Homocon

With 80% of the city under water, and authorities proclaiming that "the entire city must be evacuated", the question on everyone's mind is, "What's to become of New Orleans?"

The city has been nearly decimated by Hurricane Katrina, and not so much from the hurricane itself (though that did extensive damage), but because the long feared event came into being: the levees broke, and now there's no keeping the surrounding waters from pouring down into the valley and swamping an entire metropolis. The governor said today the situation was growing "more desperate" and there was no choice but to abandon the flooded city.

“The challenge is an engineering nightmare,” Gov. Kathleen Blanco said, as army engineers struggle vainly to repair the breached levees, admitting to having trouble getting the sandbags and dozens of 15-foot highway barriers to the site because the city’s waterways are blocked by loose barges, boats and large chunks of debris.

Two near-fatal electrocutions have occurred when residents tried to return to homes in flooded areas, and while several women gave birth during the hurricane, “Nobody named one Katrina yet,” said Ochsner Clinic spokeswoman Katherine Voss.

New Orleans' Mayor, Ray Nagin, stated that the engineers and authorities are looking at 12 to 16 weeks before people can return to the city -- "We have (hundreds to thousands of) dead bodies in the water. At some point in time the dead bodies are going to start to create a serious disease issue.”

The only major freeway into New Orleans is shattered, there's no drinkable water and opportunistic looters are swarming through the city like it's Baghdad just after the fall of Hussein, only it's New Orleans and it's sickening to watch how fast a segment of the citizenry can degenerate into frenzied lawlessness. "The looting is out of control. The French Quarter has been attacked," Councilwoman Jackie Clarkson said. "We're using exhausted, scarce police to control looting when they should be used for search and rescue while we still have people on rooftops."

Islamic extremists rejoiced in the news of devastation in the United States, dancing in the streets like it was Palestine, September 11th. Hurricane Katrina was viewed as a partner in the holy war, and "with God's help," they declared, "oil prices would hit $100 a barrel this year."

Nice. Apparently, we're all just a hurricane away from savages in the wild.

“It’s like being in a Third World country," said Mitch Handrich, a registered nurse manager at the state’s biggest public hospital. "We’re just trying to stay alive." Hospitals are being evacuated, the football stadium is being evacuated, the whole city is being evacuated. But where will everyone go? And with a best-case scenario of three to four months before anyone is allowed to return, will there even be a New Orleans left to return to?

Experts are compiling their preliminary estimates of the storm's cost, with the figure $25 billion being bandied about, what with some 95 percent of the Gulf of Mexico's oil output out of service at present. There's even noise that the President is going to authorize an emergency release of supplies from the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve, which was established for petroleum shortage emergencies such as this (and not for keeping the price of gas below $3.00 a gallon, especially when other countries, from Australia, Japan, the Netherlands and others, are already paying well above $4 US per gallon without rioting in the streets).

The Blame Bush crowd is, however, out in full force, attempting to portray the breached levees as a failure of financial assistance and federal oversight on the part of the Bush Administration (my favorite quote: "The Corps’ justified request (for additional flood and hurricane protection in the range of $150 million for the New Orleans region) received a deaf ear from the Bush-Cheney Gang, which insisted on wasting more of our nation’s resources on the unwinnable Iraqi War and other madcap schemes) -- yet there's no word as to why all of the proposed pre-disaster work for the region was not accomplished well before the year 2000. It's not like New Orleans just appeared in a puff of smoke on December 31st, 1999. What was happening during the 70's, the 80's, and the supposed "boom years" of the 90's when spending was the rule of the day? Oh, yeah -- lots of proposals, studies and bureaucratic expansion (read, FEMA).

Yet it's somehow entirely the fault of the Bush Administration that the city of New Orleans is under water.

I blame Clinton. It's the Clinton Administration's fault that during their eight years in office the levees weren't properly reinforced and new pumps weren't adequately installed, so now the people of New Orleans are decimated by a president who was too busy shoving interns between his knees to pay attention to pre-disaster requirements in the region. There. See how easy (and ridiculous) that is?

*sigh*

"We've lost our city," said Marc Morial, a former mayor of New Orleans. "I fear it's potentially like Pompeii." And Pompeii was built at the foot of an active volcano, much like New Orleans was built in a valley surrounded by large bodies of water.

You can prepare all you want, but you can't always beat Mother Nature.

And I wonder which airline will be the one that goes belly-up, now that wholesalers say they're already paying 65 cents to 80 cents per gallon more in the wake of the storm (and jet fuel prices rose 17 percent in two days to record highs). With all the refineries and offshore rigs in the Gulf region closed and damaged, billions of dollars that would have been spent in the United States will now flow outward to foreign oil-producing countries, extending the economic damage from Katrina into years instead of months (though the president of the Reserve Bank of Philadelphia said that "the effects of Katrina are likely to slow but not stall the forward progress of the national economy").

There is one bright spot in all the news: Mayor Ray Nagin said "the historic French Quarter, which is the main draw for New Orleans’s tourist industry, should escape relatively unscathed because it lies 1.5 meters above sea level."

Relatively unscathed, that is, except for the looters . . .

UPDATE:
Americares is an excellent, Connecticut based relief organization which is rated highly by charity watchers. It has only 4% administration costs and uses only 7% of its resources for fundraising, which means that 89 cents of every dollar you donate to Americares goes towards its actual relief programs. Since its founding, AmeriCares has provided more than $4.0 billion of aid in more than 137 countries, and is now on the scene in dealing with the catastrophic damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina.

"We are readying relief shipments containing cleaning supplies, personal hygiene products and other materials," said Christoph Gorder, AmeriCares vice president, "thanks to generous donations from our many corporate partners who have already stepped forward to assist with this relief effort."

If you're looking for a Human Services organization that will use your dollars wisely, and get the help to the people who need it the most, Americares is a good bet. Visit their website and make a donation, if you can.

ADDENDUM:
The Christian Science Monitor is one of the few news sources that seems to have had anything salient to say about the policy after-effects of Hurricane Katrina: "Katrina may prove to be a catalyst for longer-term changes - such as better fortifying New Orleans against storm surges or lessening the nation's energy dependence on the region - at a time when the intensity of tropical storms appears to be rising."

ADDENDUM 2:
So much for the Blame Bush crowd. . . when even the NYT's comes out against the "Katrina is the result of Global Warming" loonies, you know that Kyoto's mostly a non-starter these days.

ADDENDUM 3:
Here, in Popular Mechanics (of all places), is a September, 2001 article which discusses, presciently, the devastation that would occur in New Orleans should a category 5 hurricane hit the area: "Think of the city as a chin jutting out, waiting for a one-two punch from Mother Nature . . . the surge of a Category 5 storm could put New Orleans under 18 ft. of water . . . and, given the tremendous amount of coastal-area development, this watery "big one" will produce a staggering amount of damage."

Posted by at 2:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plays the most despicable card of all, and you can find it, in all its vile glory, at The Huffington Post:

"As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2."

So, really, in Robert F. Kennedy's gruesomely sheltered and blindingly self-righteous world view, everybody in the panhandle just got what was coming to them . . . because we didn't sign Kyoto (that worthless piece of environmentalism hogwash), dontchya know. I wonder if he penned his poisonous little screed during a cross-country trip on his private jet, belching the kind of carbon emissions that half the population of Mississippi can only dream about . . .

This is the money quote: "In 1998, Republican icon Pat Robertson warned that hurricanes were likely to hit communities that offended God. Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast."

Pardon my language, but what a pompous, f*cking a**hole. Not even tragedy can keep the modern left from rising up like a zombified carcass and clawing for whatever cheap political points it can grasp.

Posted by at 10:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

I recently downloaded onto my iPod the entire Narnian Chronicles by C.S. Lewis, and it's been rather a time warp to listen to them at this point in my life. When I was really young, my father read the entire series to me and my siblings in the evenings, so I thought it would be interesting to revisit them again and see if I remembered the stories correctly. Besides, I needed something (anything) to take my mind off of how boring it is to clamber onto the treadmill at the gym, and this seemed just the ticket.

The writing is better than I remembered -- vivid and descriptive without going completely overboard on depictions of landscape and character history (as in, say, much of The Lord of the Rings which, in my opinion, stretched on far longer than seemed really necessary). The mythology is vaguely Christian (though C.S. Lewis sometimes denied overtly crafting them so . . . but, really, does anybody believe him on that point?).

I just finished listening to "The Magician's Nephew", narrated by Kenneth Branagh. He does a terrific job of reading the novel, giving voice to each character and fleshing out what otherwise might have just been dry prose. And while I'm no great fiction reader (preferring non-fiction and biographies), I'm anticipating moving on with "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". I'm not certain that Michael York will do near as good a job with it as did Branagh with "The Magician's Nephew", but I'll try and give him the benefit of the doubt.

Alex Jennings, Lynn Redgrave, Derek Jacobi, Jeremy Northam (whom I just saw last night in the film "Cypher" -- which was far better than one has any reason to expect) and Patrick Stewart round out the other narrators of the rest of the series, and I'm thinking it'll prove to be an interesting exercise in nostalgia, if not performance art.

I recommend the series, if you're so inclined -- especially if you have children. I recall being spellbound by all the fantastical happenings and descriptions when I was a child, though perhaps it might not translate as well to a more contemporary child's world . . . though I hear they're making "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe" into a movie to be released sometime this year (?). If it proves successful, then I'm sure there will be six more movies on the way. And with the advances in computer graphics and rendering, the Narnian Chronicles might be quite the wonder to behold.

The trailer looks very Harry Potter-like, which, for the target audience, is possibly a good thing . . . ?

Posted by at 7:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

1. "Two relatives of Eminem have filed suit against the rap star, claiming that he is trying to evict them from the home he had built for them . . . According to the lawsuit, the Schmitts claim that Eminem had agreed to pay them $100,000 a year for five years and provide them with a house worth up to $350,000. But they say the rapper has given them only $165,000 since 2002."

Wow. He "only" provided them with $165,000 in 3 years -- and he bought a lot and built them a $350,000 home, and now they're suing him! Un-frickin-believable. They're angry that he kept the home and the land under his own name, and now he's sent them an eviction notice telling them to get out of the house, but I wonder what they did to deserve it? You know -- they probably bitched at him about his not giving them enough money ("Give us more money! We're out of champagne!"), and they probably threatened to sell stories about him to the tabloids if he didn't pay up ("We know secrets!").

I'm not a big fan of Eminem, and I thought his attempt to influence the 2004 election against George Bush was genuinely lame (though even dorkier were the people who were convinced he could make a political dent), but I think this is a lousy thing to have happen to anybody, and I can hardly believe that after he's been so generous with his aunt and uncle, they would turn around and sue him just to wring more money and a house out of him. Because, you know, I'm sure they feel like they're entitled to it . . .

2. "Actress Margot Kidder became a U.S. citizen Wednesday to avoid possible deportation to her native Canada when she begins protesting the war in Iraq, she said."

Now that's just foolish talk. No one is being deported from the United States for expressing their political views (maybe for inciting violence, but not for their opposition to a war or to a Presidential candidate), and making such a statement to the press is not only ridiculous, but downright ignorant.

She goes on to say "that her sole motivation" for becoming a U.S. citizen was to protest the war in Iraq. She doesn't care about living in this country, she just wants to "vote against anyone and everyone in elected office that in any way supported the Bush administration."

I think this helps explain the wackiness a little: "In 1996 she made headlines when she was discovered in a delusional state in a Los Angeles neighborhood (she was described as "dirty, frightened and paranoid"). She later described publicly her battles with manic depression."

Perhaps she should think about upping the meds -- the paranoia sounds like it's on a comeback.

3. "Incidents of consumer anger and gas-station crime have made headlines across the country, including the killing of a gas station owner in Alabama last week by a driver attempting to steal $52 worth of gas . . . Rae Dougher, manager of energy market issues at the Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, noted that, although gas prices are soaring, gas station owners are often suffering squeezed profits or even losing money -- and they still have to deal with irritated customers who blame them for high costs."

Hey, news flash for the brain challenged -- it aint the retailers you should be yelling at. Oil companies are taking in huge amounts of cash at present, since they bought their oil on futures, which means they're paying for it at $20-$40 dollars a barrel instead of the present $67. But the market is jittery, domestic refinement capacity has been hamstrung by environmental regulations (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it means that we rely even more on foreign oil than we by all rights need to) and the oil companies are nervously looking ahead to a future where they'll have to shell out billions for alternative energy technologies, deal with potential disruptions in delivery from both natural and political causes, face competition for supplies from growing economies such as China and India, and purchase more reserves at $70 a barrel and up (as oil prices are not likely to head south anytime soon).

Larry Kudlow at the NRO writes: "The spread of global capitalism to places like China, India, and Eastern Europe is the main cause of the spike in energy prices. It’s a market signal that the new and prospering world economy needs more power. Consequently, this is not a recessionary supply crunch like we had in the 1970s. It’s a growth-oriented demand increase," . . . and a situation which he believes will instigate an energy market explosion in the near future as nuclear power plants come online and alternative energy sources are more thoroughly explored and implemented.

Meanwhile, "nationwide, gas thefts cost convenience stores an estimated $237 million -- or about $2,141 a store --in 2004, the National Association of Convenience Stores report . . . Executive Vice President and Director of the Petroleum and Convenience Marketers of Alabama, Arleen Alexander, states: “A lot of people think when they are doing this (driving off without paying for their gas) they are hurting the oil companies, like the Exxons and the Texacos, but they are not. They are hurting the small business man who is making just pennies a gallon right now.”

So stop bitching at the gas station employess, dammit!

4. Oh, and the Italians . . . *sigh* (but they make great wine!).

UPDATE:
I almost forgot the academic liberals, but Instapundit didn't when he linked to the spine-tingling article, "Proving the Critic's Case" by By KC Johnson, regarding the near complete lack of intellectual diversity at America's universities.

There are numerous chilling quotations from University Professors and Administration throughout the article, but I think my favorite was this: "According to Montclair State’s Grover Furr, “colleges and universities do not need a single additional ‘conservative’ .... What they do need, and would much benefit from, is more Marxists, radicals, leftists — all terms conventionally applied to those who fight against exploitation, racism, sexism, and capitalism. We can never have too many of these, just as we can never have too few ‘conservatives.'"

Right . . . more Marxists, radicals and leftists. That's just what we all need.

UPDATE 2:
Dan Savage, ex-Drag Queen and present pseudo-moderate, takes his place in the Loony Files for self-righteous claptrap like this: "Gay people are more likely to take extreme ill-advised sexual risks . . . I would add voting Republican when you're gay to that list, along with doing crystal meth and having sex with 40 guys in one weekend. They're both dumbass, self-destructive things to do. A certain number of people are stupid enough to off themselves."

*Yawn* . . . yet another gay lefty obediently regurgitates "The Republo-Fascist-Theocracy Will Kill Us All!" rhetoric. Good little doggy, Dan. Here's your Don't Ask, Don't Tell biscuit.

Posted by at 3:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Pardon the dearth of posts lately -- what between being in and out of town, and now with Scott McCollum flogging me into participating in the IMAO Podcast (or is it now "IMAudiO" -- there's a re-branding going on over there that's happening entirely outside of my scope of control), it's been difficult to find the time to do as much research for a post.

I'm always delighted, however, to publish quotes from articles and editorials that I think are worth a look by as large a group as possible, if only for great cocktail party conversation starters (see #3). So while I toil away in the background on a couple of different projects, please take a stroll on over to the web-pages featured after the page jump and read further.

Thank you, and good night.

1. "This has been a long, love-hate relationship between myself and the French . . . to say that I've 'fooled' the fans is preposterous. I've been doing this a long time. We have not just one year of only 'B' samples; we have seven years of 'A' and 'B' samples. They've all been negative."

2. "Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression . . . so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are no longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms."

3. "Although the situation in Mosul is better, our troops still fight here every day. This may not be the war some folks had in mind a few years ago. But once the shooting starts, a plan is just a guess in a party dress."

4. "Men are more intelligent than women by about five IQ points on average, making them better suited for “tasks of high complexity”, according to the authors of a paper due to be published in the British Journal of Psychology."

5. "To be singled out for condemnation as a friend and ally of Israel is a singular honor. Congrats to those mentioned. For a writer, I can't think of a higher honor than to be blasted for defending longest established democracy in the Middle East, and a staunch friend of America."

6. ""Before any substantial commitment to defend India against China is given, we should recognize that in order to carry out that commitment against any substantial Chinese attack we would have to use nuclear weapons," (former Defense Secretary Robert) McNamara says."

7. "Ecuador oil protesters, whose attacks have shut down petroleum exports, struck a deal with energy companies on Thursday in which the firms will invest more in communities where they operate, protest leaders and the mediator of peace talks said."

8. "Economist Robert Fogel, winner of the Nobel Prize, recently told students at Cornell University that "half of you [may] live to celebrate your 100th birthday . . . Fogel's forecast reminds us that sooner or later Americans will have to work longer and retire later. It will become economically, politically and morally intolerable for government (aka taxpayers) to support people for a third or even half of their adult lives. Our present Social Security "debate" ought to start this inevitable transformation. But it isn't. We are in deep denial about the obvious . . . "

9. ". . . the battle for acceptance of homosexuality, for instance, was won by Will and Grace as much as by any court decision or hate-crimes bill. More generally, too, the reflexive lifestyle liberalism of highbrow movies and TV help ensure that among the educated classes, conservatism - and particularly social conservatism, and even more particularly religious conservatism - is regarded as declasse at best, despicable at worst."

10. "(I)ntelligent design and Darwinists have more in common than they think. In fact, not only Darwinism (or evolutionism, if you will), but the entire activity of science, depends on intelligent design. That is, it depends on the faith of the scientist that the order that he or she examines is in fact an order according to some form of design. Where that order derives from might be a matter of faith, but scientist and believer have this in common: their activity presupposes intelligent design. In other words, you just can’t believe people like Dawkins who argue that the universe is simply the result of randomness and chaos - scientific activity rejects that."

UPDATE:
This is a must read (it's hilarious to note that all supposed White House sources are anonymous): "Buy beleaguered, overworked White House aides enough drinks and they tell a sordid tale of an administration under siege, beset by bitter staff infighting and led by a man whose mood swings suggest paranoia bordering on schizophrenia."

Posted by at 5:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

It's in the headlines, all across the television news, inserted into political speeches and I even saw mention of it just this morning on the in-house small-screen advertising on the elevator trip up to the office -- oil is expensive, and it's getting more so by the day. But while talking heads gush breathlessly about the latest rise in the price of crude, recording the average man on the street's reaction to higher prices and how much it hurts (ouch!) at the gas station, let's take a few moments to examine the potential benefits of skyrocketing oil prices, and how steadily rising energy prices may not be as much a "problem" as some conspiracy theorists delight in portraying it.

For years, environmentalists and alternative energy champions have been complaining that the big auto makers and the big government bureaucracies have been dragging their feet regarding fuel efficiency and the development of energy alternatives, but with so much cheap oil to refine into cheap gas for mass consumption, there was little to no incentive to make expensive and radical changes to the energy pipeline (so to speak). Yet now, with the price of oil looking to hit $70 a barrel sometime in the near future, profit margins across the manufacturing and retail industries are shrinking, sales of less fuel efficient SUVs are decreasing, and analysts are predicting that the large oil companies (presently raking in huge profits off the increased oil and gas prices since they bought their oil reserves at prices considerably lower than the current almost $65 a barrel), will experience a sharp drop in oil profits starting as early as 2006 as they're forced into spending untold billions of dollars developing new extraction technologies and exploring new and more difficult geographical locations.

So with oil prices reaching higher and higher levels, alternatives to the once undeniably attractive black ocean in the Middle East are looking better by the minute.

"High prices lead people to develop substitutes," says Steven Levitt at freakonomics.com, and a NYT cover story article, which is meant to spook consumers regarding a so-called "peak oil" crisis and an unparalleled worldwide economic depression, actually hits the High Cost Of Oil Benefit right on the noggin: "When crude costs $10 a barrel or even $30 a barrel, alternative fuels are prohibitively expensive . . . yet those tar sands and other alternatives, like bioethanol, hydrogen fuel cells and liquid fuel from natural gas or coal, become economically viable as the going rate for a barrel rises past, say, $40 or more."

Steven Levitt goes on to say, "People respond to incentives. If the price of a good goes up, people demand less of it . . . and everyone tries to figure out how to produce substitutes for it." George Will notes in his June, 2004 article America After Oil that " since 1988 the average gas mileage of U.S. passenger vehicles has declined, and . . . in the 2003 model year, for the first time since the mid-1970s, the average weight of a new car or light truck was more than two tons" -- the incentive for change was not yet in effect, and the explosion in SUV production throughout the 90's was directly in response to rock bottom fuel prices rather than any antagonistic attitude towards the environment on the part of consumers.

While environmentalists, conservationists and kooky leftists have been vainly pitching the energy debate in moral terms, what they've consistently failed to realize across the board is that the only argument that wins in a free market is the economic one. "You're cutting down the gorgeous rainforests, destroying our children's national birthright, crowding out the caribou and ruining my view!" has little to no chance of beating the straight-forward logic of the bank account.

Economist Russel Roberts has this to say: "Years before the last drop of oil is found and extracted, we'll walk away from oil as an energy source. It will be too hard to find new reserves. Or too expensive to extract the reserves we know about. Long before we run out of oil, we'll switch to cheaper alternatives."

In 2004, alternative energy sources provided only 6 percent of the entire nation's energy supply, yet with the increasing social, political and economic costs associated with drilling, extracting and refining our oil, alternative power sources are attracting attention at even the highest levels of government. In the last two decades alone, solar-thermal panels have become far more efficient, and energy analysts such as Paul Torcellini, a senior engineer at the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, note that, with products that harness stable alternative energy sources as opposed to price-fluctuating oil, consumers can benefit by knowing their energy costs upfront instead of hedging their bets on uncertain markets and unknown reserves.

Energy sources such as offshore wind farms, solar panels, hydrogen fuel cells and ground-source heat pumps are all terrific ideas, but when oil is cheap and gas is plentiful, it's difficult to convince consumers that spending the extra 20 grand for fuel-cell technology in their automobile, or an extra 50 thousand and up for solar or geo-exchange systems in their homes makes any practical sense. But practicalities and alternative energies may have just found their eHarmony moment in oil prices that are nearing, and expected to exceed, $70 a barrel.

The human species has a maddening habit of responding to emergencies only when they are upon us ("Our best estimate as of today is there are between 500 to 1,000 large near-Earth objects at 1 kilometer (diameter or more)," said David Rabinowitz, a scientist with the JPL project headed by Eleanor Helin -- but we're nowhere near an escape plan), and it's the same with energy resources. I've always believed that the best way to push alternative energy sources is to make darn sure that what we're presently using is either way too expensive to continue exploiting or on the brink of running out. And while no one has any true idea of how much oil is left to pump and refine, we may have just reached the point where the financial costs are exceeding the return.

We can have our Brave New World full of alternative technologies, but, it seems, only if we're forced into it. So the next time you're tempted to complain about the high prices at the gas pump and the increases in airline fees, stop, take a deep breath, and think hydrogen fuel cells, shale oil and any number of presently undiscovered fuel resources. The development of alternative technologies due to increased energy expenses may very well be worth the price we're paying right now -- and it's certainly the only way we're going to seriously explore the options.

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC:
I'm pretty bummed about this: "U.S. household electrical appliance retailers and stores selling movies have already voiced concerns that consumers might be reluctant to purchase the next-generation DVDs due to confusion over the differing formats."

I was hoping we could avoid a format battle, but it looks inevitable at this point.

COLOR ME UNSURPRISED:
Michael Moore enrolls at a Fat Farm . . . fer real!

Posted by at 9:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Frank J. at IMAO makes an appeal to the President, and I stand firmly behind him on this one.

"Considering the state of affairs in Iraq and our own country, I IMPLORE you, Mr. President, to punch Senator Hagel square in the face. My brother is currently risking his life in Iraq, and his sacrifice demands that you curl your hand into a fist and move it at great speed into Hagel's big fat mouth."

Thank you.

BTW: the good people at IMAO produce a weekly audio show (or "Podcast" for those who feel the need to associate the ubiquitous MP3 file with their personal iPod fetish) that's downloadable off their website, and also available as a Podcast on iTunes. It's a weekly half-hour of political comedy that's often well worth the time. It's the only Podcast I regularly listen to (besides George Bush's weekly radio address, which, frankly, can be rather dull, though it's always informative), and it gets better with each production. They're shamelessly casting about for new listeners, with Scott McCollum, the show's producer, threatening to can the effort unless Glenn Reynolds links to it, and pronto!

And he has the Absolute Moral Authority (tm) to make such a demand, as he sacrificed one of his own beloved puppies to the Great Blender.

Save the IMAO Podcast! Listen today.

Posted by at 12:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

This is stunning in the lack of any coverage in the press, and is yet another example of how mainstream media has cleverly disguised itself as an objective party to the political scene while yet pursuing an unabashedly leftist agenda.

Eric Pfeiffer reports that "across the street from Camp Casey is Camp Qualls, a pro-Bush campsite set up by supporters of American efforts in Iraq. Granted, the site is much smaller than the anti-Bush crowd, but it’s growing each day" -- yet there's hardly a peep from the newspapers about any kind of counter-presence in Crawford with names like Camp Qualls and Camp Reality.

HolyCoast.com states that "Wacko Woodstock is going to have some competition in Crawford" and one lone Associated Press reporter details the Camp Casey response to Bush supporters: "We don't want to debate with people who don't understand our point of view."

Hmm, must be an interesting world when you completely shelter yourself from opposing points of view. Michelle Malkin points to the blog Generation Why? which has posted an attempt to explain the "la la la I can't hear you!" mindset of the modern left, exemplified in the Absolute Moral Authority (AMA) ideology adopted by the lefties camping out by the side of the road in Crawford: "the Left has been hijacked by a force called Victim Mentality . . . All in all, it's just simply become the liberals’ political strategy -- If you can create enough victims in the world, you can swoop in as "defender of their cause" and gain their votes."

So the Democrats sit back and let the far left whip itself in to an emotional, victimized frenzy, hopefully dragging along a good number of otherwise sane members of the center-left with them, at which point the DNC will "swoop in" with the promise to save them all from the misery they've created for themselves -- "We'll pull out of Iraq. Right away. We'll apologize for everything, and even cry a little while we do it. We'll pay reparations, too. Anything you want -- just vote for us."

Professor Alexander Tyler is attributed to have said, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses . . . "

The "Anything You Want I Feel Your Pain" Democrats will be the death of us all.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"I've also noticed lately that if someone can convince you that you're a victim, the rule is that you're absolved of any responsibility to behave in a moral way toward your supposed oppressors. Anything from simple deceit to theft to murder is justified as a defense."

ADDENDUM:
Roseville military mom leads 'You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy' caravan to Crawford, Texas. Watch as the majority of the mainstream media looks the other way and pretends not to notice.

UPDATE:
USA Today has a story on Fort Qualls: "Qualls' frustration with the anti-war demonstrators erupted last week when he removed a cross bearing his son's name that was among hundreds the group had put up along the road to Bush's ranch. Qualls called the protesters' views disrespectful to soldiers, and said he had to yank out two more crosses after protesters kept replacing them."

And don't forget -- he has the Absolute Moral Authority (tm) to do that.

Posted by at 6:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (11)

The guys over at PowerLine are doing to Paul Krugman and the election-fraud conspiracy theorists what they do best -- present calm, measured facts to refute wild-eyed, partisan ravings. This time they decimate Krugman's spittle-flecked invective regarding the Ohio elections in 2004. It's a must read, and you can find it here.

And Cal Thomas has an excellent article explaining why he believes the President should meet with Cindy Sheehan . . . again: "The case for creating peace and stability in Iraq is a good one, but it needs to be made repeatedly because of short attention spans, bad memory and the boldness of the Left, which thinks it has found the president vulnerable. Go and meet again with Cindy Sheehan, Mr. President, but this time not in private and not alone . . . Other relatives of dead and wounded soldiers and some of the soldiers, themselves, should be included, (plus) Iraqis who support the effort to free a people long held in bondage by Saddam Hussein . . . let Iraqi women tell their stories about rape and torture at the hands of Hussein's now-dead sons; (and) allow Iraqi men to tell about life under Hussein and how grateful they are that he is gone." Who says that one stridently far-left woman who uses her dead son as a chess piece for her own political agenda has the only opinion worth hearing?

Ann Coutler, of course, has a bitingly appropriate piece regarding the Sheehan-anigans: "Liberals demand that we listen with rapt attention to Sheehan, but she has nothing new to say about the war. At least nothing we haven't heard from Michael Moore since approximately 11 a.m., Sept. 11, 2001. It's a neocon war; we're fighting for Israel; it's a war for oil; Bush lied, kids died; there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Turn on MSNBC's "Hardball" and you can hear it right now. At this point, Cindy Sheehan is like a touring company of Air America radio: Same old script and it's not even the original cast . . . But now liberals demand that we listen to the same old arguments all over again, not because Sheehan has any new insights, but because she has the ability to repel dissent by citing her grief."

I *heart* Ann Coulter.

The Moderate Voice responds to John Kerry's fantasy that the Democratic Party is just fine, thank you, while also quoting what I think is the only witty comment that Kerry has ever uttered: "In an arch comment about the president's recent statement in favor of teaching "intelligent design" as an alternative to the theory of evolution, Kerry said, "I think we ought to be getting some intelligent design in our policy in Iraq."

Betsy Newmark points to Andrew Roth's article on how high tax rates drive high-wage earners away: "What do Tiger Woods, Scott McCarron, and Natalie Gulbis have in common? Besides being highly-paid golfers, they’ve all left the state of California because of its punitive tax rates." High tax rates to fund governmental bloat and mismanagement are also not appreciated here, here and here. For example: "When government grows in wealth, it grows in power, and opposition to power is meaningless without stemming the life-blood of those government programs and the government agents they support. This is precisely why all Americans who value their own autonomy should support tax cuts regardless of who directly benefits from a smaller tax bill . . . By defending a "soak the rich" policy, average Americans will simply create an ever more powerful and watchful government that few average people have the resources to combat."

I've never understood the leftist notion that the wealthiest should be highly taxed -- culling such large amounts of money from the top wage earners only goes to fund increased governmental bureaucracy, an expanded military and extensive regulation over daily life, all which leftists continuously decry. Tax cuts for everyone, not just the lower wage earners, reduces governmental bloat across the board while stimulating charitable contributions from those who are allowed to spend their surplus at their discretion, such as early philanthropists like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, Guggenheim and more. It should be noted, however, that not all were appreciative of the early American billionaires:

"In 1889, Andrew Carnegie . . . argued that the wealthy had a responsibility to give away a portion of their assets. This "gospel of wealth" was controversial. Washington Gladden, the social gospel minister, defined the gifts of the very wealthy as "tainted money" because of the exploitative way it had been earned. On one occasion, late in the nineteenth century, Jane Addams of Hull-House returned an anonymous gift of twenty thousand dollars because she suspected it came from the Rockefellers. But most Americans became accustomed in the late nineteenth century to the rich bestowing large private gifts on universities (Duke and Stanford, for example), medical centers, churches, and other local and national institutions."

Posted by at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In which Homocon.com presents the third installment of informational links to assist in transforming you into a veritable font of bite-sized global-news nuggets at your next office party. Make sure you follow the hyperlinks in the quotes below (and fer gosh-sakes, stay away from the lamp-shades!).

1. "(Hollywood) is an abominable place," (Terry Gilliam) said over lunch recently in London . . . "If there was an Old Testamental God, he would do his job and wipe the place out. The only bad thing is that some really good restaurants would go up as well."

2. "The U.N. support of the Palestinian Authority's propaganda operation in the midst of the Israeli evacuation of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip has provoked outrage from Israeli and Jewish leaders, who are blaming Turtle Bay for propagating an inflammatory message that they say encourages Palestinian Arab violence."

3. "In recent months, the Vatican has been engaged in negotiations with Beijing that, if successful, could substantially improve religious freedom in China . . . There are now 12 million Catholics in China. For those who belong to the underground church and do not recognize the spiritual supremacy of the Chinese Communist Party, life is often hell. Beijing has never hesitated to persecute and torture them."

4. "In material released Monday, Roberts emerged as an attorney serving in the Reagan White House who held views generally in line with those of other conservatives. He was sympathetic to prayer in public schools, dismissive of "comparable worth," referred to the "tragedy of abortion" and took a swipe at the Supreme Court for being too willing to hear multiple appeals from death row inmates."

5. "The US has allowed New Zealand to take part in a joint military exercise this week, ending a 20-year freeze in defence co-operation, but has refused to say whether the approval signalled a wider thaw . . . The relationship between the US and New Zealand has been frosty since 1985 when the then Labour government of prime minister David Lange, who died last Saturday, declined a visit from a US warship after passing anti-nuclear legislation."

6. "Indian companies are faring well in spite of . . . obstacles. Why? There are two primary reasons. First, democratic India retains an element of the rule of law, whereby conditions are the same for all firms, resulting in a reasonably competitive environment. Second, the government has wisely refrained from intervening in "new sectors" such as information technology, business process outsourcing and to a lesser degree, pharmaceuticals. Relaxation of overt regulations has been continuous, albeit slow."

7. "Iraq will carry out its first execution of convicts since the fall of Saddam Hussein within a few days, Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari has said . . . The three men were sentenced to death in May for kidnapping and killing policemen and raping women . . . US-led authorities suspended the death penalty in Iraq after the ouster of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in 2003. The punishment was re-instated in August 2004 under Iraq's then-leader, Iyad Allawi."

8. "Oil prices fell by more than $2 on Wednesday as US inventory data showing crude oil was sufficient to meet demand helped to ease supply fears."

9. "A survey reported Tuesday that nearly half (46%) of all Mexicans would like to live in the United States and that the sentiment seemed as strong among Mexico's college-educated middle class as the poor."

10. "The official campaign period for Egypt's landmark presidential election opened Wednesday. Ten men, including sitting President Hosni Mubarak, are vying for the presidency in the country's first multi-candidate election."

ADDENDUM:
Sound Politics notes that the Seattle PI lists Military Service as "a social problem" . . .

ADDENDUM 2:
While Srappleface reports that Cindy Sheehan has no exit strategy from the "quagmire" in Crawford.

ADDENDUM 3:
And Blonde Sagacity hosts an aplogy letter to the Muslims of the Middle East written by a retired American marine.

Posted by at 6:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In my own little corner of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (tm), I found this to be vastly entertaining.

It seems that tucked innocently within the 65,000 pages of documents released from the White House yesterday, which detail Justice John Robert's time as counsel during the Reagan administration, there are gems of memos in which Roberts has the foresight to advise the White House staff to treat The Whacko'd One like a glob of ebola in the High-School Prom punch bowl.

Jackson's attendants requested a letter of commendation from the President regarding Jackson's charitable works, but Roberts headed the potential fiasco off at the pass (just imagine the contemporary liberal glee should Jackson possess a signed letter from Reagan). "The office of presidential correspondence is not yet an adjunct of Michael Jackson's PR firm," Roberts wrote in a memo on June 22, 1984. "I recognize that I am something of a (voice in the wilderness) in this area, but enough is enough."

And when Jackson's personal manager made a request for a signed, handwritten letter from Ronald Reagan to thank Jackson for performing in Washington and providing 400 tickets for "needy youngsters," Roberts was incredulous. "I hate to sound like one of Mr. Jackson's records, constantly repeating the same refrain, but I recommend that we not approve this letter. . . . ". He goes on to state that Jackson's tour and ticket giveaway were calculated commercial decisions that don't warrant gratitude from the President of the United States.

Though I think the letter could have gone something like this: Gee, thanks for performing in Washington, Michael, before thousands of paying, hysterical fans . . . oh, and also for tossing a few free tickets to "needy" pubescents as a publicity/speed-dating stunt. You're truly a credit to the nation. Signed, the Prez.

"Frankly," Roberts wrote, "I find the obsequious attitude of some members of the White House staff toward Mr. Jackson's (PR staff), and the fawning posture they would have the president of the United States adopt (towards Jackson), more than a little embarrassing."

"Fame -- who cares?" Roberts appears to say, as he chastises a star-struck White House public relations arm for tripping over themselves in awe of a man who was known primarily for his abilities to sing, dance and dress in costumes that only Cher's stylist could love.

"I see no need to have the president send a letter to Mr. Jackson, simply because Mr. Jackson's public relations firm has requested one," wrote Roberts, frowning upon the notion that celebrities should be awarded Presidential commendation and/or access simply for their ability to wow the paparazzi. And while this lack of awe for all things celebrity may be precisely the kind of attitude that peeves the choir over at the Huffington Post, I, for one, have to say that a Supreme Court nominee who wasn't at all thrilled by the likes of a deranged pop-star (and future accused pedophile) begging for signals of affirmation from the Presidency is my idea of a mighty fine cup of tea.

Good judgement, indeed. No wonder pundits across the board are beginning to say Roberts is a shoe-in for the job.

Posted by at 6:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

It's not your grandpappy's National Rifle Association anymore.

What with Julia Watson becoming the first woman to win the Service Rifle championship; Kindergarten students in Bakersfield, California learning the Eddie Eagle "GunSafe" Program rules (resulting in a reduction of fatal firearm accidents in the Eddie Eagle age group by more than two-thirds since the inception of the program); and the recent election of Sandra Froman to the NRA Presidency as only the second woman president ever in the history of the organization, it's deliciously obvious that issues of firearm ownership and gun safety (not gun control) are evolving within the organization of the NRA as a whole to meet the needs of a changing society -- a society with more vocal female power, prominent females in positions of prestige, and the recognition of a need for female self-protection that goes beyond just kicking a would-be attacker in the groin and then fleeing for your life.

When questioned about the NRA and why a woman would ever feel the need to join such a traditionally male and stereotypically redneck organization as the National Rifle Association, Sandy Froman recalls a time when her car broke down in the middle of nowhere on a desolate Arizona highway, and she was forced to make a call from a phone booth — "Literally," she says, "the only light around for miles." As a strange truck drove by her solitary vigil at the phone-booth for a second, closer look, she says that she would have been much more worried for her personal safety if she hadn’t been legally armed (Arizona has a concealed firearms policy).

While Stop the Violence lefties cherry-pick their statistics to push their personal fantasies of a nanny-state government in complete control over an unarmed populace, many gun advocates like to note that an armed society guarantees a free and, at the very least, polite society; however, Froman feels it necessary to remind us that even among polite society, a citizenry still needs the ability to arm itself. “If you’re a criminal, you want to prey upon victims who are not likely to resist,” she says, especially the very politest, such as the lone Jewish female lawyer with a broken down car on a deserted Arizona highway type.

The equation changes, however, when the criminal minded are aware that the average law-abiding female, Jewish lawyer or suburban Soccer Mom, is permitted to pack her own heat (and no, we're not talking menopause).

Take a look at the recent spate of Hollywood heroines. There was a spontaneous burst of feminist applause when Gena Davis and Susan Sarandan challenged male stereotypes of the passive, helpless female when they blasted their way to their own self-determined fate in the gender-reversal road movie "Thelma & Louise"; Linda Hamilton and Sigourney Weaver tag-teamed in the sci-fi genre to define a brand new symbol of female power as they toted major military weaponry while protecting the ones they love from danger; Demi Moore tackled the argument of female weakness in the face of physical challenge and weapons know-how in the military fantasy "GI Jane"; and Angelina Jolie brings a sense of high-fashion glamor and sex appeal to female gun ownership for her roles in the two Lara Croft movies as well as the recent "Mr. & Mrs. Smith", while also going toe-to-toe and head-to-head with every high-powered male star in Hollywood. What's even more interesting is how the characters she plays resonate strongly with her female audience. I talked to a young female fan who said that she believes that Jolie could easily play softer, more stereo-typically feminine characters, but that she hopes she never does. "She's definitely a strong character," she said. "I like how independent and kick-ass she is in all her movies."

Angelina Jolie herself has stated on numerous occasions that she prefers roles with strong female characters at their core, and as a case in point, she was nominated for the Honorary (Annie) Oakley award for the month of May 2004 for her role as Hollywood's unofficial ambassador for female self-empowerment.

And this is what makes the uber-lib, gun-control Hollywood cocktail-party-crowd dizzy with confusion, because, really, how can they continue to mantra-chant that guns are evil and gun-owners are all redneck yahoos when nearly every camera angle in the box-office smash "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" is lovingly devoted to the indisputable fact that guns are sexy in a woman's hands -- not because the gun is sexy in itself, but because of the implied independence and self-empowerment that goes along with being able to take care of yourself. Who can forget a Sigourney Weaver facing down the alien queen in James Cameron's "Aliens", her machine-gun/flame thrower/grenade launcher combo strapped to her shoulder as she clutches an orphaned child? And what woman didn't thrill to the sight of Linda Hamilton locking and loading with one arm as she battled to prevent machines from taking over the world and killing her only son in Terminator 2?

“By the sheer number of science fiction and fantasy series featuring women in primary roles in the ‘90s," says Elyce Rae Helford, writing about the emergence of tough heroines such as Sigourney Weaver’s Ellen Ripley and Linda Hamilton’s Sarah Connor, "we can conclude that the tokenism of the past has given way to a recognition of a significant and appreciative audience for speculative programming that includes images of strong, independent women.”

So is it just a coincidence that these "strong, independent women" know their way around an assault rifle?

“The image of the western woman, as rendered by Hollywood, stands confused between the sentimental and mythological conception of the pure but weak and defenseless female, without any personality of her own, essentially dependent on the hero, and the titillatingly sexual and aggressive heroine,” state Fenin and Everson in their book, The Western: From Silents to the Seventies. While Colette Dowling, in her book "The Frailty Myth", describes the final stage of women's liberation this way -- "by making themselves physically equal, women can at last make themselves free." And a firearm in a woman's hand is, if nothing else, the great equalizer.

This is where the new NRA comes into play -- with a contemporary emphasis that's more on equality, both gender and social, and an articulate, self-possessed female president fully ensconced at its head, the contemporary National Rifle Association is poised to make itself the new defender of the entire Bill of Rights, not just the Second Amendment. Drawing upon the notion that the Second Amendment defends all the others (since the permissibility of an armed citizenry keeps governmental totalitarianism in check and inhibits the repeal of citizen's rights), it's as if the NRA is the ACLU for the 21st century (and not a moment too soon). With the growing interest in firearms as a basic right for both self-protection and social protection, an increased female enrollment in the NRA could very well catapult the organization into becoming the "National Rights Association", affording a law-abiding society as a whole, both male and female, the ability to maintain its liberty and independence while encouraging gender equalization across the board.

I mean, isn't that what Hollywood has been attempting to encompass all along? It seems like, lately, the ultimate liberal fear is a coming theocracy, a Bush autocracy or permanent female enslavement, yet lefties wring their hands over the presence of guns in American society, desperately attempting to shovel the enshrined rights of self-protection out the train window while wailing over alleged Conservative oppressions. I've often wondered at this, as it seems to me that the ultimate liberal cause would be ensuring a gun in every household in order to present any particular administration with the threat of popular revolt should a government's policies get out of hand . . . unless, of course, leftists ultimately want a citizenry that cannot revolt, or a female population that's cowed in fear of physical violence.

While Cindy Sheehan is the left's new poster-girl, a weeping mess of ultimate victimhood by the system, the existence of women like Julia Watson and Sandra Froman, plus Hollywood iconography such as Linda Hamilton as Sandra Connor and Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft (not to mention Halle Barry as a Bond Girl who was definitely able to more than take care of herself with her silenced revolver in hand), send out messages of distinct female empowerment that transcend the politics of limousine liberals. I had never before stopped to consider Hollywood as the ultimate big-budget advertisement for female membership in the NRA, but once you sit back and take a hard look at the imagery of female power in the latest blockbusters, could it be that the Hollywood subconscious is at odds with its own self-professed politics?

Like I said -- it's not your grandpappy's NRA anymore.

Posted by at 6:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'm still traveling, with not much time to sit and compose extended entries, but I am running across articles and commentaries that I think are interesting, and deserve a look from this site's readers. Included within the following quotes are hyperlinks to the full articles/columns. Be sure to visit the links and read further.

1. "Progressives should embrace military service because we can't afford to let the gap between the military and civilians grow. It's deeply unfair to expect those Americans with the fewest economic opportunities to do our fighting for us. And as globalization and terrorism blur the lines between "domestic" and "foreign" affairs and between "civilian" and "military" affairs, having a military that is regionally identified and politically partisan poses real dangers to a pluralistic society."

2. "An Oklahoma man told federal investigators he forgot a pipe bomb he built for fun was in his luggage when he tried to board an airplane, according to court documents released on Thursday."

3. "Adjusting for inflation, oil prices would need to surpass $90 a barrel before reaching the highs of the early 1980s that derailed the U.S. economy. Gasoline would need to top $3.11 a gallon to pass the March 1981 inflation-adjusted level."

4. "Bottom line: Cindy Sheehan has taken her personal grief and turned it into a public crusade, complete with TV commercials. Which means she’s taken her personal grief and politicized it—at which point, because she is now using it to try to affect policy, it would be anti-democratic to suggest that those who disagree with the political changes she desires are somehow not allowed to speak up, or to shrink from pointing out that the force of her particular policy prescriptions come not from some special knowledge she possesses of foreign policy or Arab culture, but rather from the emotional sympathy we have for the death of her son."

5. "Never heard of Plumpy'nut? Come to Maradi, a bustling crossroads where the number of malnourished children exceeds even the flocks of motor scooters flitting down its dirt streets. At this epicenter of Niger's latest hunger crisis, Plumpy'nut is saving lives . . . "

6. "If the multitude of Chinese blogs facing official censorship instead became hosted on a multitude of independent servers around the world, the Chinese government would end up having to block a significant portion of the net to shut them out -- and that portion would grow and grow as the blogs found new adoptive hosts."

7. "Iran was also among the delegates hoping to inject the United Nations into the process of overseeing Internet protocols, domain names and network stability. Before taking these folks too seriously, though, let's recall that Iran ranks in the bottom few percent of the 2004 Index of Economic Freedom, bans more than 10,000 "immoral" Web sites and jailed Iranian journalist and Web logger Sina Motallebi last year. All this raises the question whether these are nations that should decide the rules for a worldwide Internet."

8. "We did not choose war for the sake of war itself and we didn't sacrifice a million lives for fun! We could've accepted our jailor and kept living in our chains for the rest of our lives but it's freedom ma'am. Freedom is not an American thing and it's not an Iraqi thing, it's what unites us as human beings . . . We are in need for every hand that can offer some help; Your son (Casey Sheehan)sacrificed his life for a very noble cause . . . for the most precious value in this existence; that is freedom."

9. "It was a scene that would be constantly repeated throughout the first weeks of the Bush retreat; dozens of panicked media professionals wandering the streets of Crawford, searching in vain for alternative weeklies, gallery openings and Peruvian-Vietnamese tapa parlors, only to be met with blank stares and offers of free beer. The experience stunned many."

10. "Scientists have uncovered the genetic sequence for one of the strongest silks that spiders produce, a discovery that could one day be used to make super spider-silk products for humans . . . It would be incredibly strong, flexible and ultimately, biodegradable.”

ADDENDUM:
Sexual-Identity obsessed, gay-lefty Dan Savage guest blogs for Andrew Sullivan? What a lousy disservice to Sullivan's conservative readers. Ha Ha Ha . . . *snort*! Like Andrew Sullivan has any "conservative readers" left . . .

Posted by at 10:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Greg Gutfeld delivers the goods, yet again. This time on Cindy Sheehan and the Huffington Post's All Cindy Friday . . . "the Huffpo will want Cindy Sheehan to talk to the President about her son in the same way Michael Moore wanted to talk to Roger Smith about Michigan poverty....not because something constructive will come out of the encounter, but because it will feel good making somebody else look evil."

You have to go visit the Huffington Post today just to see what he's talking about. Their Sheehan obsession is near breathtaking to behold. Arianna Huffington's fatuous post is worth the price of admission alone, and when even Baghdad Jim is weighing in on the Huffington Post, you know they've gone completely over the edge. Stay tuned as Kirstie Alley compares the struggle of losing 20 pounds to the struggle of losing a child, and Deepak Chopra types the words "pain pain grief pain grief grief pain loss grief pain Cindy Sheehan grief grief best damn thing that ever happened to the anti-war movement grief pain pain" . .

UPDATE:
David Duke (famed former KKK member Democrat turned Independent turned Republican turned Democrat turned whatever it takes to get someone to frickin' pay attention to the fact that he's still yappin' his mouth off) comes out in support of Cindy Sheehan. Gee, do you think it has anything to do with her anti-Israel views? Says KKK-Duker: "From the beginning, this war was orchestrated from top to bottom by Jewish Neocons that saw the war as one for Israel’s strategic objectives. They ramped up the war through Jews such as Perle and Wolfowitz, the false intelligence through CIA analyst Stuart Cohen and by Israel’s Mossad, and had a compliant Jewish-dominated media to cheer on the war."

Nice company Sheehan keeps. How long will it take before your average Jewish Democrat realizes that the most vocal segment of the new Democratic party doesn't want them . . . anywhere. Hey Lieberman -- you can come play ball on our team any day. And bring all your friends!

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

From Austin Bay, guest blogging for Glenn Reynolds:

"The truth is, after 9/11 we’re not engaged in nation building – we’re engaged in planet building (see here). I completely agree with Hitchens on this point. We should “consistently act” against internationalist totalitarian ideologies out of both principle and realism. “…[I]f you don’t fight them now you fight them later... We can't live on the same planet as them and I'm glad because I don’t want to.”

UPDATE:
"Sheehan is a threat . . . but her threat is based on her ability to emotionally manipulate people while insisting that anyone who looks closely at her position is violating her right to grieve . . . the moment Cindy Sheehan decided to agitate for policy change was the moment it became MY DUTY, as part of a democracy, to challenge her."

Posted by at 2:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Posting will be a bit sporadic over the next week, as I'm on the road and not always blessed with connectivity or time for writing. But during this latest trip, my partner and I did manage to swing through Riverside, California for a night at the famed Mission Inn, which occupies an entire city block in the downtown area.

Built in the early 1900's, the Mission Inn is a major tourist hotel, designed in a mostly Spanish Mission style with massive walls, turrets, stained glass windows and open courtyards with tile mosaics and burbling fountains. It's not exactly my style (I'm a fan of sleek, minimalist architecture), but we were in the area on business and decided to check it out.

The Mission Inn is recognized as both a National Historic Landmark and a State of California Historic Landmark, and it's stuffed with antiques and historic artifacts, plus more than 6,000 pieces of art on display throughout the hotel. It's a bit cluttered as far as interior decoration is concerned (understatement of the year), but if you're into historic hotels, this one should be on your list of places to visit.

We're now both in Los Angeles for yet another business meeting (they seem to follow, one after another after another), and the weather is beautiful. Not quite as nice as Seattle at this time of year, but warm, sunny and clear, nonetheless.

Was having lunch while a producer/director/writer was blatantly sucking up to Alicia Witt a few tables down. The conversation went something like this: "You're so beautiful . . . You're more beautiful than Rachel Weisz (Uhm, no she's not -- ed.), you should have gotten that part . . . I rented that movie just because you were in it . . . I immediately wanted you for this role . . . I just love everything that you're in . . . I can't believe the studio gave me an actress like you for my movie" and so on until it completely devolved into a discussion of his research on sexual fetishes and how he enjoys using the information for characters in his projects, like the compulsive masturbator, the foot fetishist and people who have sex in bathtubs with raw meat. Ms. Witt charmingly interjected an, "Oh, interesting!" now and again, while exclaiming how flattered she was after each gushing compliment about her beauty and talent. It was an odd and even somewhat creepy conversation, and I felt like I needed a shower afterward, even though I was just a passive observer.

Hollywood is a strange business.

ADDENDUM:
The Los Angeles Times featured on its front page, of course, a ridiculously biased article in support of Cindy Sheehan and her "Sheehan-anigans" outside President Bush's Crawford Ranch. What struck me the most about the article were these two sentences: "Sheehan, a Vacaville, Calif., resident who opposed the war even before her son's death, was a member of one such group in June 2004. She came away from that meeting dissatisfied and angry."

Yet the public record of Cindy Sheehan's statements after her meeting with President Bush says otherwise -- that she recognized that Bush felt genuine compassion for her loss. But Cindy Sheehan has been unable to deal with the grief of losing her son, and that loss is now being pumped, fed, groomed and stoked up by a cadre of anti-war and uber-lib groups who see in Sheehan their perfect axe to grind against the President, his current administration and the Middle East policy. Michelle Malkin calls them, the "grief pimps," and this is their message a la Cindy Sheehan: "I don't believe his phony excuses for the war," Sheehan states. "I want him to tell me why my son died . . . If he gave the real answer, people in this country would be outraged — if he told people it was to make his buddies rich, that it was about oil."

Grief makes some people do and say very stupid things. When Cindy Sheehan first met with President Bush after the death of her son, this is what she had to say: ""I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis . . . I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

But now she's saying that he's a liar and it's all about the oil and making his friends rich. The liberal MSM, including the LA Times, is eating it up, goading Sheehan into making outrageous statements and behaving irrationally. The Drudge Report has even published a letter written by members of Sheehan's family in which they express dismay and humiliation at Cindy's behavior: "We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."

"I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan," President Bush stated in response to media questions over her accusations. "She feels strongly about her position, and she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position, and I thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is: Get out of Iraq now. And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so."

And there's Mrs. Sheehan's answer as to why her son died in Iraq. It's a pity that she can't hear it, because in refusing to accept the President's words, she's refusing herself the opportunity to acknowledge the purpose and meaning in her son's death.

UPDATE:
"(Sheehan) does defame (her son's) life and his memory by behaving like a spoiled adolescent on the national stage, by lying, and by actively seeking to humiliate her (and our) Commander-in-Chief. We do her son no honor by pretending that her behavior is anything other than what it is -- a disgraceful exhibition of self-annihilating selfishness which reveals the sickness of the conviction that every loss is total, inconsolable, and license to revert to the infantile fantasy of a universe with ourselves at the center."

Posted by at 10:17 PM | Permalink

How is this ridiculous?

Let me count the ways.

Rob Willer is the same Cornell University graduate student that brought us "The Effects of Government Issued Terror Warnings on Presidential Approval Ratings," a meager nine page opinion paper (not including the references) which made him the temporary darling of the Mainstream Media for his unsurprising conclusion that terror-warnings brought positive upticks in President Bush's approval ratings -- with the implication, of course, that terror-warnings are fabricated to bolster sagging approval ratings for Bush with statements like "There is a clear pattern in these data supporting the central prediction that a tendency exists for people to support standing leaders after threats of external terror, and specifically President Bush after government-issued terror warnings" and "I would expect terror warnings to not only affect general evaluations of President Bush, but also evaluations of aspects of his job performance apparently unrelated to terrorism."

After a flurry of attention from USA Today, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times and The Guardian, as well as NPR and The Today Show, Willer was dumped back into the ash-heap of academia when his conveniently timed study didn't contribute enough to create the Perfect Storm which might have unseated Bush in 2004. But refusing to adopt the role of shrinking violet, Willer immediately set to work on producing yet another piece of pseudo-research designed to re-attract the limelight -- "He questioned subjects about their political attitudes, including how they felt about a same-sex marriage ban and their support for President Bush's handling of the Iraq War" in order to come up with the headline: Men overcompensate when their masculinity is threatened.

"Overcompensation" in Cornell land means, of course, support for the Iraq war, traditional marriage roles and the desire to drive big, solid automobiles.

Willer's new study, with the knee-slapping title "Overdoing Gender: Testing the Masculine Overcompensation Thesis", produced "the predicted results," he said. Oh? The "predicted results" . . . ? You mean, the survey questions, which are never listed for anyone to see, may have been crafted and presented with a particular end goal in mind, like, "War bad! Hybrid good!" . . . ? Perish the thought! (And academics wonder why liberal institutions are increasingly dismissed as having any relevance to the larger cultural conversation).

But in the spirit of half-baked research and a tummy growling addiction to attention, let me present you with my own personal take on Willer's supposed male overcompensation survey, with, of course, the "predicted results" firmly in place.

1. "Masculinity-threatened participants also showed more interest in buying an SUV."

If you showed me a Lexus SC430 and an Infiniti FX45 side by side, I'd say that the Infiniti was "more masculine" in its appearance, not because the thought of buying a Lexus makes me feel insecure, but because the Infiniti boasts size, road lift and an overall impression of greater vehicle stability. If you, then, showed me a picture of a Cadillac Escalade, I'd say, "That's a beast!", meaning that I consider it to be large, solid, big shouldered, broad haunched and generally masculine in its appearance.

You see, in the real world, males are generally larger and more solidly built than females, hence, "masculine" as an appropriate adjective for larger, heavier automobiles, which appear to have more, ahm, thrust. Besides, the Escalade looks like it could run right over the Lexus without even having to stop and wipe its shoes afterwards, and most men that I know can appreciate that.

2. "I wanted to . . . explore whether overcompensation could help explain some attitudes like support for war . . . "

Standing your ground and fighting is widely considered a masculine trait in Western culture (indeed, most cultures as a whole), while talking it out and negotiating has been historically portrayed as a more "passive" (traditionally more feminine) option, and not necessarily the qualities one looks for in a heavyweight boxer or the pooch you're betting your Benjamins on in the dog fight. Hence, the Iraq War would, obviously and without having to conduct a survey about it, be considered a more masculine rather than feminine endeavor -- not because heavyweight boxers (or dogs) who fight are insecure, but because fighting itself is traditionally considered a more masculine behavior in Western culture.

Other studies have been conducted regarding male support for violence, with the conclusion that: "It is no longer appropriate for us to explain violent behavior as purely a result of some kind of 'intrinsic evil' - that an aggressive person is merely a 'bad seed' . . . Instead of knee-jerk condemnation of people with violent tendencies, perhaps we should bear in mind that aggressive people are likely to have been the victims of violence themselves" -- which would imply that support for the Iraq War would more than likely be a result of recent terrorist attacks on Western targets rather than suppositions of gender insecurity.

3. "In a separate study, Willer verified that support for . . . homophobia . . . (was) considered masculine by study participants."

In the press release (and I do find it interesting that there is a press release without an actual study to back it up) regarding Willer's survey, support for "a same-sex marriage ban" seems to be the only evidence he used to define "homophobia" and "animosity towards gays". This is a highly subjective interpretation of a cultural debate as, in actuality, there is no implicit or proven correlation between the two. A homophobic individual may be against same-sex marriage, but being against same-sex marriage does not mean that an individual is homophobic or harbors hostility towards gays. There are any number of people who question the wisdom of opening the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, yet when the talk turns to legal unions and/or individual opportunity, these same people are fully supportive of homosexual couples and individuals.

Homophobia is defined as "fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men", yet from the sketchy press release we have on Willer's research, there is no indication that fear and contempt for lesbians and gay men were anywhere to be found.

The results of Rob Willer's study point more to shared cultural attitudes than revelations about gender insecurity. Passing this press release off as anything beyond a college-student's attempts to court the media limelight is irresponsible. Rob Willer conducted a survey in which the questions, and the people conducting the survey, were admittedly manipulative ("Willer said he and a colleague are planning additional research on subjects' attitudes regarding violence toward women, using the same method for manipulating masculine insecurity"), meaning, of course, that their methods were designed to produce the results they were looking for.

Glenn Reynolds, over at Instapundit, posted a very lucid opinion a while back about the gay marriage debate: "I think that gay marriage is good for everyone. Marriage is a good thing, and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be just as good a thing for gay people as for straight people. Judging from the gay couples I know, it would be a good thing -- and I'm entirely at a loss to understand why people think gay marriage somehow undermines straight marriage. But to get there, you need to make that case, not just accuse opponents of being closed-minded bible-thumping bigots of the redneck religious right."

And this is the problem with research academics like Rob Willer -- he never makes a case for anything: opposition to the Iraq War, belief that SUV's are a poor automotive choice or that gay marriage might just be a good thing. Instead, Willer invested his time and energy into painting his intellectual opponents with the broad-strokes of "overcompensation" and "masculine insecurity," and now he sits back and waits for The Today Show to give him a call. Willer may believe that he's entirely in the right (or, uhm, the left, as the case may be), but his research is flawed by its superficiality, his methods are questionable in their lack of transparency and his biases are far too obvious to be ignored.

OFF-TOPIC:
The self-importance of this headline is ridiculous. I swear -- if the media could celebrate itself any harder it would explode in a shower of colored sparks.

OFF-TOPIC 2:
Whoa. The National Council for Adoption is mighty peeved with the New York Times for their attempts to dig into the sealed adoption records of Justice John Roberts' two adopted children: National Council For Adoption to New York Times, “Adoption Records are Off Limits”

“NCFA denounces, in the strongest possible terms, the shocking decision of the New York Times to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts’ two young children . . . The adoption histories of four- and five-year old children have no bearing whatsoever on the suitability of Justice Roberts to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court – or in any other position, for that matter."

Posted by at 1:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

So the kids in coolsville are strumming their guitars and singing their songs of Military Tor-choore in all the heppest spots in town. Yeah, okay guys -- America the evil. We get it. But if you're having any rock star fantasies about heading out on the road with the Geneva Conventions as your worlwide backing band, well, you might want to think again.

The Geneva Conventions define a Prisoner of War as "a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict," further going on to state that those entitled to Prisoner of War status include: Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements (i.e. guerrillas and insurgents), provided that they fulfill the following conditions: 1. Being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; 2. Having a fixed distinctive sign or uniform that's recognizable at a distance; 3. Carrying arms openly; 4. Conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war; and 5. Membership in an established and recognized armed forces.

The Geneva Conventions go on to explicity and very carefully lay out the final groundwork for who exactly is and isn't covered by the Conventions: only nations who are a party to the Geneva Conventions are protected by the Geneva Conventions, and a nation that may not have been a signatory to the Geneva Conventions but which nonetheless agrees to abide by the Geneva Conventions during conflict with a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, is also protected. But any other nations not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, who might then become embroiled in a conflict in which they violate the customs and laws of war, will not be protected by the guidelines laid out in the Geneva Conventions.

Granted, it almost seems like an exercise in absurdity to discuss the laws of war when war itself can be argued to be inherently lawless. The actions of soldiers on the battlefield would be a one way ticket to the slammer if indulged in at your local Seven Eleven on a casual Friday evening, but based upon centuries (if not more) of humans in armed conflict, laws for war were established after a great deal of discussion and debate among the principal nations of the time.

These laws are: 1. Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction; 2. Wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible; 3. People and property that do not contribute to the war effort must be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship; 4. There must be a clear and open declaration of war, and an acceptance of surrender if surrender should occur; and 5. There is a strict prohibition against deliberately attacking civilians.

Additionally, it's forbidden to impersonate a soldier on the other side, and the taking of hostages is absolutely right out. Furthermore, all lawful combatants are obligated to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area; however, any combatants that use protected people (civilians) or property (mosques, churches, etc.) as shields or camouflage are guilty of violating the laws of war, and are then criminally responsible for any subsequent harm to the people or damage to the property.

The Geneva Conventions forbid attacks on hospitals, doctors or ambulances displaying any International Federation of Red Cross symbol, or engaging in attacks while using a Red Cross or a white flag as an ambush tactic. The punishment for violating the laws of war "may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal," which means that if your side is taking hostages, beheading civilians, blowing up schools and firing on police forces, then you can expect to be treated harshly upon your capture -- perchance to a rousing rendition of stack the naked prisoners.

Spies and terrorists may be subjected to torture and/or execution, according to the laws of war, yet all nations that have signed the "UN Convention Against Torture" have committed themselves against the use of torture on anyone for any reason, including cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. With no exceptions. So how is it that members of the United States military feel perfectly free to strip prisoners naked in front of female soldiers or to march them about on dog leashes, willy nilly?

Dammit, I'm getting there -- patience, reader!

There was a push while Clinton was in office to ratify the "U.N. Convention Against Torture", which Clinton eventually did sign, and the Torture Convention was then ratified by the Senate in 1994. However, U.S. adherence to the "U.N. Conventions Against Torture" is subject to reservations, understandings, declarations, and provisos incorporated in the Senate resolution of ratification of the treaty, and the US Senate, in its foresight and wisdom (I can't believe I just used "foresight" and "wisdom" when speaking of the Senate), adopted a reservation stating that the Torture Convention prohibits no more than the "cruel and unusual punishment" provision of the US Constitution -- effectively voiding the overly vague and restrictive "degrading treatment" clause in the original Conventions.

So, really, it's okay to make unlawful Muslim combatants wear women's underwear on their heads. Honest to god.

In addition, the U.S. government declared that the Torture Conventions treaty was "not self-executing," meaning that it had no force of law without "implementing legislation." Of course, the government then announced that implementing legislation was unnecessary because, according to the Justice Department lawyers, all the rights for which reservations, declarations or understandings were not registered are already protected by US law, resulting in the fact that the Torture Conventions cannot be invoked in U.S. courts and the U.S. government is under no obligation to the U.N.s authority in this regard.

Talk about a greased pig. You gotta hand it to the Senate -- they have so far retained a fortunate distaste for offering oversight and control to outside bodies such as the United Nations, and it's easy to see why in a situation that involves the United States' ability to provide security for itself. If we had fully ratified the "UN Conventions Against Torture" without reservations or a requirement for implementing legislation, there would undoubtedly, as I type this, be a howling, rabid international mob of anti-Americanistas chomping at the bit to drag our entire executive Administration (plus a gaggle of military officers) off to some public show trial in Belgium based upon reports of physical abuse or social humiliation of violent and unrepentant terrorists.

So if the "U.N. Conventions Against Torture" cannot be invoked in U.S. courts, and the Geneva Conventions do not apply to soldiers of an unrecognized government (such as the Taliban, as there were only four countries on the entire planet -- China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE -- that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan), soldiers of nations that are not signatories to (or do not agree to abide by) the Geneva Conventions, or guerillas who attack civilians, take hostages, use mosques as camouflage, hide among the civilian population while inflicting as much damage as possible on any target they can get themselves near, then all that the anti-war contingent actually have is the echo-chamber of their endless moral self-regard and the transparent hollowness of their "We're as bad as the enemy!" rhetoric in their zeal to paint a portrait of the Iraq War in various shades of black. Well, that and their shameless tiptoeing around the unpleasant fact that the enemy we're supposed to be as bad as actually blows up its own children, stones its women, hangs its homosexuals, throws its young girls back into burning buildings, saws the heads off of civilian contractors, beats suspected collaborators to death, shoots journalists and executes its religious dissenters.

I may have missed an atrocity or two.

The Human Rights Commission can claim all it wants that a captured combatant (any captured combatant) is a prisoner of war unless a competent tribunal determines otherwise on a case by case basis, but even the most cursory examination of the Geneva Conventions reveals that a nation must be a signatory to the Conventions, or at least agree to abide by the Conventions, in order for its citizenry to be protected by them, and under no circumstances is an individual or army that is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions (or which doesn't abide by the laws of war) protected by either.

Very important note to all the preceding: There is no looking the other way for actual violations of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions, and the United States military has proven itself willing and able to investigate and punish those who are responsible for tragic violations. Criminal investigations are even instigated against those members of the military who, while perhaps not technically violating the Geneva Conventions because of its signatory clause, do engage in abuses of recognized members of a foreign military. War and conflict have fine lines of acceptable and unacceptable behavior (shoot this person in the head here but don't you dare lay a hand on him when he's over there), and when members of a military violate those conventions, there can be, and are, repercussions. However, the entire Executive Administration cannot (I repeat: cannot) be hauled off to trial over, or held responsible for, individual violations of the Geneva Conventions when it is official military policy that the Geneva Conventions are to be followed when applicable. For example, the two Army soldiers responsible for the death of Iraqi General Mowhoush, despite the fact that Iraq is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, have been charged for their actions, and there is now a criminal investigation underway. There were also, and are also, criminal investigations, trials and punishments over abuses at Abu Grhaib (which, it bears reminding, were already under internal military investigation even before the press broke the story and published the photos), even though the technicality of the Geneva Conventions may not actually have been violated.

But this is exactly why there is a continuing argument concerning whether or not the soldiers are acting on their own when the abuses occur, or whether it is official policy. The military and the government maintain their stance that the Geneva Conventions are being followed when and where applicable, and that any abuses of the Geneva Conventions will be, and are, punished. Members of the MSM, however, continue to mischaracterize the Geneva Conventions when attempting to play "gotcha!" with the Global War on Terror, portraying the government and the military as flagrant and zestful abusers of the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of War. This appears to me to be the crux of the "he said / he said" arguments floated from mainstream media and a garden variety of HRC and ACLU type organizations -- they adamantly disagree with the Department of Defense and the present Executive Administration over the interpretations of Prisoner of War status and whether or not the U.S. military should be bound by the Geneva Conventions regardless of who it's fighting, or the actions engaged in by the enemy.

ADDENDUM:
This is just one of the examples as to how we are not the same as who we're fighting. Gay lefties, pay attention.

UPDATE TO ADDENDUM:
"Russian gay leaders have sent a letter to the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, asking him to condemn executions of teenage gays in Iran on July 19 . . . They asked President Putin to stop diplomatic and trade relations with what they called the barbarian regime of Islamic extremists."

Who knew there were Russian Gay Leaders? And that they'd have a better perspective than a lot of American gays on Islamic brutality.

UPDATE TO ADDENDUM 2:
The blog-master at GayOrbit responds to the commenters on his site who are insisting that George W. Bush and the Republicans are responsible for the hanging of the two Iranian gay teenagers: "If you cannot discuss this rationally, then move on. This is a forum that I hoped would result in a rational debate. But here we are, with morons looking for any reason they can find to pin something on George W. Bush. You BASTARDIZE and DEMEAN the memory of these two kids when you do that. There is a place for that - two or three in fact. Try Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. And if you want the Democratic Party to start winning elections again, and I do, get your head out of your ass and do something constructive. I mean it. Comments blaming right-wing Republican idealogy will be deleted going forward. I urge all others NOT TO RESPOND TO THEM. If you do, your own posts will look kinda dumb."

Wow. Right on. Add one more gay American to the list of those with perspective.

Posted by at 1:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

In which Homocon attempts a brief introduction to Mauratania, the little country with the latest big headlines.

Only having achieved its independence from France in 1960, a new Mauritanian constitution was drafted and approved in 1991, under supervision of President Taya, as the President attempted to legitimize a rulership he had established through military coup in 1984. Two elections were held since 1991 that were decried as fraudulent, yet in October of 2001, the legislative and municipal elections in Mauratania were widely considered to be democratic and free of taint while leaving President Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya still in power, much to his political enemies' chagrin.

There have been several coup attempts during his 20-year reign, the latest being in 2003 after which President Taya implemented a crackdown against Islamist groups and disloyal military officers, resulting in charges that President Taya ruled as a repressive dictator of the geographically desolate nation. Further angering his opponents, Taya opened full diplomatic relations with Israel in the '90s, making Mauritania one of only three Arab countries to establish official diplomatic ties with the Jewish nation.

There are six ethnic groups in Mauritania (a country located in the Western Sahara region), with tensions high between the predominant ArabBerbers and the remaining black Africans. Virtually the entire population (3 million) is Sunni Muslim, and the economy is mainly herding and agriculture (though the land is poor for farming and grazing), but economic positions have become less caste based and social patterns have seen encouraging moves toward fluidity since the 1960 independence from France (though in 1981, observers did estimate that at least 100,000 people were still slaves and 300,000 were ex- slaves).

Mauritania and neighboring Morocco sustain hostilities (Mauritania accused Morocco of backing a coup attempt in 1981), but Mauritania has long been an invaluable policy player in the Western Sahara region as a negotiating bridge between Arab North Africa and black sub-Saharan Africa. Major trading partners include neighboring Arab regions, as well as Western Europe, Japan and the United States.

In 1993, the United States ended development aid to Mauritania in protest against the country’s oppression of its black citizenry, and also in protest of its support of Iraq during the Persian Gulf War; President Taya subsequently moved toward a pro-Western position, and American developmental aid resumed, though as recently as 2004, the Red Cross was stating concerns over a growing food crisis in the entire region, with 750,000 Mauritanians believed to be at risk of starvation from poor soil and locust infestations.

When President Taya left Mauritania on Monday to attend the funeral of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd, the opportunity was ripe for yet another military takeover. Presidential guard troops in the capital took control of the national radio and television stations only hours after Taya had left the country, seizing a building housing the army chief of staff headquarters while blocking key roads and several entrances to the city. Citizens immediately began fleeing the city center.

In a communique broadcast on state media, a "Military Council for Justice and Democracy" announced it would rule the desert nation, claiming that Mauritanian citizens have suffered under Taya's totalitarian rule. It's also rumored that President Taya's relations with Israel, and his crackdown on Islamic fundamentalists, has angered the Muslim population to the point of revolt.

Rumors also circulate that President Taya has been cooperating with Washington in the GWOT, further angering the Islamists residing in Mauritania. Yet the fact remains that Taya has presided over the transformation of nomadic Mauritania into a more highly urbanized and market-driven nation. Extensive mineral deposits have been discovered, along with offshore oil reserves, another possible motivation for the recent coup. Price liberalization, the privatization, liquidation or restructuring of several public enterprises, and agricultural sector reforms have also been undertaken in an attempt to reduce the national debt (in which Mauritania is currently aswim) and to bring Mauritania's mostly agrarian and non-self-supporting economy into the 21st century.

Despite the current tensions within the country, Israel has declared that it won't evacuate its embassy in Mauritania, and the United States, the United Nations and the African Union have all appealed for a return to the constitutional rule of Mauritania. The U.S. State Department concluded earlier this year in its global human rights report that the Mauritanian government's record was poor, and included cases of abuse by security forces and restrictions on freedoms of speech, association and religion, but the U.S. has also been encouraged by signs of increasing transparency in Mauritania's economy, as well as in its election processes and legislative bodies.

It has been reported, however, that celebrations are taking place in the capital over the news of the overthrow of the Taya regime. "It's like we've been imprisoned for decades. I'm so happy. Change is good. We've been disappointed by the regime," shouted Mohammed, in his early 20s, as he ran down the street, but the Organization of African Unity may press for an oil exports blockade against Mauritania as a result of the coup, which would grind Mauritania's fledgling oil industry to a screeching halt, depriving the military coup leaders of their expected source of income by which they had hoped to continue controlling Mauritania for at least the next two years.

Col. Ely Ould Mohamed Vall, the national police chief and a former trusted confident of President Taya, was announced the country's new leader by the military junta that seized control in Taya's absence. State television and radio were back on air by the afternoon, with journalists reading the junta's statement repeatedly, interspersed with Quranic readings.

There has been no indication from the State Department as to whether the U.S. still intends to donate 17,000 metric tons of wheat and 5,000 tons of rice to Mauritania if the military coup remains in force. President Taya's government was to sell the wheat and rice to the local population, then use the proceeds to improve food security and alleviate national poverty. The proceeds were also to be used to promote Mauritania's economic development through basic capacity building, improving rural extension services and agricultural production, as well as constructing wells, clinics and schools.

OFF-TOPIC:
Michael Graham, of Radio 630 WMAL, who was suspended from his on-air time for suggesting that Islam is a terrorist organization, is now begging people to stop calling and emailing the radio station, saying that the message has been received and that the staff is now literally so swamped by the expressions of support for him that they can't even go about doing their normal jobs.

He states that CAIR members emailed several hundred messages of protest against him, attempting to get him suspended and then fired, while Graham has now received over 10,000 messages of support. Heh. Don't mess with conservative radio personalities. Got that, CAIR?

OFF-TOPIC 2:
And this is just vile. Democrats were championing this guy just a few months ago when he appeared before a Senate investigative committee and lied his arse off regarding the Oil for Food corruption at the U.N., all the while spitting insults and invective at our elected representatives (which, of course, the Deaniac/Dummocrats are wont to do, so of course they all cheered).

Said Galloway on al-Jazeera July 31, 2005: "It’s not the Muslims who are the terrorists. The biggest terrorists are Bush, and Blair, and Berlusconi, and Aznar, but it is definitely not a clash of civilizations. George Bush doesn’t have any civilization, he doesn’t represent any civilization. We believe in the Prophets, peace be upon them. He believes in the profits, and how to get a piece of them."

Nice, Galloway. Is your mother for sale, too?

WAY OFF-TOPIC:
How did I miss this?

Posted by at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I ran across this 1999 article in Mother Jones magazine profiling the Reverend Fred Phelps. You know Fred Phelps, he of "God Hates Fags" fame, protester at Matthew Shepard's funeral and poster-boy of the gay left's attempts to portray Conservatives as right-wing homophobes? Turns out that Phelps is a full-fledged, registered Democrat!

"In 1988, Phelps housed campaign workers for Al Gore's first presidential run; in 1989, his eldest son, Fred Jr., hosted a fundraiser for Gore's Senate campaign at his home . . . Because of their years as loyal Democrats, the Phelpses have even been invited to -- and attended -- both of Clinton's inaugurations."

As someone we all know might say, Heh.

But it gets even better (or worse, depending on your point of view).

Fred Phelps, registered Democrat, organizer of Democratic activities and fund-raiser for Al Gore and Bill Clinton, also criticized the invasion of Iraq, sent a warm letter to Saddam Hussein full of compliments for his regime while asking for (and receiving) permission to send protesters against the coming Iraq invasion, claimed that the U.S. deserved September 11th (and that London deserved the recent bombings), and praised Castro for his leadership and moral stance against homosexuality.

Parallels: The lefties in general criticize the invasion of Iraq, supported Hussein's right to continued dictatorship, sent protesters (and elected officials) to Baghdad decrying the U.S. invasion, declare that the U.S. deserved September 11th and that it's Tony Blairs fault that London's mass transits were bombed, and continuously praise Castro for his excellent management of Cuba (great health-care and schools, natch). And when push came right down to shove in the 2004 election, Bill Clinton advised John Kerry to drop support for gay marriage (you know, Bill Clinton, the "first black President" who signed the Defense of Marriage Act and who utterly caved in on the gays in the military issue; his wife, apparently, suffers from the same lack of conviction).

When both sides of the political fence speak and act against gay marriage, is gay marriage then supposed to be a litmus test for which political party a gay individual should rightfully belong?

I don't think so.

Gay Republicans have disagreements among themselves over same-sex marriage, stem-cell research, tax reform, Presidential candidates and more, yet the disagreements are part of the equation of having political opinions and convictions, and no one is tossed out of the group for defying the majority. The hyperventilating gay-lefties, however, use gay marriage as their one issue cattle prod towards goading the rainbow-dazed readers of the Advocate to vote straight-ticket Dem, deliberately squelching effective debate with cries of bigotry and ridiculous analogies to the Civil Rights movement of the 60's. They're merely deluding themselves. The Democratic party is the cozy home of former KKK leader Robert Byrd, anti-US loudmouth and race-monger Maxine Waters, DUI Ted Kennedy and obsessed-about-sin-Clinton-supporter Fred Phelps, and this just isn't the party for me. And before anyone ignorantly flings the name David Duke around as a Republican version of Robert Byrd, just be aware that Duke was a political opportunist, not a Republican -- he ran first as a Democrat and lost, then he ran as a populist and lost, then he ran as a Republican and the entire Republican leadership helped campaign against him, so he went back to running as a Democrat, and so on . . . Fred Phelps has been a staunch Democrat from day one, running for Democratic offices with Democratic political leaders gladly accepting his fund-raising contributions and rewarding he and his family with invitations to Presidential inaugurations.

So don't color me surprised to learn the truth about Phelps and his political party affiliations, because it seems only too obvious to me that the Democratic party is the party of hate, hypocrisy and treachery. I, for one, am not about to be convinced by the likes of one-issue, sexual-identity-obsessed gay leftists to rally my support for such a sorry and pandering edifice as the modern Democratic party just because I'm gay.

Because there's a war on, dontchya know . . .

OFF-TOPIC:
Senator Norm Coleman's denunciation of U.N. control over the Internet is excellent news. Ever since I first heard rumblings that the U.N. was attempting to snatch control of the Internet away from the United States, I was terrified that the Senate wouldn't understand the negative economic and security implications of such a move. China and Cuba (and I believe Iran), all outright suppressors of free-speech and supporters of information control on the Internet, are behind the U.N. push for dominance over the Internet. This cannot happen. The Internet has flourished under the free hand of the United States, and offers opportunity for dissent, free expression of opinion and easy access to economic opportunity that many leading countries in the U.N. do not agree with. In fact, Senator Coleman's exact words were: "This proposal would leave the United States with no more say over the future of the Internet than Cuba or China-countries that have little or no commitment to the free flow of information."

Please write to your Congressional representatives (House and Senate) and make it clear to them that you support Senator Coleman's stance against relinquishing U.S. control of the engine of the Internet to the United Nations. And thank your lucky stars that John Bolton is your new representative in the U.N., because you can bet that he won't just roll over and let something like this happen.

OFF-TOPIC 2:
Brooklyn Democratic State Assemblyman Dov Hikind called, over the weekend, for racial profiling focusing on those who fit the "terrorist profile" instead of searching random passengers with no regard to race or nationality.

Repuplican City Councilman James Oddo today supported Hikinds call as logical, and praised Hikind for "rushing headlong against the strong undertow of political correctness." Mayor Bloomberg has emphatically denied that racial profiling will ever be used to combat terror in the New York transit systems, and, of course, terrorist apologist organization CAIR is incensed at the mere thought of using rational methods of search and investigation to prevent terrorist attacks in NYC, stating for the record that "terrorists come in all shapes and sizes" (neglecting to mention, of course, that those present shapes and sizes are mostly Muslim and of Middle Eastern origin).

Next on channel CAIR, the Sesame Street players perform 'Terrorists are a Rainbow' while fireworks explode and the audience dives for cover.

Posted by at 8:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (18)

1. "This was the right thing to do. Recess appointments should be reserved for special circumstances. Using filibuster tactics to block a nominee who has clear majority support qualifies. When our system is functioning properly, a branch of government that acts abusively pays a price. The Senate Democrats, through their over-use of the filibuster, have acted abusively."

2. "Bolton served as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security from May 2001 until June 2004, during which time he advocated a hard line against Iran, North Korea and other states feared by Washington to be developing nuclear weapons. He often criticized the United Nations as being ineffective and led a Bush administration failed effort to oust International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei."

3. "Despite lengthy investigations, it was never clear that Bolton did anything improper. Witnesses told the committee that Bolton lost his temper, tried to engineer the ouster of at least two intelligence analysts and otherwise threw his weight around, but Democrats were never able to establish that his actions crossed the line . . . "

4. "Forget about U.S.-U.N. differences over Iraq . . . you don't have to be an admirer of U.S. foreign policy -- in Iraq or anywhere -- to conclude the world is being poorly served by the United Nations. That's why it boggles the mind to hear Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer, Christopher Dodd and John Kerry, among others, depict the United Nations as somehow being wronged by (John) Bolton's critique."

5. "Dems who sent a letter to Mr. Bush opposing an appointment of Bolton to the UN included the name of New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Add to that signature those of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois, Joe Biden of Delaware, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Bill Nelson of Florida and Patty Murray of Washington . . . Those names placed on one sheet of paper sent to the Oval Office should stir the logic fires all the more for the appointment."

6. "Bolton's critics, including senior Democratic Party senators, had been holding up his confirmation on the grounds that he has long been one of the UN's most vehement critics. He has called the world body both irrelevant and corrupt."

7. "Again, please, perspective. Bolton is not the devil incarnate. He won't bring the wrecking ball to the international system. Or to the United Nations. And there is no plot to dismantle said world body cooked up between neo-Straussians and neo-primitives. Trust me, it will be O.K."

8. "(Bolton) was the individual responsible for making the U.N. drop the anti-Zionism resolution . . . At a time in which America and Western Civilization itself is at risk from an amorphous, dedicated cadre of terrorists seeking destruction on a massive scale, let us hope that the man sent to represent America is a strong determined, competent, man capable of leading and cajoling our fellow nations in doing what is right and not just what is popular with the yellow press."

9. "The complaint that has been most frequently cited by Mr. Bolton's critics is to the effect that he sought to manufacture or otherwise manipulate intelligence and tried to get two analysts who resisted him fired. Mr. Bolton denies doing so. And the record backs him up."

10. "There is no stopping the Bolton. He will soon march into the U.N. Headquarters full of hands on his hips anger, and (we) predict there will be no survivors."

ADDENDUM:
And the lefties go nuts.

UPDATE:
This news article gives a good look at the reception Bolton has received at the U.N. It's a positive round-up, with only North Korea, Cuba and Iran singled out as potentially antagonistic to Bolton's appointment.

OFF-TOPIC:
This explains the New York Times.

OFF-TOPIC 2:
I'm sitting here watching Al Gore on The Tonight Show (because I feel it's necessary for someone to tiptoe about the Dragon's Jaws, and then come back and report on it). Every time I see Al Gore with his faux masculinity, misplaced self-regard, bloating waistline, terminally weak chin and epicene wardrobe, I thank the frickin' gods that he is not our President!

And is it just me, or is he starting to seriously resemble Michael Moore?

Posted by at 6:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)