ill-founded. Nor do I think that there's a logical equivalence between the three that means that, to be consistent, those who accept the first must accept the others. Recognizing same-sex marriage, I think, is likely to help society; recognizing the other kinds, I think, is more likely to hurt society.

He goes on to quote from a strategy page on how to get gay "marriage" made legal that highlights a strategy by two New York Men, which basically involves harassment and constantly bombarding staffers of legislators and the men when they make public appearances. The first technique given is this one:

At regular intervals of every business day -– even better, every hour of every business day -– telephone both the Albany and Queens district offices of Senators Maltese and Padavan to ask them questions such as “Why don’t you support the right of all New Yorkers to marry the person of their choice?” and “Why do you think that lesbians and gay men should be second-class citizens?”

Which is a question that leads places the two men may or may not be aware of or support. Marry the person of their choice is the key phrase here. Volokh continues:

Now I'm pretty certain that most supporters of same-sex marriage (quite likely including Prof. Pinello himself) do not support the right of all New Yorkers to marry the person of their choice...On the other hand, if indeed same-sex marriage wins using the "right of all New Yorkers to marry the person of their choice" argument -- if this right is therefore accepted, either by a court or by a legislature, or perhaps by courts and legislatures throughout the country -- then that would, it seems to me, strengthen the argument in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage or incestuous marriage.

Which is a discerning point which I've raised repeatedly. There is a court-invented "right" to marry in this country (Loving v Virginia), but under no circumstances is this to be concluded that therefore everyone has a right to marry exactly whomever they wish. We all, in every state except Massachusetts (for now) have the same restrictions on whom we may and may not marry:

1. Not too closely related
2. Over a certain age
3. Not already married
4. Only one person at a time
5. Willing to marry
6. The same species
7. Living
8. Not the same gender
   

Everyone has these same restrictions, if I had a sister, one guy could marry her - if she was old enough, unmarried, and willing - but I could not. This is not some intolerable cruelty, because the same situation is true should he have a sister. Claiming people have a right to marry exactly whomever they wish means I could have a harem of Phoebe Cates, Molly Ringwald, Marilyn Monroe, Ingrid Bergman, and Helen of Troy. To start with. Not only could they not say no, but the government would be compelled to force them to marriage, and no restrictions whatsoever could apply - living or dead.

Commenters at the Volokh Conspiracy had this to say:

Same question as Caliban Darklock: How did you determine that polygamy would be more likely to hurt society than gay marriage? I skimmed your article and it only addressed the slipery slope argument.

As I understood it, your reason that the slipery slope is not a worry in the case is because polygamy is not as popular as gay-marriage, so it can't overcome the fact that it's not deeply rooted in American tradition. But this says nothing about whether the acceptance of gay-marraige logially requires or supports the acceptance of polygamy. Nor about the judgment of which, if either of the two, would hurt society.

Is there some other reason you think polygamy would be worse for america than gay marriage? I assume you are friendly with and have observed good gay families, so you can make a judgment as to their utility based upon personal observation or studies that have been done. But you are likely not familiar with any polygamist families, so are there studies that would support your view that poligamy would hurt America?
-by bar


Polygamy harms society in two ways:
1. Women are forced into a subservient role where their needs are secondary to a man who has to "serve" 1-4 other women. They are often treated like garbage. See here:
Polygamy.org
This may be more an indictment of LDS than polygamy, but they are the only quasi-sanctioned practioners I know. All the others I have met are bigamists that are sociopaths leeching off women in several states.
2. Welfare
Dual income families have enough trouble nowadays raising 2 kids. What happens when you have 5 wives, 20 kids, and one income? Food stamps, TANF, etc. We have more to worry about from these folks than Regan'sb fabled "Cadillac queens."
See here:
abuse of welfare by polygamists

While I don't understand it and think it is a bad idea for myself, I refuse to believe that these are representative of all cases. But I refuse to support polygamy until I hear of a situation in which all cases are truly happy and each individual is in an equal footing, able to walk away easily, is being supported enough emotionally, etc.
-by Tammy

'1. Women are forced into a subservient role"

I think this is backwards. As I argued long ago in the discussion of the economics of marriage in Price Theory and Hidden Order, legalizing polygyny increases the demand for wives and so bids up their implicit price--meaning that both polygynous and monogamous wives are in a position to demand more favorable treatment in marriage. In a society where daughters belong to their fathers, the increased price goes to the father as bride price, but in a society like ours, it goes to the wife.

Also, various people argue, in effect, that all the polygamous relationships they are aware of are ugly. Given that polygamy is illegal, sensible people engaging in such relationships--I've known of a few--maintain a low profile.

Or in other words I, like some other posters, cannot see why Eugene regards polygamy as a bad thing.
-by David Friedman


My understanding is that the supportable rationale for banning consanguinous marriage is not possible genetic harm, but social harm. Someone on a thread further down made the cogent point that we allow couples with very high chances of conceiving genetically damaged children to marry. (In fact, by default unrelated parents with a 100% chance of conceiving children with a debilitating genetic condition are able to marry.) And the actual danger of genetic harm to the children of consanguinous couples is generally overstated. The danger is more of a sort of predation, where children could be raised with the intent of putting them into a consanguinous relationship.

That's more or less the practical harm in polyamory, too. Even the ideal form, where fully educated and consenting adults are allowed to marry other consenting adults as often as they please, would have some serious social harms (such as a lack of eligible partners for the remainder). But that ideal doesn't seem to ever happen. The empirical evidence of situations such as fundamentalist Latter Day Saints cults is that polygamous and consanguinous situations both lead to very damaging family situations, in which children are not allowed to establish themselves outside of the family. One of the best and most accessible accounts of the real-life results of polygamous and consanguinous communities is Under the Banner of Heaven, which is a little disjointed but very telling.

I've explained it very clumsily, but other commenters have (and, I'm sure, will) do so more comprehensively. The big difference between polyamory and consanguiniy on the one ha