Rago Holds Up More of a Mirror Than an Indictment

Joseph Rago writes in the December 20 Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal what at first might appear to be a scathing indictment of the blog community, but it is fact a mirror reflecting the worst of the mainstream media and ultimately explaining why blogs rise and newspaper circulations plunge.

Rago's entire take on the WWW and blogs in general is broad brushed, elitist tripe:

The blogs are not as significant as their self-endeared curators would like to think. Journalism requires journalists, who are at least fitfully confronting the digital age. The bloggers, for their part, produce minimal reportage. Instead, they ride along with the MSM like remora fish on the bellies of sharks, picking at the scraps.

Wow; I'am glad Rago has moved past this elitism stuff, otherwise I might think he was just another traditional media snob. Journalism requires journalist? Tell me Mr. Rago, where do you pick up your journalism license? I majored in Journalism, was managing editor of my small college weekly, won awards from various collegiate press associations, worked for a while at a network affiliate, in public relations and in politics and have yet to meet a journalist that was such by any other virtue but educational emphasis and a decision to work in that field.

There is no standard, test or commission that ensures one is a good or bad journalist except for the court of public opinion. As far as the blogs picking up scraps, it sounds exactly like picking up a dozen different dailies from around the country and reading the same AP news/opinion/can't tell the difference story. The MSM chases its own tail with frightening regularity and if Rago does not see this it is willful blindness. Watch any White House Press briefing, read the major daily papers, watch the network news and cable news (Yes, including Fox) and you see an automaton of frightening proportions when you consider this is supposed to be the vanguard of truth and accountability. The press has become a lazy, following and often politically driven institution that mistakes self aggrandizing as asking tough questions and too often gives out free passes to those in our public service considered "friendlies."

But what really seems to bother Rago more than anything (except that the right seems to dominate the blogs) is that there are so many non-journalist writing these days. We're not as serious as Rago and his pals, we don't posses the same faculties for introspection, seriousness and we are just, darn it, NOT journalist. It's obviously so vexing to Rago.

Rago complains that there is "rarely...sustained or systematic blog thought." Oh dear God. Watch any C-Span panel of journalist and often what passes for "rigor" or systematic thought" is simply the systematic regurgitation of the same press releases and/or quotes again and again without the slightest hint of skepticism or real intellectual digging for underlying fact or verification. If bloggers are the cattle of journalism, the MSM has become the great Bison herds of the 1800's.

His writing about the blogs also underscores the complete lack of introspection among "professional" journalist these days; their defense of even their most glaring mistakes is reflexive and vacuous, so lacking in intellectual honesty that it has led to the blog explasion he so decries.

But what really offends me about this hit piece posing as the rigor and careful thought trumpeted throughout is the anti-democratic notion that the competition in the marketplace of ideas is okay, so long as the ideas are put out there by the right people. Like the thoroughly trained, intellectually fit journalist of Mr. Rago's caliber:

But democracy does not work well, so to speak, without checks and balances. And in acceding so easily to the imperatives of the Internet, we've allowed decay to pass for progress.

Without the checks and balances of a highly qualified journalist to tell us which opinions are valid, Mr. Rago? Are there lots of bad blogs? You bet. There are also lots of bad journalist. There is a lot of fault to be found on the blogs, but they do not erode democracy or the great debate, Mr. Rago, just your over-inflated opinion of yourself and your occupation.

Anyone who reads the last quote from Rago's piece and does not detect the malodorous scent of a snob is suffering from an common sense head cold.

Now THIS Is Ironic

I noticed this post on Gateway Pundit yesterday: Iraqi Red Crescent: U.S. threatens work .

Dr. Jamal Al-Karbouli, vice president of the Iraqi Red Crescent, said some U.S. forces appeared not to realize that the society, which uses as its symbol the Muslim red crescent instead of the red cross, was part of the international humanitarian movement.
"The main problem we are facing is the American forces more than the other forces," Al-Karbouli told reporters in Geneva. "We are spending a lot of time to explain about the Red Crescent."
Al-Karbouli said insurgent groups in
Iraq did not pose as great a problem for the organization.
"The insurgents, they are Iraqis, a lot of them are Iraqis, and they respect the Iraqis. And they respect our (the Red Crescent's) identity, which is neutrality."
He also complained that Red Crescent offices in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf provinces had been repeatedly "attacked" by U.S.-led multi-national forces searching for insurgents.
"We have flags, we have everything, we have (the) logo, so they (U.S. forces) know everything, but unfortunately they come again and attack us many times," Al-Karbouli said. He complained that U.S. forces broke doors and windows at the Red Crescent headquarters "and they didn't find anything, and they left." Al-Karbouli said insurgent groups had tried to enlist support from the Red Crescent, but the organization had refused.
"We always say no. We want to keep our neutrality," he said.
Doctors and other medical workers have been targeted by militants in bombings and shootings in Iraq's relentless violence. Hospitals also have become safe havens for insurgents or Shiite militiamen, who have sometimes holed up in them in battles with U.S. forces.

Then I wake up this morning to see that gunmen carried out a mass kidnapping of RED CRESCENT workers in Bagdad just hours ago.

You see, when we try to find terrorist who kill civilians in Iraq by kicking down doors, our Democratic party politicians, like John F Kerry says our troops "terrorize children." (Kerry is now on his "World Tour 06: President Bashar Assad , Eat with the Troops!") By the way, I'm sure the people of Lebanon are just wild over Kerry meeting with the man who, along with Iran, is seeking to plunge their nation into bloody constraint once again and ultimately spark a wider pan-Arab-Israeli war.

So the contrast is clear, we kick down doors, then leave, the terrorist kidnap, torture and kill the men, when they are not busy bombing markets full of women and children.

Folks, this ISG, Kerry, Nelson, ET AL lunacy is getting out of hand. Peace in our time. Oh Joy.

Porn, Morality and Feministing Girls Gone Wild

The sleazy piece of human excrement shown here is Joe Francis, responsible to the trash called Girls Gone Wild. Francis has made millions selling tapes of flashing college and sometimes high school age girls to closet pedophiles and teen boys who can't get dates. Cruising spring break spots with video cameras, Francis and crew goad drunk girls into performing on camera for free and then sells them via cable TV infomercials.

But it seems some were underage and his company got a big fine, community service and he still faces more charges.

In 2003 a GGW crew filmed two 17 year old girls engaging in sexual activity and others came forward shortly after.

Many are outraged, and rightfully, so that this odious enterprise has resulted in a fine that equals about 12 percent of his company's profits from 2005. There is a lot of outrage out there on the net and rightfully so.

Except.....

My favorite target for non-thinkers everywhere is Feministing. Check the short post and endless comments on the subject of Francis and GGW; everything from wishes for jailhouse rape of Francis to fantasies of violence abound. This is a website that revels in thoughts of violence on men who objectify women, once again, under some circumstances not a bad idea, as in unwanted physical contact.

So what's my problem with the Feministing ladies? The fact that they scorn and make fun of Mary Beth Buchanan for prosecuting people who write stories about the abduction and rape of children and men who make porn films depicting the violent rape and even killing of women. Seriously.

I don't mean to beat this to death, but the outright hypocrisy and/or lack of thought on where they stand on these issues of exploitation of women and children is astounding and will remain so until, I suppose, I get hit in the face with the brick that makes me think Girls Gone Wild is bad because it objectifies women and prosecuting people who write about and/or film the rape of women and children is bad. Honestly kids, I just don't get it...

Iraq Study Group, Fruit Salad and Iran

I am struck by the difference in attitude and questions between the press attending the grand unveiling of the ISG Recommendations and the White House Press Corps.

There were actually some pointed and tough questions at the grand unveiling, such as:

QUESTION: You're certainly a group of distinguished elder statesmen, but tell me, why should the president give more weight to what you all have said, given that -- as I understand, you went to Iraq once, with the exception of Senator Robb; none of you made it out of the Green Zone -- why should he give your recommendations any more weight than what he's hearing from his commanders on the ground in Iraq?
HAMILTON: The members of the Iraq Study Group are, I think, public servants of a distinguished record. We don't pretend now, we did not pretend at the start, to have expertise. We've put in a very intensive period of time. We have some judgments about the way this country works and the way our government works, and some considerable experience within our group on the Middle East.
We recognize that our report is only one, and there will be many recommendations. But the report will stand on its own and be accepted or rejected on its own.
We tried to set forth here achievable goals. It's a very easy thing to look at Iraq and sit down and set out a number of goals that really have no chance of all of being implemented. We took a very pragmatic approach because all of these people up here are pragmatic public officials.
HAMILTON: We also hope that our report will help bridge the divide in this country on the Iraq war and will at least be a beginning of a consensus here. Because without that consensus in the country, we do not think ultimately you can succeed in Iraq.
BAKER: Let me add to that that this report by this bunch of has- beens up here is the only bipartisan report that's out there.

It is impossible to impart the sneering tone of Baker's comment. The question was perhaps the most important however glossed over by Hamilton and rejected out of hand by Baker. The Military Adviser's to the ISG were not consulted on the military recommendations and many a military person from John McCain to General Barry McCaffrey has pointed out its tank-sized holes.

Other good question were posed on the reality of their recommendations being accepted in toto (more on that in a bit), the reality of real dialogue with Iran and Syria etc.

On the other hand, the White House press corps and network anchors/talking heads saw the delivery of the WORD, the repudiation of Bush and the confirmation of their every deepest, darkest thought about the Iraq.

It also, in their eyes, justified how bunch of reporters who rarely get out of New York City or the beltway, never get intelligence briefings (except for leaks they print) and have never consulted with a General, Colonel or Master Sargent on the ground in Iraq could know the REAL story of Iraq so well. For them it's not about Iraq per se, it's about vindication of their point of view. One wonders what the reaction would be if the ISG had come out with recommendations to increase the intensity of the war. But they did not and it's a no brainer why.

Commissions, committees and think tanks run to the center, to compromise and away from controversy and decisiveness like dogs run to steak over corn on the cob. Committees do not come up with bold new visions, they promote blinders and more of the same. They ISG report is full of cold war thinking in an asymmetrical war world.

Baker, in the announcement news conference (the Second Noel to the media left, but this time with two wise men and eight sheep) justified the loathsome idea of actually negotiating with the fascist regime in Iran by citing the fact we spoke with the Soviets during the cold war. We sure did; but it was not until we negotiated from the position of a military and economic buildup they could not possibly keep up with was real concessions and eventually the dissolution of the USSR achieved under Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Baker then sat before the Senators the next day and said the plan was "not fruit salad ...where you can just take the parts you like..it's a comprehensive plan."

Well I'll agree that it's not fruit salad and as my old bud used to say, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken crap either - and this is chicken crap at its worst.

R.I.P. Elizabeth Bolden

Elizabeth "Lizzie" Bolden died yesterday at 116; she was the worlds oldest person.

Hey, Sean Penn, Mike Farrell, Janeane Garofalo, Tim Robbins: THIS Takes Guts:

(AFP Photo)

Iran students heckle Ahmadinejad.

This is not criticizing an administration that, despite your dim-witted hyperbole, will never arrest, jail, torture or take away your life or family; this takes REAL guts. When you go protest dictators instead of elected officials of our republic, we'll take your seriously.

I'm Sure Iran Will Be Quite Reasonable:

Holocaust deniers gather in Iran for 'scientific' conference in this Guardian story. You know, the usual gang, Ahmadinejad, David Duke, those cuddly Klansman. Wow, I bet Israel is sooo pumped over Jim Baker wanting to throw them under the bus for Mid-East peace.

Haniyeh: Hamas will not recognize Israel

I'm sure the ISG will figure out a way around this little speed bump:

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh told thousands of Iranians on Friday that his Hamas-led government will never recognize Israel and will continue to fight for the "liberation of Jerusalem."

Making his first visit abroad since the militant group took power in March, Haniyeh blasted U.S. demands that Hamas recognize Israel as a basis for renewed peace talks and before international aid to the Palestinians resumes.

The U.S. "and Zionists ... want us to recognize the usurpation of the Palestinian lands and stop jihad and resistance and accept the agreements reached with the Zionist enemies in the past," Haniyeh told worshippers at Tehran University.

Interesting Stories from Daily Telegraph: Aghanis Feel Better Off; Just retired head of British Army Says Don't Leave Job Unfinished in Iraq

In Afghanistan:

70 per cent say they are "grateful" rather than "unhappy" with the presence of NATO troops in the country.

While the same report says more Afghans are worried about the security situation, with increased Taliban backed attacks, they clearly feel better off with NATO there. Go Figure.

On Iraq, General Sir Mike Jackson, just retired head of the British Army says about Iraq:

Despite the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group that there should be a clear exit strategy from the country, Sir Mike warned that not to see the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns to their "proper conclusions would be a disaster".
Commenting on the Iraq Study Group's conclusions, Sir Mike said: "To leave Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are fully able to deal with the current violence would be both morally wrong and a fundamental strategic mistake."

T.F. Boggs, Plain Spoken Solder, on ISG

Read it here. (Hat Tip Powerline)

More Katrina Follow Up

After receiving a rather strong comment saying "Your lies disgust me" I decided to expand a bit more on the Katrina recovery effort. But first let me digress for a moment:

The person who left the comment (posted below unedited) starts out by saying he/she is a "white" and "conservative." For anyone else who may care to post comments in the future, your race means nothing to me and trotting out racial credentials like I would have a racial/ethnic litmus test for commentators to this site is frankly stupid and insulting. So save it.

On to post Katrina: my earlier blog was about whether or not there was a massive response to Katrina. There was.

Here in San Antonio we hosted a large number of Katrina victims (many of who carried on about the superiority of our schools, etc, compared to pre-Katrina New Orleans). Everyone from churches to private citizens to the Red Cross bent over backwards with kindness for the evacuees here (many are still here). I wonder if the indignant "white conservative" who blasted my post know that so many people in San Antonio donated clothing, bedding, toys and other materials to our evacuee guests that they had to start turning them away for lack of staff and storage to handle it all? Or that San Antonio hosted 25,000 + Katrina victims, 18,00 in shelters, the rest in private homes? Or that donations to our local food bank tripled the first month to six millions pounds of food?

More on this: San Antonio spent $37,000,000 on Katrina/Rita evacuee-related costs (the overwhelming amount on Katrina victims) and had been reimbursed or received approval for $35,000,000 by FEMA as of June 2006. So does FEMA just like San Antonio more or could it be a matter of competence? I would invite anyone who cares about the facts to read this report from the City of San Antonio (PDF). It shows a city and state government that knew how to interact with both private and public sectors to get things done fast and it should make Louisiana and New Orleans officials weep with shame.

Contrast that report with this:
New Orleans hires expert to tackle Katrina recovery04 Dec 2006 20:04:33 GMT04 Dec 2006 20:04:33 GMT . Notice the DATE on this Reuters report? A few excerpts for those who hate clicking links:

Fifteen months after Hurricane Katrina destroyed his city, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said on Monday he has hired a disaster recovery expert amid widespread criticism that rebuilding has been too slow.
Edward Blakely, who worked in New York after the Sept. 11 attacks and in northern California after the 1989 earthquake and 1991 wildfires, will head Nagin's newly created Mayor's Office of Recovery Management.
Blakely, currently chair of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Sydney in Australia, has visited New Orleans several times since the deadly storm on Aug. 29, 2005. More than 80 percent of the city was flooded after water broke through the levees.
"This is the first city that I've been in that was totally devastated," Blakely told reporters at City Hall. "All the others, there was only a portion of the city that was devastated."
Blakely, 69, said he will coordinate all the pieces of the public bureaucracy and work with private plans for his long-term goal of bringing back those who want to return.
"I want to do that as soon as possible, because I think that's the stumbling block right now," Blakely said.

An observation or two: Fifteen months? This man with great credentials is out there for fifteen months before this idiot mayor (re-elected by the citizens of New Orleans, by the way) hires a coordinator? What is the first thing the man says he will do? COORDINATE between private and public sector - what a great idea! Too bad not a single politician in Louisiana had this thought prior to now. An entire city devastated - an entire city. It can take longer than fifteen months to build a hotel.

Nagin's answer for why it took him so long to make this appointment? Once again, from the Reuters story: "Nagin justified the delay in the hiring by saying that only now did the city have the "momentum and clarity" to take advantage of the expertise of someone like Blakely." Good answer, Zenmaster Nagin.

I've read comments about people not even applying for federal aid after 15 months because they do not have proof they owned or were paying on a house; if after 15 months, you cannot put pen to paper, send a certified return receipt letter to your lending company and get a payment record, well, I leave others to draw conclusions. Those lenders want that property paid for/rebuilt as well; If you can't get a response from your mortgage company after 15 months, hire a lawyer, there are more of them in any given city than refugees.

I DO agree the conduct of many insurance companies in the post-Katrina climate has been criminal. As a conservative in the legal field for many years, I have told my other conservative friends again and again that all of the "tort reform" and concessions to insurance companies would come back in a big way. I knew it did the day I saw that Trent Lott had filed suit against his insurance company. Good Trent, now you know the consequences of passing legislation without knowing what the hell you're talking about.

As far as FEMA trailers, I bet they suck. But once again, my point was in third world countries, people don't live in trailers provided for free, the sleep in tents or the dirt and the only way to get their home back is to rebuild it with their own two hands.

One last thing: the people of New Orleans have known, or should have known, for YEARS that those levees were a problem waiting to happen. Now matter who was in charge of them, the PEOPLE sat passively by and assumed the government who brought you medicare, social security and the levees in question would deal with it and fix everything lickity split. In 2002 THE TIMES-PICAYUNE ran a four part series with dire predictions of what could happen if a major storm hit the NOLA area. In 1965 Levees broke and 8 feet of water filled the lower 9th ward. Stories about corruption and shoddy building practices from levee contractors have been around for years. You can't just sit passively in a frying pan and then say it's all someone else's fault when you get burned - and please don't write implying that race or economic standing prevented New Orleans residents from demanding better.

Listen, lots of things were done wrong before and after Katrina and lots of people have suffered. Everyone from Bush to Nagin to New Orleans residents have to take their proportionate share of the blame. But to say it's dishonest to point out that the money is there and the people at the bottom have to take responsibility too is just plain wrong.

Christmas Quote of the Day

Pray you, dutifully prime

Your matin chime, ye ringers;

May you beautifully rime

Your evetime song, ye singers.

Gloria, Hosanna in excelsis!

"Spiking" the Katrina Myth

This article in the Federal Times outlines what has been common knowledge since early this year: Far from the Federal Government under responding to the Katrina tragedy in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, the response was so overwhelming that ONE BILLION dollars (at least) went to fraudulent and duplicated payments.

Spike Lee said the Hurricane Katrina response made him think he was in a third world country after he breezed into New Orleans to film his one sided agenda driven documentary. Jeff Crouere of New Orleans wrote an excellent piece regarding Lee's slanted documentary.

But since I heard Lee's third world country comment on the Monday Night Football Pregame show earlier this year (sitting beside Marshal Faulk, who grew up in one of New Orleans' poorest districts and who was not buying it, it appeared to me) I have been bothered by such obvious hyperbole.

New Orleans official population when Katrina struck was 454,000; there was likely well in excess of 100,000 in the city when Katrina struck and the levees broke, yet the wildest estimates place the dead at around 3,200 and this is likely an overstated number with the most accurate counts around 1,800-2,000. That's for every area hit, not just New Orleans.

3,000 + were murdered on September 11, 2001.

Katrina is around number 28 on the list of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes--let me say that again: number 28. The great hurricane of 1780 is estimated to have killed at least 22,000. In fact, the 1780 hurricane season is the deadliest on record (I wonder how the global warming crowd explains that?). The 1900 Galveston Hurricane killed 8,000-12,000 and so on (click chart link above).

Before, during and after Katrina countless thousands were relocated, provided with food shelter, homes and jobs; communities opened their arms while the federal government provided untold billions in relief funding, so much that a billion was wasted. Just for some perspective:

In order for a Spike Lee movie to gross one billion at $7.00 a ticket, 142,857,142 people would have to go see it. That's about half the total population of the country. Yet we threw that much away on fraud and duplication. People want someone or something to blame when really bad things happen and mistakes get amplified in today's 24 hour news world when Geraldo Revera stands on camera and blubbers for the victims instead of lifting a finger to actually help, as did the U.S. Coast Guard, citizens and, yes, the federal government.

Third world country? I think not.

Say Thanks to the Troops!

Let's Say Thanks from Xerox makes it easy. (Hat Tip to The Corner)

Iraq Psychotherapy Group?

Well, John Podhoretz nails it again.

Feministing Shows lack of Moral/Intellectual Courage, Consistency

Sa'eed Mortazavi; Hey, at least he's not John Bolton !

Feministing has an understated celebration of John Bolton's resignation as United States ambassador to the United Nations. Way to go ladies. The left hates Bolton because he is so mean to an organization that allowed in its Human Rights Council Said Mortazavi. a "Special Prosecutor from Iran, involved in the arrest, torture, rape and death of Canadian photojournalist Ms. Zahra Kazemi in 2003. But we certainly would not want someone like Bolton to stay at the UN and plainly call them on their repulsive hypocrisy on such matters.



By the way, the same man said he wanted distributors of pornography in Iran executed, has ordered the mass arrest (and surely torture) of young Iranian protesters and shut down countless newspapers and blogs, arresting and imprisoning the journalist. But with people like him as a delegate the UN Human Rights Council we don't want John Bolton going there and being mean, would we?



And they are afraid of Mary Beth Buchanan and her "moral" opposition to pornography that portrays the rape of women and children? Way to go Feministing.

Borat, Iraq and Variations on Democracy

William Tucker post an excellent piece on the American Spectator.

In regard Iran, Tucker writes:

I THINK OUR BEST STRATEGY right now is to let Iraq sink or swim -- but not necessarily to expect the worst. There is something oddly compelling about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "letter to the American people." Why not allow him to join the discussion? After all, Iran will be living cheek-by-jowl with Iraq much longer than we will. Whatever influence the Iranian Shi'ia have in Iraq, it will be offset by Sunni intervention from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and so on. They can do a much better job of calming the civil war than we ever will. The Sunnis and Shi'ia have been killing each other for centuries. If we can put them under the glare of world opinion, they may learn to get along better -- which would make the whole Muslim world less lethally violent.

While interesting, I think Tucker assumes a level playing field between nations that does not exist. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria each have internal considerations that may not allow them to have the single-purpose driven policies towards Iraq as does Iran, which considers itself THE new power player in the middle east. It is unlikely that Saudi Arabia will be able to modulate the policy goals of Iran in the region; I think this is particularly true when viewed in light of the fact that America has always supplied the military backbone for the Saudis (and this only when the flow of oil is endangered).

This does not mean that talks with Iran are impossible in either the near or short term; but it must be done from strength; none of the aforementioned countries have the muscle and they and Iran are acutely aware of this.

Also in today's AMSPEC, Joel Himelfarb expands on the potential dangers of rushing into talks with nations who have failed in the past to respond to diplomacy.

"ACLU Nativity Scene" Displayed at UT

As noted last week, the Young Conservatives of Texas-University of Texas put up their ACLU Nativity Scene yesterday and it will be up again today at the West Mall.

The accompanying picture from the YCT-UT website shows "Gary and Joseph, Nancy Pelosi as an angel, the three wise men are Stalin, Lenin and Marx and a terrorist shepherd.

Obviously demonstrating the absurd with the absurd is the aim of the project, which of course has no baby Jesus and says "The Season" rather than Christmas. It's ashamed this is not as absurd as it should be, with the ACLU constantly at war with the Christian religion and Christmas displays around the nation.

Tony McDonald, Chairman of YCT-UT was kind enough to do a short email interview with Celebrate Democracy Prior to the display going up:

CD: Tony, how did the event come about
TM: I actually had the idea of doing an ACLU Nativity without a Jesus in the manger right before Christmas last year, when the War on Christmas was getting a lot of attention. I'm actually optimistic that last season may have been the peak if Christians continue to demand that their rights not be infringed upon.
As the year moved on, we continued to bat ideas around of how we could alter the scene entirely while I maintained the restriction that regardless of how entertaining each item in the scene was, it had to relate to either an issue from the war on Christmas or a specific ACLU position.
We've been actually working on the scene for the last couple of months, ordering plans, cutting the outlines, painting and building the manger.

CD: What has the reaction been since your announcement?
TM: The reaction has been 10-1 positive. I've gotten some hate mail from far-leftists and honestly, If I don't aggravate them then I'm not doing my job. I've also gotten a little apprehension from Christians who don't like us "denigrating a religious symbol." However, I think these are people who don't realize that this event is one of the most effective ways to get people's attention and make them talk about the role they want groups like the ACLU to play in shaping our society.

CD: How is your relationship/interactions with left or liberal groups at UT?
TM: I generally have a pretty healthy relationship with our University Democrats and other liberal groups, with the exception of the extremists that generally make up the ranks of Students for the ACLU or the International Socialists.I generally don't mind counter-protests when they are students...It is really only off-campus groups that attempt to be violent or irrational.
In Regard to teachers and administrators while many of the administrators that I deal with are liberals and don't approve of the message that we put forward, they have never cause us problems with the content of our events. UT is surprisingly good on Free Speech Issues for a liberal university. Many of my friends from YCT chapters across the state envy my position. While there is still some regulation on issues like amplified sound and space reservations, there isn't really any regulation on the content of speech.

Tony also has some comments about reaction to conservative speakers/groups on campus that placed UT in a surprisingly good light and also showed something of the character of this young man:

TM: As far as the general tempo of campus, I would say that we don't fit the myth that we have as an overwhelmingly liberal university. No neo-con can speak on campus, otherwise a group of 9/11 conspiracist students will show up and make trouble. We haven't faced too terrible of trouble holding events....people will challenge and yell at us, but all that requires is a spine. Since I have been at UT, we really haven't had any hateful or violent opponents.

Thanks to Tony for responding at a busy time that includes going into finals next week.

You can follow this link to see more pictures of the display.

Bolton Resigns, America, World Victimized by Democrat Extremist

John Bolton, who despite hysterical predictions from such left luminaries as Ted Kennedy, his sandwich partner Chris Dodd and Barbara Boxer has served as an effective and respected advocate for the United States at the United Nations has resigned, one presumes to save himself from another round of manufactured accusations and half truths before a democrat majority senate Foreign Relations Committee.

President Bush has called the democrats tactics this morning "stubborn obstructionism" and he could not be more on the mark.

The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . .
(Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)

For those of you who pontificate about the Bush Administration "shredding the constitution I would submit that transferring the power of the FULL SENATE to give up or down votes on nominees to a hand full of Committee members is extraordinarily dangerous. Yes, this means when republicans do it too. Committees should hold full, vigorous hearings, listening to witnesses for and against the nominee, issue uncompromising reports and recommendations and then let the vote go to the floor. Anything less is unacceptable.

Of course, except for effectively building coalitions and consensus on North Korea, Darfur, the Middle East, UN Reform and being an aggressive defender of the United States, he really was a flop. I'm sure the business as usual people at the UN (take our money while bashing our country), North Korea, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah are as happy as the democrats on this. It really angers me for the folks who scream the most about using the UN want anyone but the most effective person for the job there. It takes irrational opposition to a new low.

Christmas Quote of the Day

I heard the bells on Christmas Day

Their old, familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet

The words repeat

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!~Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Rumsfeld's Parting Thoughts?

According to Reuters, by way of the New York Times, Donald Rumsfeld has some suggestions about Iraq. The memo has been confirmed by the Pentagon. Some of the more interesting reported:

• Decrease quickly the number of U.S. bases, now 55, to five by July 2007;


• Place substantial U.S. forces near the borders with Syria and Iran to reduce infiltration and reduce Iran's influence;


• Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and coalition forces to encourage the Iraqi government to take charge.

There are several others, including troop increases either in Baghdad to fight insurgents or a substantial build up in Iraq all-around, though reportedly he called these options "less attractive."

Sounds just like the inflexible tyrant described by a hand full of mostly anonymous complainers.

John Podhoretz nails it

In Yesterdays New York Post.

Baker, Hamilton and the Surrendering Cowboy Band show why commission, panels and Think Tanks should never be trusted with important matters more important than coffee or tea. Commissions and Panels by their nature are scared, timid little things, afraid to take a real position or offend anyone (or so they often think they do not give offense). If you don't buy that, just read the leaks so far; this is a compromise report headed by two men who have repeatedly espoused a Chamberlain like solution to the Iraq question.

Bjorn Lomborg Interview; UPDATE

Story at Sun-Sentinel regarding quiet hurricane season. (Hat Tip AccuWeather Global Warming Blog)

Additional Update: This 2002 article from Nexus
by Dr David E. Wojick again shows how GW panic groups ignore data not convenient to their theories.

At TCS Daily, one of THE very best websites out there, period, Lomborg talks about global warming and allocation of resources (While there, take note of the related stories in the sidebar).

The Global Warming debate has reached such shrill levels it is hard to believe any progress will be made in finding the actual causes and how or IF man can control it.

Some of the more spectacular failures of the doomsayers include the predictions of a calamitous hurricane season this year, caused by ocean warming. Of course, what the chicken littles failed to understand is that OF COURSE WARM WATER CAUSE BIGGER HURRICANES. But to make the leap of logic that an overall temperature rise of .06 F alone has caused a long term warming trend in the Gulf of Mexico, in particular since overall temperature averages in the Southeast United States have DROPPED is fundamentally flawed.

(Just a cool Graphic, follow links for relevant charts)

Also, this excellent animation and charts shows that for August 2005 in the Gulf of Mexico the surface temperatures of the waters in the Gulf (which can swing wildly, relatively speaking) started an August warming trend towards the beginning of the month (typically the hottest month along the gulf, as anyone who has or does live there will tell you) and peaked along the area most affected by Katrina right as it neared landfall. Got that? The gulf had not been sitting there boiling and waiting for a hurricane to turn into a monster. In Fact, check the charts for a year at the above link and you will see that, as a trend, Gulf surface temperatures rose and fell with the seasons. Amazing.

Not that it matters, because when temperatures cool, the GW shamans say it is due to (you guessed it) WARMING, in fact, whatever happens climatologically speaking is caused by global warming; it's just that those of us who like to see hard evidence are blind anti-science nuts. This is very important to grasp kids: if you prefer the scientific method over wild predictions of future calamity based on little or no hard facts or computer modeling that make the most radical assumptions in their design, you are now an anti-science dullard.

Christmas Post for the Day

Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.

Feminist-Left Unabashed in its Dishonesty

Kathryn Jean Lopez over at The Corner links to a post by Jessica Valenti, Executive Editor of Feministing.com, about the "scary" new Director of The Office on Violence Against Women.

Why is the new Director so scary? Well, she is "another wacky Bush Appointee," Mary Beth Buchanan. First lets run down some of the other "wacky appointees" listed on the White House Press release Valenti links to:

• Belinda Childress Anderson, the first female President of Virginia Union University, to the President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Governer Mark Warner credited Anderson, a black woman, with bringing financial stability to the 140 year old university and raising its academic standards. VUU is a historically black university that counts among its alumni Jesse Jackson, Douglas Wilder and Samuel Lee Gravely, Jr., the first black Admiral in the United States Navy.
• Verna Fowler, Member the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin and founding President of the College of the Menominee Nation, to the President's Board of Advisors on Tribal Colleges and Universities. Fowler has been involved in education of Native Americans for 40 plus years now and has also served as Executive Director, Director of Credit and Finance, and as the Superintendent of Education for the Menominee Tribe.
• Beverly Daniel Tatum, President of Spellman College, to the President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Spellman is a historically black college for women founded in 1881 and ranks among the top historically black colleges in the United States. Tatum has taught, lectured and been published (including by the Harvard Education Review) on the issues of race, racial identity and the psychology of racism.
• Laura L. Rogers, of California, to be Director of the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking at the Department of Justice. Ms. Rogers currently serves as Director of the National Institute for Training Child Abuse Professionals. Previously she served as a Senior Attorney of the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse at the American Prosecutor's Research Institute. She has also served as a Deputy District Attorney in the San Diego County District Attorney's Office. (Ms. Rogers information quoted directly from White House Press Release)

This list of incredibly qualified women and men (Most members of a minority) from just this one set of appointments goes on; what a wacky, scary bunch.

But, on to the wack-job that really bothers Ms. Valenti:

• Mary Beth Buchanan (ominous organ rift please): Ms. Buchanan is the first woman in Pennsylvania's history to be Presidentially appointed to the position of United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Buchanan also served from June 2004 until June 2005 as the Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, a Washington D.C.-based office that provides administrative support to the 94 United States Attorneys' Offices. As an assistant U.S. Attorney for the same district she helped form the Western Pennsylvania Crimes Against Children Task Force. Until her appointment as United States Attorney, Ms. Buchanan served as the Chairperson of the Crimes Against Children Task Force and the district's Child Exploitation Coordinator; she's served as Chair of the Judiciary Committee of the Allegheny County Bar Association; President of the University of Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Inns of Court, and President of the Women's Bar Association of Western Pennsylvania.

You get the picture.

What in Valenti's eyes makes Buchanan someone to be so loathed and feared? Well, for one thing she had the audacity to prosecute 55 people, including Tommy Chong for helping his son sell drug paraphernalia over the internet, a crime in Pennsylania; one of the articles Valenti links to that chronicles the martyrdom of Chong seems to imply that after 9/11 all law enforcement should be solely focused on terrorism-related activities. Oddly enough, however, one of the wacky things about Buchanan according to Valenti and several comments under the story is that Buchanan supports the Patriot Act (!).

Buchanans' next crime against women is prosecuting a California adult film company for three movies it produced and distributed. To quote from the CBS News article Valenti links to to show what a bad choice Buchanan is:

She believes that three films produced and distributed by Extreme Associates by mail and over the Internet contain coercive and violent sex, along with other material that is vile and degrading. Rob Black, president of Extreme Associates, considers that a compliment. One film, called “Forced Entry,” includes shots of women getting raped and murdered. It also includes suffocation, strangulation, beatings and urination. Black calls “Forced Entry” a slasher film with sex, loosely based on the Hillside Strangler case. But 60 Minutes couldn’t find enough plot to show anything beyond the opening credits.

This is anti-anti-violence against women? But we're not through yet. Buchanans' other crime was helping to prosecute a 54 year old Pennsylvania woman for posting stories on a web site depicting adults having sex with pre-teen children. Why would Valenti not like that? To (fully) quote our intrepid feminist:

"She’s an anti-obscenity crusader, prosecuting people for written stories on the internet and going after any and all porn. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of violent porn and the like, but Buchanan strikes me as more interested in enforcing morality than the law.) The legal director for the Pittsburgh ACLU once called Buchanan "the vanguard of [former U.S. Attorney General John] Ashcroft’s attempt to impose his morality on others." Yikes.
So basically, this sucks. I can see it now...VAWA funds being diverted to conservative anti-obscenity groups under the rhetoric of protecting women. I am completely freaked out."

Like totally.

More interested in enforcing morality than the law? If this is the quality of thought and logic produced by degrees in Womens and Gender Studies, such as the one Valenti obtained from Rutgers, refunds should be issued forthwith. In Valenti's world, being against depictions of kidnapping and rape of women as well as small children is suspect if done from a moral perspective.

While there are morals not enforced as laws, all laws are based on the concept of morality, including laws protecting women against hostile work enviornments, children against sexual predators and governing that VERY narrow range of speech so brereft of social value that courts and juries hold them as not protected. Perhaps Ms. Valenti could explain why we should consider the constitution a guiding authority if it is not moral at its foundation?

Valenti's post is the textbook example of Bush Psychosis and the rejection of critical thought in favor of emotional hysteria. A giant leap forward for women everywhere.

At last! A Nativity Scene that will not draw a lawsuit..

Young Conservatives of Texas hit back with humor on a serious issue. (Hat Tip Pajamas Media)

Bush: No Graceful Exit

New York Post story reports Bush says what amounts to no exit as soon as possible. That's, uh, good to hear. Maliki says he has not received the support he needs to get the country under control, but seems to continue to reject more direct American military intervention. Initial reports from the Iraq Study Group do not sound good. I have a sinking feeling.

In response to Vienna and the ACLU:

"All I can do is fall down on my knees and cry 'Holy, Holy,' All I can do is fall down on my knees and cry 'Holy, Holy'; You are HOLY.." (Salvador "Cry Holy")

Hit the Road Jack, errr Nick....

St. Nick out in Vienna.

(Hat Tip LGF)

Newt: Second phase of Iraq "failure"

In New Hampshire.

On the Human Events website he lays out a vision of an aggressive move in Iraq reminiscent of George Washington crossing the Delaware and 11 important questions regarding the Iraq Study Group Report.

He has several good points. Admitting failure in the context of willingness to change, rather than quit, is productive. Newt is no cut and runner for sure.

He also points out what to many of us is obvious: Iran and Syria are not ran by dullards, but rather by shrewd men who know their region - they also cannot be trusted; there are components of the democratic majority the administration and republicans can work with to obtain our goals in Iraq, and; the changes have to be big, bold and decisive.

Go Newt.

Oh Dear God, will this mean more FRENCH tourists too?

News from The Guardian of falling dollars, rising Euros and trips to the U.S.

Baghdad from the Inside: Heartening and Heart Wrenching

Mohhamed at Iraq The Model shared this post with the world yesterday; it reaffirms the best and worst of what we all see in Iraq to one degree or another.

Continuing my theme from last Friday regarding the absurdity of comparing Iraq per capita or deaths per 100,000 as a measure of how good or bad things are going there - my central argument was that they were distinctions with big differences and it did not change the horror of the human toll on the ground (A death is Baghdad is not less tragic or consequential because two die in Mexico City or vice versa). I think this passage from the ITM post linked above illustrates this well:

We decided to go home earlier than usual that day and then we were met by the terrible news about the savage massacre in Baghdad that took away hundreds of innocent lives. I avoided looking at the news after I heard of the open-ended curfew and we had to get prepared for the worse.Terrorists and militias started an open war; the battlefield is our city and the fuel is innocent civilians as always since those criminal groups find it easier to kill civilians than to confront each other (and rid us of their evil). The big problem is that the security forces are not strong enough to stop them, worse than that, some members of these forces let themselves become partners to the criminals.We had no choice but to rely on ourselves to protect our homes and neighborhood insurgents and militias alike. In our mixed block the elders met to assign duties and make plans in case things go wrong. They decided that people should all exchange cell-phone numbers as the fastest means to communicate at times of action, it was also decided that if someone calls to report an attack on his home, everyone else must go up to the roof and start shooting at the direction of the assailants.More roadblocks were erected and older ones strengthened—streets and alleys were blocked in any possible way to prevent any attack with vehicles.They also agreed that no one moves on the streets after a certain hour at night and any moving person would be dealt with as a threat. (Emphasis added)

Later:

Rough times blur the vision and disrupt reason, I understand that. When you hear stories about people burned alive or mass public executions it makes you imagine that the streets are full of monsters coming to predate everything and makes you shout calling for merciless punishment upon even those who are only suspects.Being stuck at home for four days with all the violence going outside and the fear that it might reach you at home was a horrible experience. When the news came that the curfew was over and people began walking on the streets again there was a strange feeling that was particularly very strong this morning in Baghdad; despite all the rumors and fear from more wide-scale revenge attacks there was a feeling among the people that they must go out on the streets and live in all possible means.The most beautiful scene was that of students going to their schools and colleges despite all what happened in the days before.Not everyone will absorb the lesson but I'm sure that this last dose of terror has changed the feelings of so many people here, a change in favor of denouncing and rejecting violence, I hope.

The entire post highlights two major themes I've been hitting on the past several days: equating the violence in numbers or nature with Miami or Washington, D.C. with that in Baghdad just does not wash. In America violence is rarely ideologically driven and is often (as much as 50% in some cities) criminal on criminal, not to mention that often counted in violent deaths in the United States are such categories as suicide, self defense or protection of family/property and domestic violence. Subtract all of that and life in virtually any neighborhood in any city in the United States is Shangri-La compared to Baghdad.

The second part reflects the hope and the need for Iraqis as a group to reject citizen on citizen violence instigated by outsiders and sociopaths.

One last thing - On the story of false reports of violence by Associated Press and others broke by Flopping Aces and well covered by Michelle Malkin and Gateway Pundit, it is interesting to read this last quote from the ITM post:

The other star of the crisis was rumors about ugly revenge attacks and I sometimes feel that those rumors are part of the terrorists and militias propaganda campaign

Al Sadr backers walking out of Iraq Government

According to C-Span minutes ago.

Iraq, winning, lies and action....

Last week (just a few posts down) I argued that violence in Iraq is bad enough in any context and we better figure out a way to control it. I stand by that, but want to clarify :

Gateway Pundit posts today about the relative calm in the majority of Iraq and specifically about Sunnis and Shiites living side by side in Basra, rebuilding infrastructure and in general enjoying a peaceful existence that would likely shock a lot of Americans and Europeans.

Over the past few days Flopping Aces has developed, in a great bit of investigative journalism, that Associated Press and The Los Angeles Times are reporting false or exaggerated stories about military operations and sectarian violence. NBC News proudly declared a Civil War in Iraq:

On "Today," Lauer said NBC News consulted with many experts and carefully deliberated before making the call. He said there are two clearly defined groups, the Sunnis and the Shiites, using violence to gain political supremacy, and there's a government in place that's unable to protect people.

Carefully Deliberated. Sounds Familiar.

Now the problem: While some reports are surely exaggerated or outright falsehoods and while the provinces are quiet, Rome is burning.

As I pointed out on Friday, there is more than enough real violence and mayhem to go around in Baghdad and nearby provinces and cities. Peoples with deep and dogged hatreds, thirsts for power and needs to control are in fact killing one another at what any sane observer would call an alarming rate. Our forces perform bravely and brilliantly on a regular basis in Iraq under sometimes nearly impossible circumstances, including trying to serve, save a people who (even when not warring against one another) may not want the magic of western style democracy.

Rich Lowry in his column and Stanley Kurtz in a Corner post at NRO raises two themes in dire need of serious discussion among all conservatives, and indeed anyone who does not want to see Iraq fall into chaos or under Iranian-Syrian control.

First and foremost, Leadership. No war goes according to the game plan; every war from Iraq back to Caesar's war to put down the Gallic revolt led by Versingetorix finds itself careening off course in unexpected ways, including colossal blunders by Kings, Presidents and Generals. (Victor Davis Hanson in a piece both tongue in cheek and deadly serious catalogues the mistakes of World War Two and how they would be reported today.) It is exactly when things go wrong that leaders rise while others fall or fail.

Right now we have a Commander in Chief who in 2004 seemed to know where he stood and had an air of decisiveness that garnered him a record number of votes over a challenger who gave him everything he could handle - it was no cakewalk. I believe now as I did then that President Bush made enough Americans believe he had the plan to bring stability to Iraq without falling into the kind of indiscernible policy citizens feared and remembered from Vietnam, one where we were not losing but did not have the political will from our leaders OR the electorate to do what was required to win.

Fast forward to now and our Commander in Chief now meets with Nancy Pelosi who has described President Bush as incompetent, a liar and dangerous; he awaits the report of the Iraq study group in a manner that is evocative of someone looking for marching orders. On the military front, if his commanders in the field told him anything from the beginning except destroying Muqtada al-Sadr on the summer of 2004 was exactly the right thing to do, he took bad advice. If they did tell him that and he allowed anyone to override their advice it was a huge mistake. Iyad Allawi, the Iraqi Interim Prime Minister at the time, thought taking out al-Sadr was precisely what needed to be done.

Second, following up on the Kurtz post at NRO, were we (we go to war as a nation) more than a little naive in thinking that elections in an inherently unstable situation were going to pull the various factions together enough to have political and not (often) violence driven solutions to their differences? Also, to backtrack a moment, was the awful decision to enter into yet another truce with al-Sadr made simply in order to not delay the January 2005 elections? I agree that wars cannot have timetables as a rule of thumb; did we make the mistake of thinking democracies can?

Do we have the will now to support "going strong" if President Bush decides that is the game plan? I don't think there is enough support among Americans for "go long" and to go home at this point would be a larger failure than what any democrat or fatalist thinks we currently face.
We have the military resources to take out those like al-Sadr who are a brick wall on the road to an Iraq that can survive on its own. It will cost dear lives on both sides. But we must act decisively soon, both politically and militarily.

It's not defeatism to ask the questions and hope for action, but circumstances sometimes drive a nation at war to hard options. Those who think we are not at that point or very, very near it, are try to put lipstick on a pig.

Associated Press: Gullible or Propagandist?

Flopping Aces may have found the story of the year.

One wonders what might have been if the media during Tet were subjected to the citizen scrutiny shared today? More on this after I have digested this rapidly evolving story.


(Big Hat-Tips to my wife & Gateway Pundit)

Islam, Smith & Wesson and Protecting Women

Fausta's Blog has a great post on a perhaps emerging trend of "Submission Sheik." Please read the entire article, but I present from that story my Quote of the Day:

According to this site, the purpose of the veil is protection. While some decadent Westeners think of condoms when someone mentions protection,
This is the whole point, modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection. Thus, the only purpose of the veil in Islam is protection.
Some of us decadent Western women, however, prefer to protect ourselves with firearms. Never mind that the mark of a civilized society is men's self-control.

As the father of two daughters, ages 21 and 19, I could not agree more.

Iraq, Washington, D.C. and statistics

I've always thought one of the things that separates conservatives from liberals (and I've been around plenty of both) is conservatives are more introspective about their positions. In fact, I often think we can become paralyzed over our own debates and endless assessment of policies and what makes a conservative.

But I am stunned over the numbers game a number of conservative blogs, many I respect deeply, are playing today. It actually started last May when Republican House Member Steve King took the floor to compare the deaths per 100,000 (the standard statistical measure) in Iraq and some American cities. His point was that in many places many more civilians died over a year than were dying in Iraq. Context for numbers is good and required for intelligent discussion; but the context has to be complete.

Many of the hundreds killed in Iraq every day are slaughtered by the forces of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a man so secure in his power and his 10,000 man militia he feels comfortable saying who the leaders of Iraq can and cannot meet with, including the President of the United States. The U.S. Military has been held back from getting al-Sadr before and is being held back now. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refuses to move against al-Sadr. In fact, it seems coalition forces are doing little besides being used as moving targets right now, unless fired upon directly, with no offensive operations of any significant size or scale being undertaken.

Anyone who reads this little blog at all knows I am NOT in favor of abandoning Iraq. I'm in favor of winning. So my question is, who the hell cares how many are killed in Brazil? WE are not there. We ARE in Iraq and if we have no capacity to stop the violence by thugs like al-Sadr and the equally barbaric Sunni militias, it raises some questions that go to the very core of the handling of this entire enterprise up to this point.

The disbanding of the Iraqi military, the complete dismantling of the Baath government infrastructure, the training of Iraqi security and military forces and, not the least question by the way, why are we propping up Maliki who is propping up a murderous thug who kills innocent men, women and children and has declared open war on the United States troops in Iraq. Did we not go there to crush exactly these types?

Do we hang Saddam (I'm more in favor of slow death by scorpion) but coddle the man who coddles and kowtows to al-Sadr?

There is only one circumstance that would make me support a complete pullout from Iraq ASAP: if we're not there to win and bring dignity, peace and safety to the people of Iraq. We better figure out fast if that is what we are going to do, because I'll bet you everything I own that a U.S. military medic or surgeon holding a child mangled by yet another car bomb does not give a tinkers damm about the murder rate in Bolivia.

Thin Thanksgiving week

I'm out of town this week visiting family I only see once or twice a year, so the number of post are few.

I hope each and every person who visits my humble little blog enjoys a wonderful Thanksgiving day and ask for your prayers and thoughts for all of men and women in Uniform around the world.

The cost of winning

In my post of of November 6, 2006, I did my best to discuss the sorry but often necessary choice of war over peace and the death of some to insure the survival of the many. This post on TCS Daily by Philip R. O'Connor is somewhat parallel to my larger point.

Remember when....

Leading up to the election you were a right wing-nut and questioned the patriotism of democrats/the left if you said a vote for them was a vote for "cut & run."

Clinton, the former president, provided a rebuttal from a stage in Rochester, N.Y.
"On this 'stay the course in Iraq' deal, they say we're the cut-and-run crowd," he said. "These people don't look like cut and run to me," he said, gesturing at Eric Massa, a House candidate and Navy veteran, and former Sen. Max Cleland, a triple amputee from war wounds suffered in Vietnam a generation ago. " (DAVID ESPO AND ED WHITE - The Associated Press)

I guess Murtha, Levin, Pelosi, Kennedy, H.R. Clinton and the rest of the gang did not consult Cleland and Massa on Iraq Policy.

Analysis from Dr. Sanity

Dr. Sanity, for those of you with an interest in psychology/psychiatry breaks down some pressing need for therapy in the MSM. (Hat Tip Gateway Pundit)
PLEASE don't rob yourself by not reading every link in her post, it will take a while but is well worth it.



I have about 24 publications/websites on my RSS feed, everything from National Review to the New York Times; the post above explains why. If you just get your news from one or two sources, you can be dammed sure you're not getting it all or getting balanced coverage. We have a tendency to seek out what we agree with, I do to - but if we do not look for the back story, the quote that was not printed completely, we only rob ourselves.

Iraq, Pelosi, Levin and Churchill...

This November 16 post from TCS Daily is another great insight into the choices we face in Iraq.

Far too many are still hung up on 2003 and the reasons (or lack thereof, some say) for going into Iraq to begin with. Even if you take as true all of those who say President Bush cooked intelligence, wanted Iraq for its oil, wanted to get Saddam for trying to get his dad and so on it does not change the obligation we created to the people of Iraq and to the fallen American servicemen and women.

Carl Levin in this Detroit Free Press interview states;
"We've been there now as long as World War II, almost, and longer than the Korean conflict. And the solution here is a political solution. It's not a military solution. Everyone seems to tell us that, but then a lot of people don't follow through on their own logic."

And we've all heard from Levin some variation of:
"It is our firm belief -- and I believe it more deeply than ever -- that we have to force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own nation, that we cannot save them from themselves. I believe that, whether or not public opinion is 60% supportive of it or 40% supportive of it. That is my belief. I think it is more and more the belief of colleagues. ..."


First, Senator Levin implies that Iraqis are not fighting and dying for their country on a daily basis; he could not be more wrong. Since January of 2005 an average of 193 Iraqi police and security forces personnel are killed each month. The worst month for American forces was 137 in November of 2004 and the average American killed per month since the start of the war is 65. Over 19,000 Iraqi civilians have died since January of 2005. In September of this year 3,389 civilians died.

Mr Levin wants to have his cake and eat it too on public opinion; he and other democrats say the public has spoken on Iraq and they want change, but then says he does not care if there is support for a near term redeployment. He then goes on to imply other democratic members of congress would be willing to ignore public opinion on the matter.


Nancy Pelosi said on the November 8 Newshour:
"So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down. The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?"

First, Ms. Pelosi, the White House has said clearly what it considers victory, you just don't like the answer: MR. SNOW: No, I think what he was talking about is security objectives, but victory still is an Iraq that can sustain, defend and govern itself. (White House Press briefing November 10, 2006)

This is something the President has stated consistently. This "what is victory?" zen riddle posed by cut and run democrats is getting old. It is simply a way of tearing down a stated plan without offering one of their own, except of course to sell the Iraqis in to desolation and still blame George Bush.

Second, dear Speaker, how do you plan on disarming the militias? I'm sure we will wait until hell freezes over for an answer from Pelosi, Murtha, ET AL, on how to disarm the militias/insurgents without American military might to back up the Iraqi security forces. You see kids, they have it exactly ass-backwards: Disarm, control, hold, turn over, THEN you start a phased pull out.

You don't have to be Patton or a military historian to figure this out, even though in this case the vast majority of generals and experts agree. Just ask former CentCom Commander Anthony Zinni, retired Army Major General John Batiste, former Clinton administration NSC member Kenneth M. Pollack and, Current CentCom Commander General John Abizaid, to name a few. By he way, Iraq Defense Minister Abdul-Qadir al-Obaidi has publicly stated that U.S. forces pulling back and handing security over to Iraqi forces at this point is not a good idea.

Demoractic leaders are learning (I hope) that both the public and the experts agree that "change of direction" does not equal "cut and run."

Telling it like it is

The following comment and reply at Moonbattery regarding the sad and sophomoric post on Reason says it all for the libertarian position and why they get fewer votes than John Murtha running for Majority Leader:

Posted by: chsw10605 at November 14, 2006 03:33 PM

Theocratic Iran is social conservatism's logical end state--the only difference being the fictional work from which the government's fatwas are divined. The ideology is pure mysticism: a toxic brew of anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-intellectualism.

The incessant, goofball cries from social conservatives (like you) for war against Islam differ in no meaningful way from Iran's incessant, goofball cries for war against Judaism. It's a perverse philosophy of perpetual war, against enemies who can't be identified, for reasons that can't be defined.

Keep this in mind the next time you find yourself so befuddled over why on earth somebody might vote libertarian instead of republican.
=============================================================================
Posted by: Van Helsing at November 14, 2006 03:43 PM

Oh, yeah. Social conservatives using the Democratic process to defend the traditional definition of marriage is exactly the same as the ayatollah's stoning homosexuals to death. Social conservatives using the democratic process to protect unborn life is exactly the same as imams forcing girls to undergo genital mutilation. Social conservatives using the democratic process to stop molesters from taking their underage girlfriends across state lines to get abortions is exactly the same as virtue police honor-killing girls for talking to non-Muslims. Social conservatives using the democratic process to protest lifestyle indoctrination in the public schools are exactly the same as suicide bombers blowing up Israeli schoolkids.

Also, the answer to all of society's problems are open borders and drug legalization.

Keep this in mind the next time you find yourself so befuddled over why on earth somebody would vote republican instead of libertarian.
=====================================================================================
Some folks can say in a paragraph what others cannot get across in an entire book. Bravo.

Jose Padillas' Victim Status in danger

The above Washington Post story from today reports U.S. officials say Abu Zubaydah is the person who ratted out "poor Jose Padilla." Shortly after he was captured, U.S. officials said Zubaydah was believed to be a recruiter for Al Qaida (Although I must admit, between Padilla and "shoebomber" Richard Ried he was clearly not administering MENSA test to potential recruits).

Dear Mssrs. Murtha and Levin:

Before you continue your cut and run campaign on "behalf of our sevicemen and women" read this. (Hat Tip Jonah Goldberg at The Corner)

Milton Friedman, Rest in Peace

Check out Murtha pic on CNN.com

Murtha is one unhappy man. Video from MSNBC here.

This is more than a rejection of Murtha on ethics; His stand on Iraq took a real beating, not only from General Abizaid, but many others; read here and here and here.

His Okinawa idea made even some in his camp on the war wonder if he was thinking before speaking, but then he repeated it often enough to toss aside his credibility, since last year we reached an agreement to reduce troop numbers in Okinawa.

As I said last week, the leftist democratic leadership rode into power on the backs of moderate/conservative democratic candidates, including a number of vets, some who served in Iraq and dammed well know the score better than Murtha and Levin.

In my opinion, this was 146 democrats saying "Keep your committee assignments and pork, we will not sell our ethics, our military and the people of Iraq out for a nice office and a bridge back home." I'm not blind and I understand promises were made by Hoyer, but they had a choice between corrupt and left or moderate and no skeletons. Good for them.