June 24, 2008
George Carlin at His Best
George Carlin, comic genius, has passed away. Here is my favorite bit:
De mortuis nil nisi bonum. Carlin has brought me great joy in his career and this clip is entertaining and thought provoking. I'll agree it is vintage Carlin.
I have had a transcription of this emailed to me many times, and I was always a bit put off by his conclusion. I love the idea that Earth is tough; I am less enamored of the idea that human life is insignificant. We have free will, we wrote Kubla Khan, An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations, the Magna Carta, and the Declaration of Independence.
Funny and enjoyable skit, but we are not fleas.
Me be too grouchy?
May 27, 2008
Wi-Fi Allergy
Stop the earth - I want off.
Seriously, didn't most people have that same reaction to the 1970's nutjobs who wanted to outlaw drilling for oil in this country because it was "dirty?" Leave the idiots alone and look what it gets you - politicians who say things like "gasoline prices are not based on supply and demand, they're being driven up by reckless speculators and obscene oil company profits" and "we can't drill our way out of this problem" when, in fact, that is the ONLY way to bring gasoline prices down. And it makes us "less dependent on foreign oil" at the same time.
April 6, 2008
Death of a President
Charlton Heston was a president; he was MY President. As figurehead of the NRA he said what members of America's gun culture wanted to say to those who blamed them for the crimes of others:
“Mr. Clinton, sir, America didn’t trust you with our health care system. America didn’t trust you with gays in the military. America doesn’t trust you with our 21-year-old daughters, and we sure, Lord, don’t trust you with our guns.”
Last night this American icon passed away. Rest in peace, and give my best to John Wayne and Ronald Reagan. May there be new cowboys born today to replace you.
Amen.
I joined the NRA when Mr Heston was elected, and just recently did I finish the last installment of my life-membership.
Rest in Peace, Sir.
Posted by: AlexC at April 6, 2008 12:19 PM"Oh Captain, my Captain!" Heston his supporters should take great comfort in the advancement of rights during his tenure.
Gun control forces have been in political retreat for a decade, and with a good decision in Heller, might make huge advancements before President Obama tries to dismantle them.
Posted by: jk at April 6, 2008 12:43 PMAnd Clinton never took his guns from his cold, dead hands.
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at April 8, 2008 8:14 PMFebruary 17, 2008
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y
Charles Barkley believes that all conservatives are "fake" Christians because they pass judgement on others. This is true, if conservatives read the Bible, they would realize this right is reserved for God and Charles Barkley.
Christians fall short of the glory of God, they already know this, They are saved not by their own works but by the grace of Christ.
By Charles Barkley standards Christ alone would be a Christian. Why would a man be motivated to call somebody who asks for the forgiveness of Christ a "fake" because they are not somehow transformed in to a superior being who who are free from judging others. Does he mean to say that those people are going to burn in hell!
I have never called anybody a fake Christian, I really doubt many Christians have called another Christian a fake - is that not superior enough.
Posted by: At The Water Cooler at February 18, 2008 3:04 AMI'm loath to come to Barkley's aid on this -- he clearly deserves the drubbing.
Barkley shoots off his mouth a lot. I will point out that his just as impolitic on occasion in calling for the African American community to assume more personal responsibility and pay less attention to the professional and permanent racially aggrieved class. I have developed something of a soft spot for the guy.
June 2, 2007
John says:
JK has "Review Corner" and the elevator talk. I've been contemplating a new feature where I respond to hypothetical questions as I would if I were the President of the United States. For now I'm calling it "John says." I'll start with South America's version of Barack Obama.
Mister president, how do you respond to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez says US conspiracy wants to discredit him?
"It's not a conspiracy, it's the official policy of my administration. The sitting president of Venezuela owes his position to dubious elections and must not be allowed to silence his domestic opponents in the arena of ideas. Venezuela's citizens have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When Hugo Chavez threatens all three of those I will do everything in my power to discredit him."
Not to go all Rep Ron Paul on you, but may I pose a follow up question, Mr. President? Is this nation dedicated to actively undermine every regime in the world that not uphold the spirit of our Declaration of Independence? That seems a little more interventionist than the electorate.
Posted by: jk at June 2, 2007 2:33 PM"Sure thing Stretch. I'll answer that: Actively undermine? That implies sending American soldiers or agents to foreign lands to carry out various missions. No, that's not always in America's interest. But it is always in our interest to discredit the failed ideas of history. Whenever I'm asked, I'll say they're wrong. Maybe good folks like you in the press will help me out with that, once in a while."
Posted by: johngalt at June 2, 2007 3:05 PMSenator Fred Thompson may be channeling you.
Posted by: jk at June 3, 2007 11:17 AMMay 6, 2007
La France
The French go to the polls today to choose between what we in the United States would call "a socialist" and a Democrat.
Anyway, here's a photo accompanying a BBC article about the vote.
Are these the French? I would have pictured bitter people with waxed moustaches, berets and cigarettes.
I've always pictured them with a bottle of wine in one hand,..a baguette in the other and running away from a bar of soap,..but that's just me.
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at May 6, 2007 1:11 PMYou've both been reading blogs too much. Think of attractive young women...
Posted by: jk at May 6, 2007 2:44 PMAnd the Socialist claims there will be riots in the streets if the Democrat is elected. Why? He's allowed himself to be photographed in some proximity to an American flag.
Posted by: johngalt at May 6, 2007 9:21 PMjk,.."young, attractive women" + "France" don't seem to go together in my head.
Now,..if you want attractive Arab women to fantasize about being under those burkhas - try Haifa Wehbe! :)
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at May 7, 2007 8:13 PMMay 4, 2007
45 Days
A judge sentenced Paris Hilton to 45 days in jail Friday for violating her probation, putting the brakes on the hotel heiress' famous high life.Hilton, who parlayed her name and relentless partying into worldwide notoriety, must go to jail on June 5 and she will not be allowed any work release, no furloughs, no use of an alternative jail and no electronic monitoring in lieu of jail, Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer ruled after a hearing.
The heiress arrived at court 10 minutes late in the back of a black Cadillac Escalade and swept into the Metropolitan Courthouse with several men in suits, ignoring screams of photographers lining the route into a rear entrance. Her parents, Rick and Kathy Hilton, also came with her.
I expect that any videos which might inadvertantly find their way OUT of the woman's prison she will be inhabiting will be an immediate best seller.
April 24, 2007
U.S. Out of Ethiopia!
NO MORE BLOOD FOR OIL! Ethiopia Attack 'Leaves 74 Dead.'
"It is a cold blood killing, a massacre. It is a terrorist act," Berekat Simon, an adviser to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, told AFP news agency.He accused a separatist group, the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), of being behind the attack.
There was no word from the group.
(...)
The ONLF has in the past made threats against foreign companies working with the Ethiopian government to exploit the region's natural resources.
Filthy capitalist imperialists! Leave those natural resources alone!!
The workers were employed by the Zhongyuan Petroleum Exploration Bureau, part of China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation, China's Xinhua news agency reported.
Oh. Never mind.
April 22, 2007
The Other Virginia College Shooting
Could it be that johngalt linked to a Glenn Reynolds piece before JK did? Could be...
A google news search for "appalachian school of law shooting 2002" yielded "Which is Safer? More guns or fewer?" by Reynolds published in Denver's Rocky Mountain News.
It's a short piece and every paragraph is superb, but here's one I'd like to highlight:
What's more, she would have been safer. That's how I feel about my student as well (one of a few I know who have gun-carry permits). She's a responsible adult; I trust her not to use her gun improperly, and if something bad happened, I'd want her to be armed because I trust her to respond appropriately, making the rest of us safer. [emphasis mine]
It isn't often one reads a distinction between reality and perception - between "being" and "feeling" - in a newspaper. It's no surprise, when it happens, that it comes from the pen of a blogger.
Hat Tip: My dad, who brought me Friday's Rocky Mountain News "RockyTalk Live" column with reader comments on the VT murders, including one by "KW" that mentioned the 2002 incident.
My Internet connection was down -- I woulda smoked you!
Seriously, great post. Professor Reynolds is not only right, but also in a good position to make this point without seeming an ideologue or a gun nut.
I watched the President of George Washington University on FOXNews Sunday. When a similar a suggestion was made, he bemusedly waved it off, bragging that even Campus Police were unarmed.
I feel safer already.
April 17, 2007
VT & Gun Control
Rush Limbaugh has a really good quote from Governor Rendell regarding additional gun control laws.
Liberal "Rep. Jim Moran who, less than '24 hours after the deadliest shooting spree in U.S. history' took to the airwaves to launch a political attack against President Bush, congressional Republicans and the National Rifle Association.... Moran suggested Republicans were to blame for Monday's tragedy at Virginia Tech, which left 33 dead and injured another 30."The anti-gun congressman said Republican policies made it easy for the shooter to obtain a gun." The serial numbers were filed off of these two guns, were they not? Well, now, I'm going to tell you: if you file the serial numbers off your gun, it means you have evil intent in your mind and your heart, and there is no gun control law, period, that is going to stop you. Grab audio sound bite 18 again. If you're just joining us, I want you to go back and listen to Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, talking about the Amish tragedy, the shooting there in Pennsylvania last fall. This is from October of last year. The reporter said, "Governor Rendell, do you see any need for any changes in state public schools in terms of security?"
RENDELL: You can make all the changes you want, but you can never stop a random act of violence by a person who is intent on killing themselves. It's the same thing as protecting the president of the United States. You can have 50 Secret Service agents there, but if someone is willing to swap their life for the president's, they're going to get a point-blank shot at the president.
A tragedy, to be sure....
But it's a little depressing to see everyone pointing fingers at each other over gun issues immediately. Shouldn't we first get that place back in order first?
One of my most beloved but misguided relatives is campaigning for a Rep. Kucinich-style Department of Peace.
I received a "Media Alert" email from her suggesting that I "Call in to a talk show and discuss how a Department of Peace would help prevent another Virginia Tech from happening."
April 14, 2007
"Contest for survival"
For at least several years there has been a quiet underground movement to secure the rights of liberty and freedom for citizens of a major nation on the world stage. Brave national patriots, both within their country and in exile, expose themselves to boundless peril at the hands of the authoritarian regime that rules the country with an iron fist. America has committed military force to defend these ideals in Iraq and Afghanistan. But western nations give not even diplomatic support to those struggling for the same freedoms in this other, critically important, nation - at least not publicly.
This major nation is not Iran, nor Venezuela, China, Vietnam, North Korea or Zimbabwe (nee Rhodesia). It is one of five veto powers on the UN Security Council: Russia.
One Russian patriot, Alexander Litvinenko, has already lost his life in pursuit of the cause.
Another, billionaire Boris Berezovsky, lives in the UK under political asylum - a status that is continually threatened by Russia's Putin regime.
And today, world famous Russian chess champion Gary Kasparov has been arrested in Moscow for "shouting anti-government slogans."
Activists had planned to gather at a city centre square about one km (half a mile) from the Kremlin to protest at what they say is Putin's trampling of democratic freedoms and demand a fair vote to choose a new president in 2008.Teams of riot police, acting on a ruling from the city authorities banning the protest, pounced on protesters as they appeared in small groups near the square and swiftly loaded them into buses, Reuters witnesses said.
Surprisingly, Kasparov was able to make statements to reporters:
"Today the regime showed its true colours, its true face," the former chess grandmaster said during an adjournment."I believe this was a great victory for the opposition because people got through and the march happened."
Moscow police explain just how important it was to forcefully detain these "dangerous" citizens:
Moscow police chief spokesman Viktor Biryukov said about 170 of the "most aggressive" protesters had been detained."Thanks to the well-coordinated actions of the riot police and Moscow police, we were able to prevent an illegal gathering being carried out," he said.
This all serves as stark evidence why free men must never grant complete trust to government.
"For ordinary people in Russia today, it's a contest for survival," Anastasia Krampit, 39, said as she watched the protesters drift away.
February 12, 2007
Let It Snow
The Philadelphia area (in fact the whole northeast) is bracing for it's first big snowfall of the year. While not the scale of our square-state friends, it's still a big deal for the news.
Lately we've been upgraded from "a lot of snow" to a mess.
As of this morning, the weather service saw this set of scenarios for Philadelphia:Tonight: A “slight chance” of snow.
Tomorrow: Snow in the afternoon, accumulating an inch or so.
Tomorrow night: Snow gives over to sleet and freezing rain.
Wednesday morning: Freezing rain, then rain.
Wednesday afternoon: Chance of snow.The suburbs, South Jersey and Delaware are likely to suffer a similar fate.
Heavy snow, however, could still sock much of the rest of Pennsylvania. Areas west of a line roughly from Allentown to Lancaster are under a "Winter Storm Watch," with snow possible from Tuesday through Wednesday evening.
Is that a relief? I'm flying on Wednesday morning.
"From a forecaster's perspective, it's frustrating," Mike Gorse, a Weather Service meteorologist in Mount Holly, said yesterday. "The computer models just aren't agreeing."
In related news, the computers all agree, that anthropogenic climate change will destroy the earth, unless we stop the engines of progress.
February 1, 2007
Dirty Hippies
A perfect example of "dirty hippies".
Here are the two knuckleheads that shut down Boston.
Advised not to speak to the media about their "ad campaign." They held a press conference outside of the courthouse.
How much bong water did these guys drink? I'm almost rooting for them to go to jail.
December 23, 2006
Christmas Extremists
- A man used flammable liquid to light himself on fire, apparently to protest a San Joaquin Valley school district's decision to change the names of winter and spring breaks to Christmas and Easter vacation.
The man, who was not immediately identified, on Friday also set fire to a Christmas tree, an American flag and a revolutionary flag replica, said Fire Captain Garth Milam.
Seeing the flames, Sheriff's Deputy Lance Ferguson grabbed a fire extinguisher and ran to the man.
Flames were devouring a Christmas tree next to the Liberty Bell, where public events and demonstrations are common.
Beside the tree the man stood with an American flag draped around his shoulders and a red gas can over his head.
Seeing the deputy, the man poured the liquid over his head. He quickly burst into flames when the fumes from the gas met the flames from the tree.
Call me crazy, but I'm sure that the loss of "winter fest" and "spring fest" didn't put him over the top.
There's a war on winter fest, ac. You may not notice it out East, but out here some people look nervously at their shoes when I wish them a "Happy Winter Fest." Like I've broken some taboo.
Chilling.
Posted by: jk at December 23, 2006 5:27 PMSounds to me like another case of Darwinism!
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at December 23, 2006 9:52 PMDecember 7, 2006
Iraq "Surrender" Group Report
" . . . more than six people cannot agree on anything, three is better -- and one is perfect for a job that one can do. This is why parliamentary bodies all through history, when they accomplished anything, owed it to a few strong men who dominated the rest. Never fear, son, this Ad-Hoc Congress will do nothing . . . or if they do pass something through sheer fatigue, it will be so loaded with contradictions that it will have to be thrown out." --Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, pg 162 [Robert A. Heinlein]
I've been waiting all week for someone to blog the celebrated Iraq Study Group report, for I have a comment I'd like to make about it. Alas, nobody has obliged on these pages. But with each passing day I've come to realize that the real blogging is taking place on the front pages of the major dailies. They took the slap dash 97 page report as their kernel and proceeded to concoct every sort of meaning from it in their headlines. Every one, that is, except for making the world safe for liberty. Well, here goes.
Let's start with part I, subpart D: Achieving Our Goals:
We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq, as stated by the President: an Iraq that can “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.” In our view, this definition entails an Iraq with a broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity, is at peace with its neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn’t brutalize its own people. Given the current situation in Iraq, achieving this goal will require much time and will depend primarily on the actions of the Iraqi people.
It is critically important to understand that, with Saddam gone, Iraq matters little in the present war between civilization and archaic totalitarianism. Re-read the passage above and replace "Iraq" with "America." An America that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. [...] Given the current situation in America, achieving this goal will require much time and will depend primarily on the actions of the American people."
And where America represents civilization in this war, the seat of archaic totalitarianism today is... anyone? anyone? Bueller? That's right: Iran. Now re-read the passage above replacing "Iraq" with "Iran." In our view, this definition entails an Iran with a broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity, is at peace with its neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn’t brutalize its own people.
Now, what actions of the American people can do anything to help Iraq "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself?"
Speaking for myself, I was so happy that the report wasn't worse. I think it significantly undercuts the cut and run crowd and can be used more to the President’s favor than his detractors.
The idea of using Iran and Syria seems tedious but there is an interesting context. I don't know if you saw Brit Hume's panel discussion on this (you get kicked out of the VRWC if you don't watch 4x a week) but Secretary Baker believes that Syria might be incentivized to help us and the Sunnis. "Flip Syria" he said to Brit as they were packing up their cameras.
It's a long shot and I hate to think of the price but it is not necessarily "nuts."
They want peace in the middle east. That's a bold vision.
How much did we pay for this, again?
Posted by: AlexC at December 7, 2006 11:54 PMAnd now, my long awaited comment. With respect to diplomacy with Iran, or even Syria:
"Do steers sign treaties with meat packers?" -Robert A. Heinlein
I agree with John Murtha. It is time to redeploy coalition forces to "another region in the Middle East." TEHRAN
Posted by: johngalt at December 8, 2006 8:51 AMI also resent the implication that ThreeSources was behind in commenting on the ISF. We hit the idea of Syria help on November 21.
Posted by: jk at December 8, 2006 11:51 AMCredit duly noted. And that post also reminded us what we get whenever we employ "realpolitik" when killing people and breaking things is in order.
Posted by: johngalt at December 8, 2006 3:09 PMDecember 7th
Victor Davis Hanson reminds us of today's significance 65 years ago.
... and of it's connections to today.
Little Green Footballs links to a WWII poster (govt produced too) you would never see today.
November 3, 2006
Who?
- The Rev. Ted Haggard said Friday he bought methamphetamine and received a massage from a male prostitute. But the influential Christian evangelist insisted he threw the drugs away and never had sex with the man.
Haggard, who as president of the National Association of Evangelicals wielded influence on Capitol Hill and condemned both gay marriage and homosexuality, resigned on Thursday after a Denver man named Mike Jones claimed that he had many drug-fueled trysts with Haggard.
I'm not an evangelical, but I thought I was pretty plugged into "Christianist" circle.
I've never heard of this guy.
I'm not the first to rush to defend the "Christianists," but something seems odd.
A Christian evangelist who fails to live up to his principles is chided as a hypocrite, whereas an ex-vice-president or a film star flying around in a learjet to raise awareness of global warming is okay.
I'd live and let live on both accounts, mind you, but it almost seems that the media might be biased or something.
Keep in mind JK that this story has been brewing at KUSA for at least 2 months but Paula Woodward never pulled the trigger. Until, that is, your old buddy Peter Boyles forced her hand.
As for Haggard, he's not a household name in Colorado either (unless I guess you're in the evangelical circle.) Both parties (Haggard and his accuser) appear to be shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly. Haggard steps down, then the gay escort fails a polygraph, then Haggard admits "some indescretions." In all the talk about "what should be done" to Haggard I keep asking myself, what law has he broken? Show me a judge on this continent who will lock a man up because he used dope.
The only people who have any judgement to pass are his parishoners.
Posted by: johngalt at November 4, 2006 11:19 AMJK, funny you say that, because Haggard is a global warming fellow traveller.
Posted by: AlexC at November 4, 2006 6:47 PMNovember 1, 2006
John Kerry Jokes
- Knock, knock.
-- Who's there?
Our soldiers are terrorizing women and children.
-- Our soldiers are terrorizing women and children who?
Our soldiers are terrorizing women and children and dragging them out of their homes in the dead of night.
-- I don't get it.
Don't question my patriotism. I served, reluctantly, in Vietnam.
UPDATE (by jg): This url from the comment by mdmhvonpa below is a MUST SEE! It deserved a hyperlink, here. Thanks mdmh. LMAOBT
classic: http://www.photopile.com/photos/dead/auctions/273904.gif
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at November 1, 2006 2:46 PM
October 31, 2006
Trick or Treat
The Bride of Frankenstein.
I wish I would have gotten a better picture of her hair. It was cool.
Many compliments on the hairstyle. But no Milk-Duds. What's with people these days?
Excellent costume!
Posted by: jk at November 1, 2006 9:45 AMYou know alex, next year we'll have to get the 'montco gang' together with the lil' monsters and have a little fest.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at November 1, 2006 2:00 PMthank you thank you.....
the only problem now is, "how do you top it next year?"
Posted by: AlexC at November 1, 2006 11:31 PMOctober 9, 2006
UN Security Council to Discuss North Korea
I expect a strongly worded resolution promising a another strongly worded resolution if the North Koreans don't start playing nice.
If that doesn't work, we'll resolution your ass.
Posted by: jk at October 9, 2006 11:50 AMOctober 3, 2006
Foley & the Democrats
I'm not sure I'm understanding the Democrats reaction to former Congressman Mark Foley's "revelations."
Here's Paul Begala
- "Most normal people, even political people, react to this like moms and dads. I’m a dad. Somebody sends an email like that to my kid, they are going to deal with the law firm of Smith & Wesson, OK? It ain’t going to go to no Page Board."
"Smith & Wesson?"
Democrats and guns?
Vigilante justice?
He's not going to do any gay bashing is he?
Mixed messages abound.
Besides, aren't these guys busy enough?
- Now that the muckadoos are all focused on connecting every single living Republican to the Mark Foley scandal, does that mean they are no longer hyperventilating about how the new bill on interrogation will remove habeas corpus and is our first step into becoming a fascist state?
I'm waiting for some loud-mouth D to slip and say that all pedofiles should be rounded up, branded and put out of our misery. Hrmmm ... National Socialism would have no better friend.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at October 4, 2006 10:01 AMSeptember 11, 2006
Today's Weather
As I was around town today, I commented to myself, "today's weather is the same as it was on 9/11/2001."
It was a nice September day in the 70s.
I'm not the only one who noticed.
Tony Snow did.
- There’s an interesting little detail which I got at both sites. The people in New York said, the weather has been exactly the same every September 11th since September 11th, 2001; and the people at Shanksville said the same thing, the same kind of weather conditions have prevailed each year since. I don’t know what you make of it, but it’s one thing that people took pains to mention.
(tip to Extreme Mortman)
I noticed the exception. It was a little overcast out here, when every other 9/11 had been as perfect as 2001.
I, of course, blame Global Warming...
Posted by: jk at September 12, 2006 11:06 AMSeptember 7, 2006
Minute 28
- The right-wingers who think nothing but the worst of Cindy Sheehan probably won't change their minds after reading Peace Mom. In the book, which hits bookstores September 19, the antiwar icon admits she has fantasized about going back in time and killing the infant George W. Bush, thereby preventing the Iraq War. In fact, she reveals, her son's death in that war almost drove her to take her own life: "Every night I had to restrain myself from taking my entire bottle of sleeping pills instead of just one."
Living in trees, and now Terminator style retro-active infanticide/assassination and suicide.
She's the voice we need guiding our foreign policy.
Didn't I see this story line in an old Quantum Leap episode?
Oh wait, Sam was a rational, good guy...
I used to give Ms. Sheehan a wide berth in my blog, but every time I think she's hit rock bottom, she's reaches new lows.
Posted by: Charlie on the PA Tpk at September 7, 2006 11:16 PMDon’t recall Quantum Leap, but in Stephen Fry's "Making History," a young physics student gets a small window to push inanimate objects back in time. He puts birth control in Hitler's mom's well to prevent his birth. It doesn’t really turn out as well as he planned…
You're the second person with a Charles-derived sobriquet to give me the wise counsel to ignore Ms. Sheehan. Yet, if she is going to write books and continue holding the stage, I feel we can disagree politely.
I love the juxtaposition of "Peace Mom" (how can you guys dislike "Peace Mom?") and the desire to kill the President. It is also telling that she would use this machine to kill the President and not Saddam Hussein. Telling choice.
August 29, 2006
Political Abduction
The son of a lawmaker was recently kidnapped from a city street and his mother and sister were shot the following day.
Iraq is a terrible place.
Too bad it happened in Philadelphia.
- The adult son of a state lawmaker was abducted from a Philadelphia street at gunpoint, and his mother and sister were shot by intruders a day later, officials said Monday.
Shamari Taylor, 26, remained missing for the second day Monday, while his 56-year-old mother remained hospitalized in critical but stable condition after being shot in the head. The sister, 21, had been treated and released Sunday evening.
Taylor is the son of Rep. John Myers, a Philadelphia Democrat who has been a vocal advocate for gun-control legislation.
The motive is unclear.
We need a timetable to pull out of Philadelphia. This administration has no plan. General Washington didn't have enough troops...
Good luck to the family -- get better, get found.
Posted by: jk at August 29, 2006 1:47 PMAugust 23, 2006
Be Good Back There!
or I'm turning this plane around!
- Dutch police arrested 12 passengers on a U.S. Northwest Airlines plane bound for India which was forced to turn back to Amsterdam's Schiphol airport on Wednesday, news agency ANP reported.
ANP said a police spokesman said 12 were arrested, but declined to give further details due to the ongoing investigation. Dutch police were not immediately available to comment on the report.
The Dutch defense ministry said earlier the pilot decided to turn back after the crew said several of the 149 passengers on flight 42 to Mumbai were behaving suspiciously.
No indication is given of any of the passengers' description or behaviour.
Which means they can only be ________________.
Really scary Dutch prostitutes!
Posted by: jk at August 23, 2006 3:27 PMGrandmothers with crochet hooks and shampoo bottles?
Posted by: dagny at August 23, 2006 3:29 PMI'm sure they could be both in Amsterdam. A city to give even the most devout libertarian pause...
Posted by: jk at August 23, 2006 8:22 PMAugust 16, 2006
Peace in Our Time
- HISTORIANS will look back at this weekend's cease-fire agreement in Lebanon as a pivotal moment in the war on terror. It is pivotal in the same sense that the Munich agreement between Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain was pivotal in an earlier battle against the enemies of freedom. The accord in October 1938 revealed to the world that the solidarity of the Western allies was a sham, and that the balance of power had shifted to the fascist dictators.
Resolution 1701 shows that, for the time being at least, the balance has likewise shifted to the terrorists and their state sponsors. Like Munich, it marks the triumph of the principle of putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today. Like Munich, it will mean not peace in our time, but a bigger war in our future.
Read It All
Sadly, every word may be true.
I'm not sure they are correct in portraying it as weak alliances. Free nations want to pursue prosperity and frequently ignore important chores. It's a good, if deadly, shortcoming.
Posted by: jk at August 16, 2006 12:38 PMAugust 14, 2006
Condi '08
Not after these foreign policy wins.
Et tu, AC?
I do not blame the Secretary for those failures. Those rest entirely on the president. And I'd like to know which president they think could have handled all these crises to National Review's satisfaction, while still fighting Ned Lamont Democrats and leakers and The New York Times.
Fine, give up on Secretary Rice. Do you prefer the candidate that rescinded the First Amendment or the one who enshrined health care mandates in his home state. Are you going to like Mayor Giuliani’s SCOTUS picks? Is NR?
Sorry, I am still on board. Now if we can just get the candidate...
I don't think any of the 08 candidates excite me. Perhaps there's a governor out there that might.
But so far? It looks like I'll be voting against Hillary. Sadly.
Posted by: AlexC at August 14, 2006 11:01 AMIt's funny, I have never been more keen on Secretary Rice. She is on the Sunday morning shows almost every week and she makes the case for freedom with firmness and style. She FLATTENED a Tim Russert who was trying to make the case for appeasement in Lebanon.
President Bush and the nation clearly want to take the diplomacy tract more than you and I. As I see it, she has been given the charge to work the UN (I'd rather go to Alaska when it's 60 below myself) and she is actually advancing freedom's interest there.
Hmmm, who is the Governor of Utah? You know, Mormons are not classified as 'Christians', but rather, as splinter sect ... the ACLU should love that.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at August 14, 2006 11:38 AMAlmanac of American Politics sez:
"Jon Huntsman Jr., a Republican, was elected governor of Utah in 2004. He was born in Palo Alto, California, the oldest of nine children, spent time in California and in Washington, D.C., where his father worked in the Nixon administration, then moved to Utah. He dropped out of high school to play keyboards in rock-and-roll bands; he attended the University of Utah briefly before leaving on a two-year Mormon mission to Taiwan. There he learned to speak fluent Mandarin Chinese. When he returned, he transferred to and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania. He is the son of billionaire philanthropist and industrialist Jon Huntsman, the wealthiest man in Utah (his company invented McDonald's Big Mac clamshell packaging), and the family owns a controlling interest in the Huntsman Corporation, a multinational petrochemical corporation headquartered in Salt Lake City."
A Keyboard player? I dunno, maybe a bass player or something...
Posted by: jk at August 14, 2006 12:07 PMAugust 3, 2006
Multiculturalism Shrugs
I'm an optimist, but this still surprised me: The king mac-daddy pragmatist of world politics, Tony Blair, officially pronounced the death of multiculturalism as a guiding geopolitical principle. Mark the date, kids: August 1, 2006.
"9/11 in the US, 7/7 in the UK, 11/3 in Madrid, the countless terrorist attacks in countries as disparate as Indonesia or Algeria, what is now happening in Afghanistan and in Indonesia, the continuing conflict in Lebanon and Palestine, it is all part of the same thing. What are the values that govern the future of the world? Are they those of tolerance, freedom, respect for difference and diversity or those of reaction, division and hatred? My point is that this war can't be won in a conventional way. It can only be won by showing that our values are stronger, better and more just, more fair than the alternative." (emphasis mine)
In a paragraph where a European head-of-state admits that Israel's life and death battles with Islamists in Lebanon and "Palestine" (and the implicit inclusion of the Iraq war later in the speech) are "all part of the same thing" as 9/11, what can overshadow such a monumental confession? One word: Better.
The hallmark of multiculturalism is an absolute prohibition on such value judgements. "No culture's ideas are 'better' or 'worse' than any other's, they are merely different. Each is best for the culture that holds it," the multiculturalists say. But here we see Prime Minister Blair not only publicly admit his heretofore unacknowledged belief that western values and ideas are better than the Islamist's (without even the excuse of intoxication) but declare that propagation of this value judgement is the "only" way that this war can be won! Congratulations Mr. Blair. The first step to the cure is to admit that you have a disease.
The rest of the speech goes downhill from here, but believe me... this is a watershed moment in postmodern western civilization.
UPDATE-04AUG2006:
In the wake of PM Blair's concise and reasoned analysis of the war between western modernity and Islamic extremism, the British press shows its mettle in cutting him back down to size. (As explained in this David Aaronovitch editorial, 'If you're so clever, then why is it that they all hate you?')
What was clear was that no one in the room was prepared to be sidetracked by anything as arcane as the PM’s account of his contacts with Bush and Siniora. Nor were they interested in Mr Blair’s condemnation of the latest comments from the President of Iran about the need to eliminate Israel. They were far more concerned to remind him how everyone hated him.[...]
The question that summed the morning up went something like this: “If your opinions are so moderate and sensible, how come everyone thinks they’re crap, whatever they are?”
My Favorite Socialist! PM Blair can be very eloquent on the war and it's hard to imagine getting this far without his brave leadership -- a true Profile In Courage, considering the chattering classes over there that he needs to mollify.
In spite of this admiration, I read your excerpt as going a little too far. He compares liberal values favourably [sic] to terrorist values but I don't think you'd get him to stand tall for the supremacy of "Western" values.
Not sure we're there yet.
Posted by: jk at August 3, 2006 1:16 PMYour judgement that my analysis of this excerpt overreaches is fair, but only in that Blair's model of "Western values" is distinctly different from yours and mine. As I said, "The rest of the speech goes downhill from here." Muslims of the world will not be convinced of the superiority of western civilization by American adoption of the Kyoto Protocol.
But the sole object of my sweeping pronunciation was a postmodern principle that has confounded mankind for at least sixty years. I maintain it is no exaggeration to say that Blair's judgement of "tolerance, freedom, respect for difference and diversity" as "better," BETTER, than "reaction, division and hatred" - this unambiguous value judgement - constitutes a mortal wound to the status quo in geopolitics. Not because of which values he listed as superior to what others, but for the very fact that some values ARE better than others.
The 'status quo ante' was multiculturalism, as evidenced by such insanity as the President of Iran being granted a visa to enter the US and address the General Assembly of the UN. (The president of a nation with whom America terminated relations when they invaded our embassy and took our nationals hostage for over a year - a man who was personally involved in that invasion of sovereign American soil - is given a free pass to stroll the streets of a nation that, in a sane world, would throw the bastard in jail and keep him there for 66 consecutive sentences for kidnapping.)
Now that Blair has allowed the word "better" back into the international lexicon it will be more difficult for the likes of Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac to defend the indefensible.
Posted by: johngalt at August 4, 2006 1:43 AMJuly 30, 2006
"Genius"
That's my new nickname for the hapless prime minister of Lebanon, who recently declared: "We will not negotiate until the Israeli war stops shedding the blood of innocent people." He was also quoted on Fox News this morning as having said, "We will not negotiate until there is an immediate, unconditional cease-fire" and something to the effect of, "This deliberate killing of innocent civilians is unacceptable."
The PM seems to be echoing the attitude of one Khalil Shalhoub who, on the scene of the demolished building full of people screamed, "Why are they killing us? What have we done?"
Well, for one thing, an IAF spokesman claimed that Hezbollah was intentionally packing civilians into buildings and firing missles from them. "OK" I thought, "that's entirely plausible. Now show us all pictures to prove it!" Within moments, FNC announced EXCLUSIVE VIDEO. ("Free" Video, after a short cimmercial message, of course.)
As many government leaders throughout the western world rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against calculated, deliberate, and ongoing aggression from Islamist fanatics they should ask themselves one question: How will these diplomats feel about tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by an Iranian nuke if their diplomatic efforts on behalf of Hezbollah, in the name of "innocent" Lebanese civilians, are successful?
I was also moved by the Taranto piece. There is international outrage when civilians are killed in the crossfire when Hezbollah is complicit in their killings. Yet, when Hezbollah lobs hundreds of rockets into Israel hoping to kill civilians, there is no outrage against those with bad aim and crappy hardware.
It is sadly another reminder that most of our allies, like much of the domestic political opposition, are simply not serious enough to be trusted.
July 19, 2006
World War?
I thought the DNC talking points after the renewal of combat in Lebanon included the line that "This is World War III." I surmised that they wanted to be able to claim that World War III began under Bush's leadership... that warmongery begets warfare.
I just listened to former supreme commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark in an interview with a local talk radio show. The first questions for the general were, "Who is our enemy and what is the name of the war we are currently in." Simple enough questions, right? Fat chance.
Clark said only Republicans like Newt Gingrich or (can't remember the other guy) call this "World War III" or "World War IV" respectively. Alternately, the General says we are not even engaged in a war. Instead, we have a "loose conglomeration of individuals trying to pursue their own ends." He admitted that they use terrorism as their method, but his solutions were all "law enforcement." The natural question then is, "Whose laws?"
The big picture of the Clark interview is that he can't see the big picture in human events. Doesn't he read the Australian newspapers? (Or he sees it but is forced to deny it because Bush named it first: Axis of Evil.) Those who deny any link between al Qaida and Iraq also deny any link between either of them and Hamas or Hezbollah. Or Iran.
In answer to the questions the General never answered:
OUr enemy is every nation, organization, or "loose conglomeration of individuals" who practice Islamofascism and attempt to impose it on others by force.
The name of the war is "The Islamist War."
There, now let's go win the frackin' thing.
UPDATE: On last night's show, Bill O'Reilly said, and I paraphrase, "Regarding the war on terror, Americans can be divided into three camps: One says bomb the crap out of them, the second says it's all America's fault, and the third says I don't want to hear about it, let's go to the beach." Dagny and I are proud members of the "bomb the crap out of them" camp.
The WSJ Ed Page suggested that September 11, 2001 was the start of World War IV, WWIII being The Cold War. This Republican is happy with that terminology. I worry more that people forget there is a war than they think it started under President Bush.
The World War appellation ties in 9-11, London, Madrid, Mumbai, and the current Israeli two front conflict.
Posted by: jk at July 19, 2006 11:19 AMThe Islamist War ... a bit like our 2 conflicts with Iraq ... seems to be an extension of the Crusades. A clash of ideologies.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at July 19, 2006 11:57 AMBill O'Reilly would be another good reason not to get AlexC's 103" plasma screen. I favor a muscular response but would be loathe to characterize it as "bombing the crap out of 'em."
We've said some harsh words about President Bush over the years but I have to say that I am bursting with pride. His unwillingness to reach moral relativism, his unscripted comments with PM Blair that were caught on mic -- he is doing it right and we are very lucky to have him in the White House.
Like I said, I was paraphrasing. I think "bomb the crap out of them" was just the way I remembered it.
As for the president, I very much agree. (I'm biting my tongue now to prevent mention of the pending stem-cell bill veto. Let's debate that in a separate thread.)
Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2006 12:42 PMI missed the paraphrase bit, mea culpa.
I would still suggest that there is more nuance in the BTCOOT demographic. Israel will lose ground as Reuters and the BBC highlight civilian casualties over the campaign.
(New post above for stem cells, BTW)
Posted by: jk at July 19, 2006 1:31 PMJuly 17, 2006
Stand with Israel Rally - NYC
Pamela from Atlas Shrugs attended the Stand With Israel Rally in NYC today and gives a weblog report. She has great coverage on her site 'Atlas Shrugs' including some great photos of Hillary swallowing her bile when Elie Wiesel said, "Thank God Bush is in the White House."
Great stuff Pamela! Check it out.
UPDATE: Here's the Rush Limbaugh program transcript of Pamela's "breathless" call to the show on Monday. Man, she was on fire! (And if you look close on Pamela's post, you'll see that the very first trackback ping is: Three Sources!)
Not many times I wish I lived in New York, but I would have liked to have been there.
Posted by: jk at July 17, 2006 11:04 PMJuly 11, 2006
$66 Billion in Unearned Guilt
I've been thinking about how to blog this story since it broke: Megabillionaire Warren Buffet recently donated (evading the estate tax in the process) $37 billion of his $44 billion in personal wealth to a charitable foundation established by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda. Combined with the $29 billion already under foundation control the resulting $66 billion is five times the wealth of the next largest, the Ford foundation.
I won't belabor the contradictions of Buffet praising the estate tax as an "equitable tax...in keeping with the idea of equality of opportunity in this country, not giving incredible head starts to certain people who were very selective about the womb from which they emerged." Or of his criticism of "dynastic wealth" coupled with the likely, though I haven't been able to document it, multi-million dollar inheritances he'll leave his own children.
I'm most interested in the issue raised by John J. Miller on the Opinion Journal page of July 7th. "The Microsoft mogul and his wife should not leave their foundation to posterity," he writes.
I fully agree with many points made in this editorial. For example:
"Surely there are better reasons to embark upon the world's biggest grant-making program than to salve the conscience of a guy who has no business feeling guilty in the first place."And, "If Mr. Gates views his foundation as a vehicle for guilt riddance, chances are his grants will fail often and spectacularly. Yet if he views it as a way of furthering his already enormous contribution to society through nonprofit rather than for-profit means, then perhaps he will make a positive difference in the areas where he is focusing his efforts: global health and American education."
But Mr. Miller's principal point is not just that a charitable foundation should be used to further the values of its benefactor(s), but that it must necessarily be constrained to shut itself down after some arbitrary number of years for fear of the "harmful trend" of "an organization that exists in perpetuity, clinging tightly to its assets and ever further removed from its benefactors and their intentions."
It seems to me that if you want your wealth to live on and contribute in your image after your passing, you'd want it to do so for as long as possible. The trick here is to build something that can't be highjacked by others for their own purposes after your passing. This is exactly the problem that faced the founders of the United States government. So here we have another instance of resignation that nothing can retain its original nature and purpose against the pressure of revisionism.
The irony here is that the Gates Foundation, which has chosen to make a positive difference in the areas of global health and American education, has an opportunity to counteract such pressures. The reason the American Constitution, the American government and the American way of life are under threat today is precisely because of revisionist pressures endemic to modern American education. If the Gates Foundation threw even a fraction of its weight behind a return to accurate and objective teaching of American history and civics it could single handedly save the nation from apathetic disintegration.
Alas, such an effort is unlikely from a man who says, "We really owe it to society to give the wealth back."
Well said.
It strikes me that this giveaway is the world’s largest Rorschach test. Folk Marxists can either coo in delight that the Gateses have discovered "what's really important" or more likely think "damn well time those robber barons gave some back!"
I'm guessing a rare moment of unity for ThreeSourcers believing this will end very badly. I suggested when it happened that they clearly would do less good for society giving it away than they did when they earned it. Now I fear O'Sullivan's law will kick in [Every non-Conservative organization becomes more liberal over time] and that this money could become a colossus of unintended consequences, doing far more harm.
"Or of his criticism of 'dynastic wealth' coupled with the likely, though I haven't been able to document it, multi-million dollar inheritances he'll leave his own children."
-as far as I've heard in previous interviews with, and statements from, Buffet, he has no intention of leaving millions to his own heirs. And his beliefs against dynastic wealth are purportedly based on the idea that inheriting abstract sums of material wealth begets more laziness than not. I don't believe his support for the estate tax is any more elaborate than that.
Agree or disagree, there's very little hypocrisy in his position on this - unless you know something about his motives that I don't know. But then it seems like a lot of people are in the business of questioning what others do with their money, and here I thought that was a liberal tendency.
Posted by: howard at July 12, 2006 11:32 PMHoward, I said in my post on this topic that "Mr. Buffett can do what he chooses, indeed that's the best benefit of having billions, is it not?"
http://www.threesources.com/archives/003037.html
Two concerns you'll hear around here are, one, that the foundation will devolve into something that doesn't match its founders' wishes, and that its gifts will do more harm than good. And, two, there is a distinct disconnect between his objection to dynastic wealth and his use of tax shelters for his own estate. The WSJ says:
"In explaining his charitable motivations this week, Mr. Buffett also went out of his way to say that he is "not an enthusiast for dynastic wealth." This is fair enough, and is also one of Mr. Buffett's arguments for so vocally defending federal death tax rates of 50% or more. But we can't help but point out that Mr. Buffett's gift will itself be shielded from Uncle Sam because it is going to a foundation. So in practice he is in favor of death taxes only for those whose estates are too small to hide in foundation tax shelters.
In addition to his Gates Foundation gift, Mr. Buffett also said he will give major donations well north of $1 billion each to separate foundations run by his three children and another in the name of his late wife. These gifts, too, will be shielded from taxation and will allow his heirs to wield power and influence long after the 75-year-old has gone to his just reward."
Gates and Buffet did a lot of good for people as they assembled their fortunes. I doubt they'll do half as much good giving them away, but that it sheer speculation.
Thank you Howard for the eloquent comment. I did try to learn what Buffet has or will leave to his children but was unable to find even the $1B donations to his children's foundations that JK informs us of by way of the WSJ.
So even if they don't receive direct cash inheritance, each will certainly award himself a salary as full-time director of the foundation. (Hey, a guy's gotta eat, right?)
I also wanted to clarify: The liberal tendency is not to question what others do with their money, but to control it. (Or prevent it altogether.)
Posted by: johngalt at July 13, 2006 3:56 PMJuly 3, 2006
Mexican Election
- Two bitter rivals declared themselves winners of Mexico's extraordinarily close presidential race, even though official results wouldn't be ready for days, sparking cries of fraud from supporters and fears of violence.
The two candidates were separated by fewer than 401,000 votes, with more than 36 million counted in a preliminary tally by electoral officials. The conservative, Felipe Calderon had 36.6 percent to leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's 35.5 percent, according to results from 91.4 percent of polling places.
I don't know if it's good or bad, but liberals are all the same the world over...
- "Smile: We've already won," Lopez Obrador told his. "We're going to defend our triumph. We aren't going to let them try to make our results disappear."
Thousands of Lopez Obrador's supporters had gathered in a steady rain in Mexico City's Zocalo plaza, chanting "Lie! Lie! Fraud! Fraud!" after the delay was announced.
Fraud is always the first thing they claim, it's never "maybe our ideas aren't that great."
June 30, 2006
Freedom of Speech?
- there are already immense exceptions to the doctrine of free speech. What occurs to little me is that if we can tell a man he'll go to jail for calling a black man a name that any child can hear a thousand times a day on rap radio stations, why can't we say it's also a slur to people's feelings -- especially veterans' feelings -- to burn the flag?
If we can tell people that it's obscene to show pictures of children having sex (and it is), why can't we say it's obscene to burn the flag that is the symbol of this shining city on a hill, a flag for which many brave men and women have died? If it hurts women's feelings to hear sex jokes at the office and if that's illegal, doesn't it also hurt patriots' feelings to see the flag burned?
I don't get it. Why is protecting the flag less of a priority than banning song lyrics or dirty jokes or pornography?
What am I missing here? The flag is sacred. There is more than enough state interest in protecting to keep it from being burned. Can we reconsider this, please?
I really have a problem with hate crime legislation, but is burning a flag a hate crime?
I like the comparison to hate speech. I support FREE speech which might include objectionable things like Illinois Nazis (I hate Illinois Nazis!) or flag burning.
The better comparison is McCain-Feingold. I wish all these Democrats had found religion when they were voting on that. Flag burning is smallball by comparison.
Posted by: jk at July 1, 2006 11:39 AMI agree, McCain-Feingold or the 527 "reform" are way bigger examples of destroying free speech.
If burning a flag is patriotic, and expressing "freedom of speech", I wish the pyromaniacs would wrap themselves in it first.
Posted by: AlexC at July 1, 2006 11:47 AMI'm tough on politicians around here but it's a good time to celebrate a man who faced opprobrium to vote against both.
Two ThreeSources Profiles in Courage Awards to Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell.
Posted by: jk at July 1, 2006 12:11 PMAmendment I to the Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" and yet, SPEAKING certain words has been made unlawful while ACTING in certain other ways is considered sacrosanct.
Everyone should always have the right to say, "America sucks" or "the flag stands for ______" (insert collectivist slur of choice). But nobody should have the right to burn the Flag in the public square, even if he owns said flag. There is no "self-evident" right of an individual to publicly and uncerimoniously destroy, with extreme prejudice, the preeminent national symbol of this country.
Posted by: johngalt at July 3, 2006 3:29 PMOh yes, and Mitch McConnell makes me sick. His was the deciding vote in killing the amendment. He can't seriously believe that the lack of a Flag Burning Amendment will be any impediment to those who strive to emasculate the Second Amendment!
http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=257826&start=1
While I agree with McConnell's argument about truth and reason, those who risk their lives for the flag on foreign shores should not be forced to stand by while it is piddled on back home. If we can pay veterans medical costs, we can protect the one symbol that means more to them than anything else on earth. The Constitution will survive such an exalted exception.
Posted by: johngalt at July 3, 2006 3:36 PMJune 29, 2006
Mushrooms After A Rainstorm
- The U.S. military has found more Iraqi weapons in recent months, in addition to the 500 chemical munitions recently reported by the Pentagon, a top defense intelligence official said on Thursday.
Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, did not specify if the newly found weapons were also chemical munitions. But he said he expected more.
"I do not believe we have found all the weapons," he told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, offering few details in an open session that preceded a classified briefing to lawmakers.
These things turning up this month is very odd.
- Republican lawmakers, some facing tough election battles amid growing anti-war sentiment, called the discovery of the weapons significant.
Republican Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania suggested the munitions were in fact the weapons of mass destruction that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein lied about, leading the United States to war.
"For those who claim that these weapons are not the weapons of mass destruction that the United States went to war over, I would refer them to 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions that Saddam Hussein violated," Weldon said. "It didn't say pre-'91 chemical weapons. It didn't say post-'91 chemical weapons. It said chemical weapons."
But Democrats dismissed such arguments and said the weapons were not the "imminent threat" used to justify the war.
"It's very difficult to characterize these as the imminent threat weapons that we were told we were looking for," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat.
Ugh. For the thousandth time...
- Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
That's the 2003 State of the Union.
Another fair and balanced report from "al Reuters."
Posted by: johngalt at June 30, 2006 5:50 PMTreason
Ann Coulter writes about the NY Times' recent behaviour and famous traitors like Tokyo Rose & Axis Sally.
- There was no evidence that in any of these cases the treasonable broadcasts ever put a single American life in danger. The law on treason doesn't require it.
The federal statute on treason, 18 USC 2381, provides in relevant part: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States ... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000."
Thanks to The New York Times, the easiest job in the world right now is: "Head of Counterintelligence — Al-Qaida." You just have to read The New York Times over morning coffee, and you're done by 10 a.m.
The greatest threat to the war on terrorism isn't the Islamic insurgency — our military can handle the savages. It's traitorous liberals trying to lose the war at home. And the greatest threat at home isn't traitorous liberals — it's patriotic Americans, also known as "Republicans," tut-tutting the quaint idea that we should take treason seriously.
As usual, it's good points mixed with Ann Coulter's "wit."
But I'm wondering... according to 18 USC 2381, it presupposes owing allegiance to the United States. What if you're an admitted post-nationalist? Are you exempted?
I'm not itchin' to jump in and defend the New York Times but the treason here -- and it is clearly treason -- is the leaker.
If I may go all Joe McCarthy for a moment, this person works for the United States Government and was willing to harm the government and citizens. I wish the Times showed better discretion, yes, but the traitor here is the leaker.
The leaker definately is a traitor. But that doesn't mean I can't call it the Paper of Treason.
Posted by: AlexC at June 29, 2006 12:30 PMJune 28, 2006
Dummest. Move. Ever.
- A spokesman for gunmen in the Gaza Strip said they had fired a rocket tipped with a chemical warhead at Israel early on Thursday.
The Israeli army had no immediate comment on the claim by the spokesman from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement.
The group had recently claimed to possess about 20 biological warheads for the makeshift rockets commonly fired from Gaza at Israeli towns. This was the first time the group had claimed firing such a rocket.
"The al-Aqsa Brigades have fired one rocket with a chemical warhead" at southern Israel, Abu Qusai, a spokesman for the group, said in Gaza.
Israel is denying it, but if true, this is the end of the Palestinian "government."
East Coast Flooding
In southeast Pennsylvania, the local rivers & creeks are nearing record level flooding.
- The NBC 10 area is battling its worse flooding situation in decades, as the rapid rise of the Delaware River threatens parts of cities from Easton to Trenton.
The Schuylkill will crest at lower-than-expected levels in Philadelphia. Big local creeks like the Perkiomen, Neshaminy and Brandywine have crested after soaring over their banks Wednesday.
A hundred miles north in Wilkes-Barre 150 to 200 thousand are being evacuated.
Here are a few pictures of the Perkiomen Creek River.
This is of Park Road at the Perkiomen in Schwenksville. The low spot in the road is a bridge.... well, used to be a bridge.
This is Perkiomen Bridge at Collegeville, taken from the parking lot of the Collegeville Inn. Yes, that's their parking lot. The bridge itself dates back to the 1790s, when the Pennsylvania legislature authorized a lottery to raise funds for its construction. The stone bridge was actually widened to three lanes in the early 1900s to allow for trolley traffic.
Thanks to my wife Rachael, who braved the deluge, while I'm out of town!
Yikes! Stay safe!
Posted by: jk at June 28, 2006 7:30 PMI'm in Alaska right now.
But with global warming thawing this whole place out, it's only a matter of time before we're inundated!
Posted by: AlexC at June 28, 2006 7:57 PMUmmm, I was suggesting that your wife stay safe but you've a point. All those icebergs melting and all, it's pretty scary anywhere.
Posted by: jk at June 28, 2006 8:02 PMI knew what you meant. ;)
Funny, this internet thing.
Let's hope it's only a passing fad.
I hope you've given your friends and family careful instructions for protecting themselves from looters. Oh, and make sure she grabs one of those FEMA debit cards for you too!
Posted by: johngalt at June 30, 2006 5:55 PMJune 26, 2006
At War With America
Michael Baron says the New York Times is at war with America.
- Bush administration officials asked the Times not to publish the story. Once again, the Times went ahead anyway. "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration," Bill Keller is quoted as saying. It's interesting to note that he feels obliged to report he and his colleagues weren't smirking or cracking jokes. "We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."
This was presumably the view as well of the "nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives" who were apparently the sources for the story.
But who elected them to make these decisions? Publication of the Times' December and June stories appears to violate provisions of the broadly written, but until recently, seldom enforced provisions of the Espionage Act. Commentary's Gabriel Schoenfeld has argued that the Times can and probably should be prosecuted.
The counterargument is that it is a dangerous business for the government to prosecute the press. But it certainly is in order to prosecute government officials who have abused their trust by disclosing secrets, especially when those disclosures have reduced the government's ability to keep us safe. And pursuit of those charges would probably require reporters to disclose the names of those sources. As the Times found out in the Judith Miller case, reporters who refuse to answer such questions can go to jail.
June 21, 2006
Blogola
What's the first rule of Blogola?
Don't talk about Blogola.
Here's an excerpt of an email sent by Markos Moulistas to the Townhouse, an email list of elite liberal bloggers.
- My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story. Then, once Jerome can speak and defend himself, then I'll go on the offensive (which is when I would file any lawsuits) and anyone can pile on. If any of us blog on this right now, we fuel the story. Let's starve it of oxygen. And without the "he said, she said" element to the story, you know political journalists are paralyzed into inaction.
June 18, 2006
Private Property Rights
Geno's Steaks again...
- The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, silent until yesterday on the "Speak English" signs at Geno's Steaks, says it backs its Philadelphia counterpart's decision to file a complaint against the cheesesteak shop.
The state antidiscrimination agency said, in a statement, that it encourages the use of English as a common language but compared the laminated placards near the shop's takeout windows to discriminatory signs in the country's past.
"Even though this may not have been the intent of Geno's, the presence of the sign harkens back to a time when signs stating, 'no colored allowed,' 'Whites only,' 'no Jews,' or 'no Italians or Irish need apply,' often greeted patrons of public places," said Stephen A. Glassman, the commission's chairman.
And now Six Flags?
- Jonathan DeLeon, 17, was hired at Six Flags America in Largo, Md., in March to wear the costumes of Sylvester and Daffy Duck. A few weeks later, he said he was told to cut his braids, which were at least 3 feet long.
Though his mother cut more than 2 feet of his hair, park officials were dissatisfied, he said.
"They told me I had to cut them even shorter or go home," DeLeon told The Washington Post. "They said they wanted an all-American thing. That's what they said to all the black people. I had already cut it a lot, so I just left."
Though I can't imagine why you'd need short hair to work inside a costume, that's their policy. The ACLU is involved in that one.
I used to work at a Boston Market. At the time, the dress policy was no hoop earrings, hair in a pony tail, for women, and for men, it was short hair, mustaches to the corner of the mouth, and side burns no longer than your ear.
It wasn't an issue.
When did people lose the right to run their businesses as they decide?
Both Geno's and Six Flags established those policies for business reasons. There are upsides and their are downsides. Can't we just leave it at that?
At the end of the day, you don't have to buy a sandwich from Joe Vento, and you don't have to work for or go to Six Flags.
BS like this, is beginning to convince my kids that they dont want to live east of the Mississippi, west of Nevada and be self employed in order to beat the hell out of paying taxes
Posted by: Mohamed alGore at June 19, 2006 3:59 PMJune 15, 2006
The Media Enablers
To most this is self-evident.
Unless you're a member of the press.
- "Both the media and terrorists benefit from terrorist incidents," their study contends. Terrorists get free publicity for themselves and their cause. The media, meanwhile, make money "as reports of terror attacks increase newspaper sales and the number of television viewers."
The researchers counted direct references to terrorism between 1998 and 2005 in the New York Times and Neue Zuercher Zeitung, a respected Swiss newspaper. They also collected data on terrorist attacks around the world during that period. Using a statistical procedure called the Granger Causality Test, they attempted to determine whether more coverage directly led to more attacks.
The results, they said, were unequivocal: Coverage caused more attacks, and attacks caused more coverage -- a mutually beneficial spiral of death that they say has increased because of a heightened interest in terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001.
A message not lost on the remains of Zarqawi and the remainder of his group.
All kinds of terrorist attacks take place in Baghdad, because that's where the cameras are.
Surprise!
June 13, 2006
Bush in Iraq
President Bush is/was in Iraq today.
No "fake turkeys" were served.
I wonder how many rehashes of the fake turkey story will be written by the commentariat in the next few days.
The WSJ Ed page says:
"This message reminds American GIs that they're fighting in a noble cause with support on the home front. It tells the terrorists that they aren't close to the political victory they seek of driving the Coalition out of Iraq. It tells the Iraqi people that they can afford to take a risk and join the police or assist the new government with more confidence that the terrorists won't be able to exact revenge. And it gives the Maliki government more political and military options as it considers how to restore order to Baghdad, among other dangerous places."
Posted by: jk at June 14, 2006 10:08 AMSo Much for Fitzmas
- The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.
The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.
In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."
That sound you hear are the hopes of the liberal left being dashed against the rocks of disappointment.
Yeah, boys engage in tomfoolery. It takes real overly self assured men to really screw things up.
Posted by: silence dogood at June 13, 2006 2:56 PMOh yes, and I beleive the other argument in the Clinton era went something like "if he didn't do anything wrong, we wouldn't have had to spend so much money investigating him".
Posted by: silence dogood at June 13, 2006 2:58 PMTomfoolery? Democrat attempts to manufacture "culture of corruption" examples can hardly be dismissed as practical jokes.
And if replacing a murderous dictatorship with a self-interested representative government is "really screw[ing] things up" then let's screw up some more, and damn fast.
By the way... did you notice that the de-facto leader of al Qaida was "neutralized" last week? Man, that USAF is some bunch of screw ups.
Seriously Silence, when I read that first comment I wondered why you forgot to include "neener neener." You've got better chops than that.
Posted by: johngalt at June 13, 2006 3:15 PMDid I miss a neener, neener opportunity? Damn. Seriously no one has to manufacture the culture of corruption, it has existed at least since Roman times. The only reason the Republicans are having more issues with it is that they are the party in power, fewer folks are trying to corrupt the minority party. As to the culture part, that has more to do with ethics definitions muddied for years by legalisms from both parties. It always amazed me how much more cut and dried the ethics rules were for me when I worked for a defense contractor than they are for the politicians that award the contracts.
And now for something completely different (to borrow from Monty Python) Silence's parable:
A homeowner has a horrible wine stain on his carpet so he calls a carpet cleaner. The cleaner conducts a phone conversation with the homeowner to assess the situation. He concludes that the combination of Bordeaux and that type of cut-pile warrants immediate and aggressive treatment, for the stain may continue to soak through fibers until the whole carpet is ruined. He arrives the next day to clean the stain, which as he surmised is very bad. It is so bad in fact that the only treatment is douse the affected area with lighter fluid and then the surrounding area with fire suppressant and burn the stain. His truck however is a little low on fire suppressant, but the chance of the stain spreading is so great he decides the treatment is necessary anyway. Unfortunately the fire does get out of control and begins to spread. In an attempt to control the blaze he piles all the most flammable materials in an area over in the corner away from which the fire is spreading. To his consternation a breeze through an open window, common this time of day, changes the fire's course and ignites the flammables. Through heroic efforts he manages to stem and then finally after several hours extinguish the fire. Now the cleaner must replace the carpet, and fast. He calls his buddy who sells carpet on the side to get a replacement piece. Lacking proper tacking tools he opts for an adhesive and even though it says the surfaces have to be clean and dry, his buddy assures him it will work anyway. They work feverishly and glue down all the carpet, but unfortunately as they reach the last corner they notice the first corner starting to peel up. They press it back down only to see it peel somewhere else. Round and round they go for an hour attempting to get the carpet to adhere. Finally in disgust the cleaner sends his buddy away and hires a carpet installer to properly install new carpet. The installer does not have the proper shade of gray though, so he substitutes a nice blue but does a fabulous job on the installation and the new carpet is flawless. The homeowner inspects the new carpet and declares the job a complete success.
Posted by: silence dogood at June 14, 2006 3:27 PMWould I be disbarred if I said "Neneer-neener?"
I sense we may be agreeing that the "Special Prosecutor" function is fraught with peril. Better to encourage transparency and allow the voters to make decisions.
You've got me speechless Silence. I've already used the word "Huh?" once this week and that is my limit.
Posted by: johngalt at June 15, 2006 2:28 PMJune 12, 2006
Geno's II
Maybe Joey Vento should have put a "we reserve the right to refuse anyone service" sign up instead.
- The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations will file a complaint later on Monday, effectively opening an agency case against Geno's Steaks of South Philadelphia, said Rachel Lawton, acting executive director of the agency.
The Philadelphia controversy has fed a national debate over immigration in which the U.S. Senate passed a bill that would declare English the national language and politicians have raised objections to a Spanish version of the national anthem.
The sign may violate the city's Fair Practices Ordinance, which bans businesses from discriminating on the basis of nationality or ethnicity, Lawton said.
"The complaint will say that the sign discourages patronage by non-English speakers because of their national origin and/or ancestry," said Lawton, whose agency enforces the city's anti-discrimination laws.
Geno's will be given a up to two weeks to respond and, if the agency determines the sign has violated the city ordinance, will be ordered to take the sign down. If the restaurant refuses, it will be subject to a $300 fine, Lawton said.
Mr Vento has no intention of taking the sign down.
Good for him.
I wonder if it's a $300 one time fine or $300 / day fine.
- Roberto Santiago, executive director of the city's Council of Spanish Speaking Organizations, said he received around 50 "hate" e-mails in response to his criticism of the sign.
One from California said groups like his should be banned for representing "filthy, illegal alien invaders", he said.
"This is dividing this nation," he said.
Geno's or this "mulit-lingual" thing we've got going?
- "I'm really saddened by these individuals who are upset by having to be tolerant. I'm glad I'm living in an America where comments like Mr. Vento's are out of order."
First amendment and freedom expression be damned!
Geno's is probably forty miles from my house. But it might be time for a sandwich.
Update: I take that first part back. He already has that sign. (thanks to Chris)
June 11, 2006
Laying Blame
- A lawyer for Saudi nationals imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay said on Sunday he held U.S. authorities responsible for the deaths of two Saudi prisoners who hanged themselves at the U.S. naval base.
Saudi Arabia, a staunch U.S. ally, said it was stepping up efforts to repatriate all nationals held at the base in Cuba.
An Interior Ministry statement identified the two Saudis as Manei al-Otaibi and Yasser al-Zahrani but gave no further details about them. A Yemeni man also committed suicide.
Those meddling Americans (and their dog)! Let's blame them for the suicides.
I'm mean if it wasn't for those two buildings in New York, and that building in Washington (and the "potential" one).... let's not forget to blame the Americans for meddling in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Let's blame the Yanks.
Well, perhaps if we followed the enlightened retention and interrogation procedures of, say Saudi Arabia, this kind of thing wouldn't happen. We should aspire to be more like them.
Posted by: jk at June 12, 2006 9:31 AMJune 10, 2006
Haditha Hoax?
- Evidence accumulates of a hoax in Haditha. The weblog Sweetness & Light has done an estimable service gathering together the articles which cast substantial doubt on the charge of a massacre of civilians at Haditha . Because the blog is too busy gathering and fisking the news, I offered and the publisher accepted my offer to put what he has uncovered in a narrative form.
Having done so, I can tell you that the story has a whiff of yet another mediagenic scandal like the TANG memos or the Plame “outing.” While the Marines quite correctly will not comment on the case pending the outcome of their investigation, I am not bound by those rules, and I will sum up the story for you.
June 7, 2006
The Last Word on CA-50
50 Congressional Districts! Damn. That's a big state.
Anyway, Michael Barone gets the last word on this race.
Basically, bad news for both parties.
- Democrats had hopes that an enraged Democratic base would turn out in larger numbers proportionately than an apparently discouraged Republican base. That didn't happen. That's not a good sign for Democrats in November. Republicans won in 2002 and 2004 in large part because they won the battle of turnout: John Kerry won 16 percent more popular votes than Al Gore, but George W. Bush won 23 percent more popular votes in 2004 than in 2000. The totals from the California 50th suggest that Democrats are gaining only a very small advantage in differential turnout this year, even though the national polls show Bush in much worse shape than in 2004 and suggest that Republican Party identification is down slightly.
- The bad news for Republicans is that there is now more splintering on the right than on the left. Back in 2000, some 2 percent of voters nationally voted for Ralph Nader, even though there was no hot-button issue like Iraq to differentiate him from Al Gore. Less than 0.5 percent in contrast voted for Pat Buchanan. Conservatives were more unified than liberals. Now it seems to be the other way around. Discontent with Bush and/or the Republican Congress over immigration, spending, pork-barrel projects, the Dubai ports deal, the Republican leadership's protests over the search of Democrat Bill Jefferson's office—you can probably add a few items to the list—has now evidently got more voters on the right willing to cast a protest vote.
Ok ok ok... Dean Barnett too.
- If Busby does go down to defeat, (which given the support she has received from the nutroots seems all but inevitable), and her ridiculous “misstatement” is a leading cause for said defeat, then the entire episode should prove instructive for those of us in the pundit class. It is true that the Republican Party has become frustrating on a good day, pathetic on a bad one. But in order to win all the individual races out there, the Democrats will have to provide a superior alternative. Given the state of the Democratic Party, this promises to be no easy feat.
You’d have to say the California 50th race was a winnable one for the Democrats, even if it weren’t the year of a putative Democratic tidal wave. After all, the former Republican incumbent now sports an orange jump suit. And yet, it appears like it won’t work out because the Democratic candidate just wasn’t up to snuff.
The Toronto Terrorists
I haven't linked to Lileks for a while.
But here's a must read.
- You're an enlightened world citizen. Your T-shirt says "9/11 was an inside job." You're pretty sure we're living in a fascist state, that President Bush taps the Dixie Chicks' phones, Christian abortion clinic bombers outnumber jihadis, and the war on "terror" is a distraction from the real threats: carbon emissions and Pat Robertson. Then you learn that 17 people were arrested in a terrorist bomb plot. How do you process the information? Let's take it step by step.
Clinton vs Coulter
Ann Coulter really said something reprehensibly stupid today.
- Coulter writes in a new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act "as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them."
She also wrote, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
For some reason, the Junior Senator from New York decided to get in on it.
- "Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless,'" the senator said. "I know a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. The