As if we needed yet another reason not to trust Iran

This needs to be thoroughly investigated.

AP: Ex-Hostages Say Iran Leader-Elect a Captor

The White House said Thursday it is taking seriously the allegations of some former American hostages who say the believe that Iran's president-elect was one of their captors in the late 1970s.

That's AP code for terrorist. And if this is true...well...Iraq needs a friend, why not gift them with a newly liberated Iran?

As one of the former hostages put it: "This puts the Bush administration in an interesting position," Daugherty said. "You know how he said, `You're either for us or you're for the terrorists.' Well, now the leader of Iran is a terrorist."

Well...he has a point. If it's true. And Daugherty seems certain.

Daugherty, who worked for the CIA in Iran and now lives in Savannah, said a man he's convinced was Ahmadinejad was among a group of ringleaders escorting a Vatican representative during a visit in the early days of the hostage crisis.

"It's impossible to forget a guy like that," Daugherty said. "Clearly the way he acted, the fact he gave orders, that he was older, most certainly he was one of the ringleaders."

I'm the first to admit that memories are not exact pictures of reality, and 25 years is a long time. But it's too freaky to discount. And I hope our intelligence agencies are investigating this. Like--right now.

Update: Well it looks like the White House is going to carry the ball on this one.

The White House said Thursday it was investigating whether Iran's new president played a role in seizing the American Embassy and holding 52 U.S. captives a quarter century ago. President Bush said the allegation by former hostages "raises many questions."

The administration was reviewing its files on Iranian president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after the hostage comments were brought to light by The Associated Press.

"I have no information, but obviously his involvement raises many questions," Bush said in an interview with foreign reporters.

The Administration still says they are going to deal with him though. But, Iran is so anti-American anyways, this will probably all amount to little more than extra rant capability for conservatives. The sound of protest from Europe has been....nonexistant...so I'm sure they are just waiting for this to die down so they can return to business as usual.

Update II: The American Princess weighs in with her usual spot on commentary and has the scoop on Iranian President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's newest cheerleader: The New York Times.

Spain falls.

Acceptance-at-all-costs continues as Spain has now adopted SSM as legal.

Parliament legalized gay marriage Thursday, defying conservatives and clergy who opposed making traditionally Roman Catholic Spain the third country to allow same-sex unions nationwide. Jubilant gay activists blew kisses to lawmakers after the vote.

The measure passed the 350-seat Congress of Deputies by a vote of 187 to 147. The bill, part of the ruling Socialists' aggressive agenda for social reform, also lets gay couples adopt children and inherit each others' property.

Citing Canada as the example, Zapatero said this was just the beginning.

"We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality," he told the chamber.

Yet something seems backwards about this entire process.

Beatriz Gimeno, a longtime leader of the gay rights movement in Spain, held back tears as she hugged her partner Boti after the vote.

"It is a historic day for the world's homosexuals. We have been fighting for many years," Gimeno said. "Now comes the hardest part, which is changing society's mentality.

So let me get this straight (heh...pun...not intended but I'll say it was). They won the vote, and now even they are admitting the public is not behind it. So just how did they get the votes then?

Zapatero lacks a majority in the chamber but got help from small regional-based parties that tend to be his allies...

...Popular Party leader Mariano Rajoy said after the vote that Zapatero has deeply divided Spain and should have sought a consensus in parliament that recognized same-sex unions but didn't call them marriage.

And Zapatero has also slapped the Church in the face too. Though the AP deftly runs cover for Zapatero, as they catagorize the Church as an organization that "...held much sway over the government just a generation ago when Gen. Francisco Franco was in power..." By linking the Church with an ally of Hitler, well...you get the picture. Still, polls did seem to be on the side of the activists--though I question any polls where I can't see the questions asked or the sampling. Still, as the AP reports:

Despite the street protests in Madrid and elsewhere and the petition drive, polls suggest Spaniards supported gay marriage.

A survey released in May by pollster Instituto Opina said 62 percent of Spaniards support the government's action on this issue, and 30 percent oppose it. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points. But surveys show Spaniards about evenly split over whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

First Canada, now Spain. America is next people. Time to wake up and get active.

"Scientists" copy Simpsons episode to save the planet

Remember this episode?

"Who Shot Mr. Burns (Part One)"
625 2F16
Original Airdate: 5/21/95

In the first part of this groundbreaking suspense story, Mr. Burns develops a sun-blocking machine that prevents any sunlight from reaching Springfield. With the town immersed in darkness, Mr. Burns' Power Plant can make even more money. In addition to blocking the sun, Burns has also deprived the school of its funds, broken Santa's Little Helper's leg, and alienated nearly all of his fellow townspeople.

Well now it's happening for real. But strangely--as according to global warming logic--we need to increase our light at night while shading only certain regions of the earth.

A wild idea to combat global warming suggests creating an artificial ring of small particles or spacecrafts around Earth to shade the tropics and moderate climate extremes.

There would be side effects, proponents admit. An effective sunlight-scattering particle ring would illuminate our night sky as much as the full Moon, for example.

And the price tag would knock the socks off even a big-budget agency like NASA: $6 trillion to $200 trillion for the particle approach. Deploying tiny spacecraft would come at a relative bargain: a mere $500 billion tops.

But the idea, detailed today in the online version of the journal Acta Astronautica, illustrates that climate change can be battled with new technologies, according to one scientist not involved in the new work.

I love how they just slip that part in there about the expert scientist not even involved in the research. But wait, there's more! Don't let not knowing the facts get in the way. No seriously, that's what the article says.

Those who are often called experts admit to glaring gaps in their knowledge of how all this works. A study last month revealed that scientists can't pin down one of the most critical keys: how much sunlight our planet absorbs versus how much is reflected back into space. [one would think that this would be a rather important nugget of information to have before one started accusing Halliburton of raising the temperature of the world--ZP]

Nonetheless, most scientists think our climate has warmed significantly over the past century and will grow warmer over the next hundred years. Various studies claim the planet is destined to warm by anywhere from 1 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit over the next few centuries. Seas will rise dramatically, the scenario goes, inundating coastal cities. But another group of scientists argue that the temperature data supporting a warming planet is not firm and that projections, based on computer modeling, might be wildly off the mark.

Might be wildly off the mark? More than 1 to 20 degrees? Are they serious? Apparently...

AP finally gets around to asking Tony Blair about the Downing Street Memos

And guess what?

Prime Minister Tony Blair firmly denied Wednesday that the Bush administration signaled just months after Sept. 11 that a decision was made to invade Iraq, saying he was "astonished" by claims that leaked secret memos suggested the U.S. was rushing to war.

In an interview with The Associated Press a day after President Bush delivered a televised defense of the war in Iraq, Blair said defeating the insurgency was crucial to protecting security worldwide, and joined Bush in linking the war with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"What happened for me after Sept. 11 is that the balance of risk changed," said Blair, interviewed on the stone terrace overlooking the garden of his No. 10 Downing Street offices, where policy meetings on Iraq were held before the invasion.

After Sept. 11, it was necessary to "draw a line in the sand here, and the country to do it with was Iraq because they were in breach of U.N. resolutions going back over many years," he said. "I took the view that if these people ever got hold of nuclear, chemical or biological capability, they would probably use it."

Clear, concise, to the point...the man can talk. And talk he does about why such assertions in the Downing Street Memos about Iraq were made in the first place.

"The trouble with having a political discussion on the basis of things that are leaked is that they are always taken right out of context. Everything else is omitted from the discussion and you end up focusing on a specific document," he said. "It would be absolutely weird if, when the Iraq issue was on the agenda, you were not constantly raising issues, trying to work them out, get them in the right place," he said.

Blair suggested that ensuring victory in Iraq was now more important than debating the case for invasion...

...Blair echoed Bush's pledge a day earlier to keep U.S. forces in Iraq until the fight is won. "There is only one side to be on now and it is time we got on it and stuck in there and get the job done, and not leave until the job is done," he said.

And that is the only way to win.

Okay, so...Memo issue dead. Nice try Dems. No soup for you! Next!

(Hat tip: LGF)

Lightning War...

The mobilization of armies about to fight over the next Supreme Court Justice has already begun. (Hat tip: Ankle Biting Pundits)

...elaborate opening-day plans are the product of years of preparation and months of drills by groups that see the nomination as the most important social policy battle of the Bush presidency. The plans also reflect the conclusion by both sides that a potentially decisive advantage -- in momentum and public opinion -- can be gained or lost immediately after a White House announcement.

And yes, they are serious about this. This is a fight to the finish.

Senate strategists have concluded that the first four to six hours will determine which side is left on the defensive. These minutely detailed strategies are ready to be activated regardless of whom Bush nominates.

Blitzkrieg! Drive, drive, drive--Pound, pound, pound, to put the other side on the defensive and achieve victory with blinding speed. Our side had better be ready, because we've gotten badly burned before.

Conservatives involved in planning the strategy for a vacancy announcement said they remain haunted by what happened 30 minutes after President Ronald Reagan's 1987 nomination of federal appellate judge Robert H. Bork to succeed Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy went to the floor and described "Robert Bork's America" as "a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters."

Republicans now acknowledge they were ill-prepared to counter Kennedy's charges, and the portrayal of Bork as an extremist stuck. After an angry battle that left conservatives with lasting grievances, the Senate voted him down, 58 to 42.

I don't know guys, maybe you could have told Kennedy that his fantasies are nothing compared to a country where a person once actually left a women to drown in a car in a lake and then ran and hid from the police so they couldn't check his blood alcohol. But...that's just what I'd say. Anyway, this is a blog, so my ears perked up when I read this next part.

The group [Committee for Justice] also plans to feed research to conservative bloggers so they can fact-check and counter opponents' claims.

So we have that to look forward to. Everyone start exercising their fingers, the typing will be non-stop. And the liberal side really is calling it a war.

Ralph Neas, director of People for the American Way, surveyed his fifth-floor "war room" in a downtown Washington office building yesterday and said it is essential to be quick off the mark in the round-the-clock news cycle. "Those who frame the debate and define the issues first have a tremendous advantage," he said.

See, there's that pesky "framing the debate" thing again. I've commented on this before. It's the one power of the news media. And a potent power it is.

And it wouldn't be a Supreme Court nomination unless abortion reared it's head. NARAL is preparing for war against any Roe V. Wade opponents.

Spokesman Ted Miller said material warning that a changed court could result in Roe 's overturn will be e-mailed to 800,000 activists within minutes of a vacancy announcement. The kits for the 30,000 "rapid responders" will tell them how to recruit volunteers and distribute talking points to friends willing to join the debate.

It is war folks, make no mistake. And not just the Supreme Court. It's a war for the unborn, a war for Marriage, a war for religion and a war for your freedom...and that's not including the war we're fighting against the terrorists.

Saddle up, people...we're goin' in.

The President of the United States...

...spoke tonight about the mission, the progress and the future of Iraq. Here is an extensive excerpt from his speech.

Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability — and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.

The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying — and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country. And tonight I will explain the reasons why.

Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations. They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents, and remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime who want to restore the old order. They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy, prosperity, and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “This Third World War … is raging” in Iraq. “The whole world is watching this war.” He says it will end in “victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”

The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated. So, they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.

We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad — including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul. And we see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.

These are savage acts of violence — but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives. The terrorists — both foreign and Iraqi — failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our Coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq’s diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large numbers with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy.

The lesson of this experience is clear: The terrorists can kill the innocent — but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11 … if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi … and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our Nation’s security, this will not happen on my watch.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is why the elections could NOT be postponed, why the fighting cannot yet stop and why the terrorists hate George Bush. Sorry for interrupting, Mr. President, you were saying?

Click here to continue reading the President's speech.

A little over a year ago, I spoke to the Nation and described our Coalition’s goal in Iraq. I said that America’s mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend — a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform. I outlined the steps we would take to achieve this goal: We would hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government … we would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005 … we would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation’s infrastructure and economy … we would encourage more international support for Iraq’s democratic transition … and we would enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.

In the past year, we have made significant progress:

One year ago today, we restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

In January 2005, more than eight million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair — and took place on time.

We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard — and rebuilding while at war is even harder. Our progress has been uneven — but progress is being made. We are improving roads, and schools, and health clinics … and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity, and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some thirty nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing non-military assistance. The United Nations is in Iraq to help Iraqis write a constitution and conduct their next elections. Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about 34 billion dollars in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction. More than 80 countries and international organizations recently came together in Brussels to coordinate their efforts to help Iraqis provide for their security and rebuild their country. And next month, donor countries will meet in Jordan to support Iraqi reconstruction. Whatever our differences in the past, the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of all our nations. As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, “There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe.”

Finally, we have continued our efforts to equip and train Iraqi Security Forces. We have made gains in both the number and quality of those forces. Today Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions. Iraqi forces have fought bravely — helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah, and Mosul. And in the past month, Iraqi forces have led a major anti-terrorist campaign in Baghdad called Operation Lightning — which has led to the capture of hundreds of suspected insurgents. Like free people everywhere, Iraqis want to be defended by their own countrymen — and we are helping Iraqis assume those duties.

The progress in the past year has been significant — and we have a clear path forward. To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban — a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.

So our strategy going forward has both a military track and a political track.

The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists — and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi Security Forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

We have made progress — but we have a lot more work to do. Today Iraqi Security Forces are at different levels of readiness. Some are capable of taking on the terrorists and insurgents by themselves. A larger number can plan and execute anti-terrorist operations with Coalition support. The rest are forming and not yet ready to participate fully in security operations. Our task is to make the Iraqi units fully capable and independent. We are building up Iraqi Security Forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents.

Our Coalition is devoting considerable resources and manpower to this critical task. Thousands of Coalition troops are involved in the training and equipping of Iraqi Security Forces. NATO is establishing a military academy near Baghdad to train the next generation of Iraqi military leaders — and 17 nations are contributing troops to the NATO training mission. Iraqi Army and Police are being trained by personnel from Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Today dozens of nations are working toward a common objective: an Iraq that can defend itself, defeat its enemies, and secure its freedom.

To further prepare Iraqi forces to fight the enemy on their own, we are taking three new steps:

First, we are partnering Coalition units with Iraqi units. These Coalition-Iraqi teams are conducting operations together in the field. These combined operations are giving Iraqis a chance to experience how the most professional armed forces in the world operate in combat.

Second, we are embedding Coalition “Transition Teams” inside Iraqi units. These teams are made up of Coalition officers and non-commissioned officers who live, work, and fight together with their Iraqi comrades. Under U.S. command, they are providing battlefield advice and assistance to Iraqi forces during combat operations. Between battles, they are assisting the Iraqis with important skills — such as urban combat, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques.

Third, we are working with the Iraqi Ministries of Interior and Defense to improve their capabilities to coordinate anti-terrorist operations. We are helping them develop command and control structures. We are also providing them with civilian and military leadership training, so Iraq’s new leaders can more effectively manage their forces in the fight against terror.

The new Iraqi Security Forces are proving their courage every day. More than 2,000 members of the Iraqi Security Forces have given their lives in the line of duty. Thousands more have stepped forward, and are now in training to serve their nation. With each engagement, Iraqi soldiers grow more battle-hardened, and their officers grow more experienced. We have learned that Iraqis are courageous and that they need additional skills. That is why a major part of our mission is to train them so they can do the fighting and our troops can come home.

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis — who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops — who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy — who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed — and not a day longer.

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever — when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters — the sober judgment of our military leaders.

The other critical element of our strategy is to help ensure that the hopes Iraqis expressed at the polls in January are translated into a secure democracy. The Iraqi people are emerging from decades of tyranny and oppression. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Shia and Kurds were brutally oppressed — and the vast majority of Sunni Arabs were also denied their basic rights while senior regime officials enjoyed the privileges of unchecked power. The challenge facing Iraqis today is to put this past behind them, and come together to build a new Iraq that includes all its people.

They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society — a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and equal justice under law. The Iraqis have held free elections and established a Transitional National Assembly. The next step is to write a good constitution that enshrines these freedoms in permanent law. The Assembly plans to expand its constitutional drafting committee to include more Sunni Arabs. Many Sunnis who opposed the January elections are now taking part in the democratic process — and that is essential to Iraq’s future.

After a constitution is written, the Iraqi people will have a chance to vote on it. If approved, Iraqis will go to the polls again, to elect a new government under their new, permanent constitution. By taking these critical steps and meeting their deadlines, Iraqis will bind their multiethnic society together in a democracy that respects the will of the majority and protects minority rights.

As Iraqis grow confident that the democratic progress they are making is real and permanent, more will join the political process. And as Iraqis see that their military can protect them, more will step forward with vital intelligence to help defeat the enemies of a free Iraq. The combination of political and military reform will lay a solid foundation for a free and stable Iraq.

As Iraqis make progress toward a free society, the effects are being felt beyond Iraq’s borders. Before our Coalition liberated Iraq, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Today the leader of Libya has given up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs. Across the broader Middle East, people are claiming their freedom. In the last few months, we have witnessed elections in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon. These elections are inspiring democratic reformers in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Our strategy to defend ourselves and spread freedom is working. The rise of freedom in this vital region will eliminate the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder — and make our Nation safer.

We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America’s resolve. We are fighting against men with blind hatred — and armed with lethal weapons — who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq — just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail. The terrorists do not understand America. The American people do not falter under threat — and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins.

America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women … it demands the steadfastness of our allies … and it demands the perseverance of our citizens. We accept these burdens — because we know what is at stake. We fight today, because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world — and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror. And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens — and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there … we will fight them across the world — and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

America has done difficult work before. From our desperate fight for independence, to the darkest days of a Civil War, to the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th Century, there were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve, or our way. But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us again. We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage. And we know that this great ideal of human freedom is entrusted to us in a special way — and that the ideal of liberty is worth defending.

In this time of testing, our troops can know: The American people are behind you. Next week, our Nation has an opportunity to make sure that support is felt by every soldier, sailor, airman, coast guardsman, and Marine at every outpost across the world. This Fourth of July, I ask you to find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom — by flying the flag … sending letters to our troops in the field … or helping the military family down the street. The Department of Defense has set up a website — AmericaSupportsYou.mil. You can go there to learn about private efforts in your own community. At this time when we celebrate our freedom, let us stand with the men and women who defend us all.

To the soldiers in this hall, and our servicemen and women across the globe: I thank you for your courage under fire and your service to our Nation. I thank our military families — the burden of war falls especially hard on you. In this war, we have lost good men and women who left our shores to defend freedom — and did not live to make the journey home. I have met with families grieving the loss of loved ones who were taken from us too soon. I have been inspired by their strength in the face of such great loss. We pray for the families. And the best way to honor the lives that have been given in this struggle is to complete the mission.

I thank those of you who have re-enlisted in an hour when your country needs you. And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces. We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our Nation’s uniform. When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom.

After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult — and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult. And we are prevailing. Our enemies are brutal — but they are no match for the United States of America — and they are no match for the men and women of the United States military.

Thank you. And may God bless America.

Everyone, please say a prayer for our troops, for their families and for George Bush. And if at all possible, lets take the President up on his request to help out our military families. I think it's the least we can do.

This guy is really a piece of work

(Hat tip: Patterico)



Michael Schiavo has buried his wife. No wait, I'm sorry, that's not right. His wife apparantly "departed this earth" in 1990. Says so on the headstone. Ah yes, the day she collapsed...that's apparently when she died.

And oh look, how sweet, it says he kept his promise. You know its interesting, the blatant nose-thumbing. And it is nose-thumbing. No one writes their own personal crusader motto on their wife's gravestone. It's HER gravestone, not his. It should have HER life's motto, or prayer, or saying, or whatever the heck she wanted--not his middle finger and a wink to her parents.

And for those of you just tuning in, this isn't the only thing he's done since she died.

The burial of Terri Schiavo's cremated remains didn't bring an end to the acrimony between her husband and her family.

Michael Schiavo angered his late wife's family Monday by not notifying them about the burial beforehand and by inscribing on her bronze grave marker the words "I kept my promise."

Michael Schiavo - who said he promised his wife he would not keep her alive artificially - also listed Feb. 25, 1990, as the date his wife "Departed this Earth."

On that date, Schiavo collapsed and fell into what most doctors said was an irreversible vegetative state.

Schiavo actually died March 31, nearly two weeks after her feeding tube was removed by court order. The grave marker lists that date as when Schiavo was "at peace."

David Gibbs, an attorney for the woman's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, decried the inscriptions on the marker. "Obviously, that's a real shot and another unkind act toward a grieving mom and dad," Gibbs said.

Ah well, at least he's not a self-absorbed jerk or anything...oh wait...

You know, I don't know if Michael Schiavo loved his wife. I don't know what his wife said to him that day on the couch watching TV. But here's what I do know. A state court ordered a woman who was confined to a hospital bed, who was NOT on a respirator, or receiving blood or on medication, who had no living will, starved to death (and NO ONE is going to comment on the "dehydrated to death" medical term, its a technical term that implies the loss of fluids, not nutrients, I know. But the body still functions to the last, and it ain't getting those nutrients from the stomach, its getting them by breaking down the body. Don't eat for a day and see if you like it, and then do it for two weeks--oh but you have Chapstick and ice for your lips. I think they call that starving in some third world countries, perhaps even in France.) based on the word of her husband...who is now with another woman. Terri Schiavo took up a bed and a couple cans of Ensure a day and had parents who would have spent every penny they had to take care of her--and that was too much for the state court and her husband.

All you enlightened folk out there, go have a talk with a nursing home nurse, ask him/her about the patients who want to die and the patients who want to live. The ones who want to die...die, and they die quickly. The ones who want to live, they fight and they hang on. How long did Terri starve again? Oh but that's right, I forgot--according to Michael she was already dead and didn't feel anything. That must have been why they kept talking about easing her suffering--for not living in a manner that the state and her husband deemed worthwhile.

I can only pray that God has rewarded her suffering.

Ideology and idolatry

There was some discussion today over at The American Princess about the Supreme Court decision on the Ten Commandments and liberal hostility towards religion...here and here. The Princess made an excellent point about liberal ideology, quoted here:

When the people adopt religion, the[y] adopt personal responsibility--they care for their neighbor and for the poor without obligation, they care for the unborn, sick, dying and unable, they honor and respect each other as brother and sister, they care that their children do not grow up in a world which turns its back on the family, and honors what should be regarded as deviancy as the epitome of self-understanding. People who subscribe to the Higher Power, no matter what it may be, lack the selfishness, lack the moral depravity, and lack the stagnant, self-serving, and demeaning principles that are manufactured by those who would claim to be Enlightened. They realise that these are false idols, and so worthy of the same fate as the Golden Calf, smashed to pieces and buried in the sands of time.

My response to that was that "People don't ever talk about the pervasiveness of idolatry--that it's more than just the Golden Calf, but a way of thinking, of being, a way of denying the will of God so that they may enact their own. And liberals fall into this all the time--and yet they call this enlightenment, the idea that God is no longer required. But of course, that's where the liberal concept of the "greater good" comes in--and their ideology becomes their god."

This is not to equate doing good things with bad behavior. Quite the contrary. As I said in the post "Why they fight":

The principle tenet of religion is faith. In the Christian faith you must believe in God and His love for the world. But without faith, without God, without His will be done, what purpose do we serve, what course do we set, what rules do we follow, who's will shall be done?

Our technology affords us great comfort, and great care and terrible power. Yet if we all ran about enacting our own will throughout the world without laws or morals it would be chaos. That is the power of free will. And therein lies the paradox. Liberals must then create their own god, a framework that all wills must then conform to, and that is the concept of the "greater good." And within this construct of the "greater good" lies their calamity.

Wanting to do good in the world is a noble thing. Humanity is at its best when doing for others. But at its worst, the God-less application of the "greater good" creates duplicity, moral relativism, and the willingness to be loved at the expense of all principle.

The one organization in all the world that liberals foist as the pinnacle of good, is the United Nations. An organization of all nations, looking out for all, proclaiming morality, good will and the voice of reasoned thinking. Or so it is written. The truth, as one pulls back the curtain, reveals an organization collapsing under its own ambivalence, uncertainty and corruption. Who's morality is correct? Good will towards whom? What reasoned proposals have cured political strife in the world? There is no answer, because they cannot agree upon right and wrong. They have only nuance and self-proclaimed enlightenment.

The elevation of self to that of enlightenment is a daunting task, especially since we did not create ourselves or this Universe. How can we know that which we did not create? Those with religious affiliation, particularly Christian, seek God's grace, forgiveness and salvation. But liberals do not accept that. God is not required. Yet in spite of years of intelligent discovery and science they still have gotten no farther towards enlightenment than when they threw God out the window. This lack of progress is devastating to the liberal mindset, because it calls into question their very being. And this is the battle that liberals are fighting. They have to show that their way is the right way, and everyone else is wrong.

But again, what way is that? It is an ideology made manifest with a plague of contradictions, simplistic thinking and more recently an ever present paranoia. The ruckus going on over the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo has nothing to do with the prisoners or the Koran, nothing to do with the war in Iraq or the war on terror and nothing to do with George Bush. The fixation of the liberal media and the Left hard-liners on these things has to do with their will. It is about telling the world that they are right, that they are trustworthy, that they care, that they have the greater good in mind...but they have no interest in actually creating a plan, earning that trust, or doing real good in the world.

And the reason why their will must be done is because their ideology aches for vindication. As I said in that same post "It is a vindication for all that they are, for all that they say and for all that they do--and have done--in the past 30 or so years in the name of liberal ideology. Never before in the history of the world have so few risked so much and so many for something so petty as being right. The entire world can go down in flames, so long as it is to the tune of an 'I told you so.'" Now spite and pride are not exclusive, and a good many conservatives have fallen into the idol trap. But by and large, the ideology liberals push has become their idol, their faith.

And you want to know the scary part? America is buying into it. And that's not good folks. The separation of church and state is a fallacy, brought on by a media and a party desperate to play on the conscience of the kind, of the just and the tolerant. Don't laugh. It's true, and rather sad. For only by their own acquiescence will the majority (all religious) give up their religion. And unless we can turn this ship around...

And it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but whereas they lived in a great war of ignorance, they call so many and so great evils peace. For either they sacrifice their own children, or use hidden sacrifices, or keep watches full of madness, so that now they neither keep life nor marriage undefiled, but one killeth another through envy, or grieveth him by adultery. And all things are mingled together, blood, murder, theft and dissimulation, corruption and unfaithfulness, tumults and perjury, disquieting of the good, forgetfulness of God, defiling of souls, changing of nature, disorder in marriage, and the irregularity of adultery and uncleanness. For the worship of abominable idols is the cause, and the beginning and end of all evil.

Wisdom 14:22-27

Ten Commandments no more...

So here it is folks. The Supreme Court has said "NO" to the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky cross the line between separation of church and state because they promote a religious message.

The 5-4 decision was the first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life. In it, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property. Justices left legal wiggle room, saying that some displays — like their own courtroom frieze — would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.

hmm...what's that I hear? Ah yes...that's the Constitution being flushed.

It strikes me as rather sad that the entire concept of religion in America, in our own Constitution has been trampled over by liberals, the courts, and the media with...well with nothing actually. There is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights calling for seperation of church and state. Oh but there is this:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Just because the Ten Commandments is in the courthouse does not mean you must worship next to it, or pay homage to it, or give deference to it. In fact, you're not required to read them, or memorize them, or even live them. So just what is the danger? hmm...possibly the reminder that law, all law, derives from a source. Not from European enlightenment--or perhaps from the annuls of the ACLU--as liberals would have us believe. But rather from the Creator--you know, that guy mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, who gave us those inalienable rights.

Where did you think your rights came from? The Supreme Court? The U.N.? No, from God. That's why NO ONE can take them away from you, and why they were preserved in our country origins. Because King George did not give those rights to the colonists, God did. And therefore King George had no claim to...well to you.

So what were we talking about? Oh yes, those pesky commandments that were causing eyes to bleed and people to spontaneously worship a God they don't believe in. So now we've removed the origins of our law. So now from what authority does the law derive from? Did they just make all that stuff up 200 years ago?--somehow knowing that the court in 2005 would set it all right? Or perhaps Europe can guide us? Where do their laws come from? Oh wait...that's right...the government. So if the government is the law, the creator of law and the executor of the law, and is itself the only basis for that law then...

From the hammock...

Blogging will be light this week, as I'm on vacation. Whatever I can log with my PDA--which is a pain to use, by the way.

In the news, the Yankees kicked butt last night, coming back from certain death to win big, 20-11. I was at the game. I'll be sure to post some picures of the crazy fan in front of us.

To any visitors, feel free to look around, leave a comment if you like. Next week the political and social commentary will continue.

I just have to remain skeptical of CBS

The network that brought us such hits as The Reagans and Dan Rather's "I-tried-to-oust-the-President-and-all-I-got-were-these-lousy-fake-documents" has greenlighted a TV miniseries about the life of Pope John Paul II. From E!:

CBS has given its blessing to a miniseries focusing on the life of the late Pope John Paul II.

CBS' four-hour papal special, tentatively titled Pope John Paul II, will likely air next year, possibly during fall sweeps. It will chronicle the rise of the Polish-born Karol Wojtyla, from his youthful activism through his 26-year reign as pontiff.

The producers of Pope John Paul II have already secured the Vatican's blessing for the project, CBS has announced. Principal photography is expecting to begin this summer in Rome (some filming has already commenced on the project, per the New York Post). No casting has been done yet.

"We're really doing this on a large scale," Bela Bajaria, CBS' senior vice president for movies and miniseries, told the Hollywood Reporter. "It's a fascinating story."

CBS is hoping to translate the immense popularity of the pope, who died Apr. 2 at age 84, into ratings. Religious material is back in vogue in the wake of Mel Gibson's massive 2004 hit feature, The Passion of the Christ. (Gibson himself is rumored to be working on his own pontiff-themed project.)

The decision to greenlight the papal miniseries could also mend fences with conservative viewers in the wake of the Eyeball's The Reagans special in 2003. After gripes from the family and right-wing critics, the network moved the miniseries to cable's Showtime.

This isn't the first time CBS has delved into Christian-friendly fodder. The Tiffany net aired the miniseries, Jesus, in 2000 with Jeremy Sisto as Jesus and Gary Oldman as Pontius Pilate. The creative team behind that special will also helm the new pope project. And, of course, CBS enjoyed heavenly ratings for its long-running Touched by an Angel and, more recently, the talking-to-God series Joan of Arcadia, which just wrapped its two-season run.

Per reports, ABC is also working feverishly on its own pope telepic, but no details have been announced.

Just last month, the new pope, Benedict XVI, watched an Italian feature film about Pope John Paul II's life, Karol, at the Vatican.

Hollywood does nothing but recast events and people through their own "artistic" eye--deology. And I worry that aside from ratings, CBS also wants to be the one to tell us how we're supposed to remember John Paul II. I know, I know, it has the Vatican's blessing--thankfully. But I still don't trust CBS with Pope John Paul II's story.

This would be comical if it weren't so sad

Watch closely ladies and gentlemen. Nearly four years after terrorists killed 3,000 Americans, two successful wars liberating Afghanistan and Iraq, routing the terrorists and pinning them down in Iraq--forcing them to fight for their future, and not for ours...a good number of elected officials are bound and determined to lose the war.

As evidenced here, here, and here, elected officials of the United States, without reason save their own political cowardice, ignorance and love of the camera, have slandered the soldiers of the United States military and restricted the administration's ability to protect this country, much to the glee of an adoring media and an increasingly unhinged Democratic fringe.

And the more Republicans cave to this kind of nonsense--and contribute to it (Senator Spector), the more the war effort erodes, the more our troops grow disheartened, and the more the enemy grows emboldened.

I always knew, in the back of my mind, that America's only weakness was from within. But I never thought I'd ever see the day ignorance prevailed over facts and rhetoric prevailed over common sense, at the expense of our own survival.

Senators Dick Durbin, Arlen Spector, and Ted Kennedy: you should all be ashamed of yourselves. And Dick...tell ya what, if you care about those poor terrorists in Guantanamo so much, let's just send them all to your state. I'm sure the population would love it. After all, they're peaceful right? Right? Dick...?

Journalists are supposed to report the news, not become the news.

So exactly why does Reuters keep "reporting" about Sean Penn being a "journalist" in Iran? Have they "run out" of "scare quotes?" Are there no more despotic regimes to sympathize with? So he's covering the "vote" in Iran, so are a million other journalists. All his presence serves to do is reduce the level of seriousness.

From the article:

The actor, who visited Iraq before and after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and wrote an account of his second trip for the Chronicle, has largely declined to talk to the media since arriving in Iran.

But he told a film student during a visit to Iran's Film Museum in Tehran Monday that the "Death to America" slogan chanted each week at Friday Prayers hurt Iran-U.S. relations.

"I understand the nature of where it comes from and what its intention is," he said. "But I don't think it's productive because I think the message goes to the American people and it is interpreted very literally."

No Sean, I think it's anything but literal. You know what that quote says to me? It says that Iran is a very complex place. You have a young population who hates being oppressed, women who hate being oppressed, and then you have mullahs, terrorists, and their allies who are scared to death of the U.S., and doing everything in their power to build an atomic bomb, send terrorists into Iraq, control their own people, and put on a show for the world. That's what that statement says to me. What does it say to you?

New Memo links Annan to Cotecna

And just who is surprised by this? The commission investigating the Oil-for-Food scandal, that's who. It's a short article, so here's the whole thing:

UNITED NATIONS - Investigators of the U.N. oil-for-food program said Tuesday they are "urgently reviewing" new information that suggests U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan may have known more about a contract that was awarded to the company that employed his son.

The December 1998 memo from Michael Wilson, then a vice president of Cotecna Inspections S.A., mentions brief discussions with Annan "and his entourage" during a summit in Paris in 1998. "We could count on their support," the memo said.

If accurate, the memo could contradict a major finding of the Independent Inquiry Committee — that there wasn't enough evidence to show that Annan knew about efforts by Cotecna, which employed his son, Kojo, to win a contract under oil-for-food. Cotecna learned it won the contract on Dec. 11, 1998.

The statement from the Independent Inquiry Committee, led by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, said it would "conduct additional investigation regarding this new information."

In a statement released earlier Tuesday, Cotecna again denied that it committed any wrongdoing in obtaining the $10 million a year contract.

I'm curious what the game plan is here. Volcker is a paper tiger. He was picked by Annan so that the investigation would remain controllable. This information obviously has people scrambling. Someone needs to fax Senator Norm Coleman a copy of this memo right away, before it gets "lost in transit," or the computer files get erased or something equally dubius.

So what are they admitting here?

AP: Jackson Won't Share Bed With Kids Again

Is this not a rather damning admission? Not according to Jackson's lawyers:

Basking in the jurors' decision to acquit his client of all counts, Michael Jackson's lawyer said Tuesday the singer will no longer share his bed with young boys.

"He's not going to do that anymore," attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. told NBC's "Today." "He's not going to make himself vulnerable to this anymore."

Jackson was found not guilty Monday of child molestation, conspiracy and other counts. Jurors said the accusations of a young boy and his family were not credible — a total legal victory that triggered jubilation among the pop star's fans and embarrassment for the district attorney's office.

And yes, this is a major embarrassment for the distric attorney's office. Ever analyst on TV is saying the DA should have kept this trial at two weeks, and kept that conspiracy charge out of it--and kept the boy's mother OFF the stand. The jurors did not like her.

But now he's free. To rebuild his 'career,' as the AP says. What career? People in this country stopped listening to Michael Jackson ten years ago. Maybe he can move to France, with his monkeys.

Defense of Gitmo, and a little circular reporting

Finally the GOP is talking back about the assault on our military's honor by the Left and the media. What possible good, aside from making terrorists and wishy-washy elected officials happy, is closing the camp at Gitmo going to serve? Where are they going to put the terrorists? Just give them a cookie and send them on their way?

Of course, this is how the AP opens their story:

A few Republicans are raising questions about keeping the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay prison open, but the loudest GOP voices are lining up to defend a facility that one human-rights group has called a "gulag."

Nice little bit of circular reporting going on there. "Gulag," refering to the careless assault by Amnesty International on the base. Now the AP can reference this attack as "fact," and report the slander without any evidence or reason. The media source each other a lot. The VP and others in the GOP do get a say though:

Answering the critics, Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday said war-on-terror detainees would continue to be held at Guantanamo, even as the White House said all options for prison's future were on the table.

On Capitol Hill, several prominent Republicans followed the Bush administration's lead.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the No. 4 Republican in the Senate, said the prison was "housing terrorists bent on killing Americans and destroying freedom" and "it should remain in place until it is no longer needed to help win the war on terror."

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, displayed for reporters Guantanamo-like prison entrees of lemon-baked fish and oven-fried chicken with rice, fruit and vegetables — "purchased for them by American taxpayers" — to illustrate conditions at the prison and to counter claims of mistreatment.

"They've never eaten better. They've never been treated better," Hunter said. "We don't beat them. We don't touch them. We've been treating people well."

Nice to know the terrorists ate better than I did yesterday, to say nothing of the fact that I paid for that. Of course the AP then found some weak-kneed Republicans to bolster their case:

Over the weekend, two Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida and Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska — raised questions about keeping the facility open. Martinez said the prison was "an icon for bad stories" and said the administration should consider closing it. Hagel cited it as one reason the U.S. is "losing the image war around the world."

And that's what matters right? If the terrorists don't like us, we'll NEVER win! *insert scream of frustration here*

I won't ruin your breakfast with the quotes from Senators Kennedy or Levin. But I will close with Senator Jeff Sessions' comments.

"We are adhering to high standards of freedom and justice," he said. "If we've got a problem let's fix it. But I can't for the life of me think that we will gain respect around the world by closing this."

Finally, some common sense. Let's hope it lasts.

Why they Fight

The recent feeding frenzy in the media over the new revelations of prisoner interrogation logs from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the subsequent calls for the prison to be shut down (as it is now "an embarrassment to America"), has for me been a rather clear lesson about the wiles and ultimate objective of the raging Left in America. And that objective is their complete and utter vindication.

Vindication for what?--you ask. It is a vindication for all that they are, for all that they say and for all that they do--and have done--in the past 30 or so years in the name of liberal ideology.

Never before in the history of the world have so few risked so much and so many for something so petty as being right. The entire world can go down in flames, so long as it is to the tune of an "I told you so." And the adoption of this mindset...well, the smoke is rising and we're starting to asphyxiate.

The origins of this mentality cannot be tied to any one particular event. On its surface, liberal ideology has been in a state of constant convulsions since the end of WWII. But its core is tied to something deeper, and that is to the idea that God is no longer required.

What does this have to do with terror prisoners?--you ask. Everything. The principle tenant of religion is faith. In the Christian faith you must believe in God and His love for the world. But without faith, without God, without His will be done, what purpose do we serve, what course do we set, what rules do we follow, who's will shall be done?

Our technology affords us great comfort, and great care and terrible power. Yet if we all ran about enacting our own will throughout the world without laws or morals it would be chaos. That is the power of free will. And therein lies the paradox. Liberals must then create their own god, a framework that all wills must then conform to, and that is the concept of the "greater good." And within this construct of the "greater good" lies their calamity.

Wanting to do good in the world is a noble thing. Humanity is at its best when doing for others. But at its worst, the God-less application of the "greater good" creates duplicity, moral relativism, and the willingness to be loved at the expense of all principle.

The one organization in all the world that liberals foist as the pinnacle of good, is the United Nations. An organization of all nations, looking out for all, proclaiming morality, good will and the voice of reasoned thinking. Or so it is written. The truth, as one pulls back the curtain, reveals an organization collapsing under its own ambivalence, uncertainty and corruption. Who's morality is correct? Good will towards whom? What reasoned proposals have cured political strife in the world? There is no answer, because they cannot agree upon right and wrong. They have only nuance and self-proclaimed enlightenment.

The elevation of self to that of enlightenment is a daunting task, especially since we did not create ourselves or this Universe. How can we know that which we did not create? Those with religious affiliation, particularly Christian, seek God's grace, forgiveness and salvation. But liberals do not accept that. God is not required. Yet in spite of years of intelligent discovery and science they still have gotten no farther towards enlightenment than when they threw God out the window. This lack of progress is devastating to the liberal mindset, because it calls into question their very being. And this is the battle that liberals are fighting. They have to show that their way is the right way, and everyone else is wrong.

But again, what way is that? It is an ideology made manifest with a plague of contradictions, simplistic thinking and more recently an ever present paranoia. The ruckus going on over the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo has nothing to do with the prisoners or the Koran, nothing to do with the war in Iraq or the war on terror and nothing to do with George Bush. The fixation of the liberal media and the Left hard-liners on these things has to do with their will. It is about telling the world that they are right, that they are trustworthy, that they care, that they have the greater good in mind...but they have no interest in actually creating a plan, earning that trust, or doing real good in the world.

Do those who criticize Guantanamo actually have a plan for interrogating terrorists? Of course not. Because they cannot label them as terrorists. That "One man's terrorist..." saying comes to mind. Did those who criticized the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan have a plan for doing it better? No, because who's to say what form of government is good?--who's to say the people there did not like their bondage? If they wanted to rise up they would have...or so liberals say.

The supposed empathy of liberals knows no bounds, and yet they were perfectly willing to intern the Japanese in WWII; escalate Vietnam under Kennedy and Johnson--yet then withhold funding to the South Vietnamese and end the war; bomb Kosovo; vote for Gulf War I, a war for oil--yet not Gulf War II, a war against terrorism; get schnookered by North Korea yet demand now that the U.S. repeat history; be caught unawares to terrorism numerous times (World Trade center 1993, Oklahoma city, Embassy bombings, U.S.S. Cole, the 2000 plot), yet decry Bush for doing too much now... I could go on, but the double-mindedness is apparent. "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it"...the Global Test... They want to be all things, to all people, to be right and nuanced, and loved. But one cannot be everything and maintain who they are, nor can they convince people to follow them by showing empathy for the terrorists.

Empathy is a very amazing human ability, and put to good use it helps us to understand those closest to us on the most intimate of levels. But empathy is a tricky thing, because when a total stranger is involved, from another culture or race or sex, or when the person wishes you harm, it is no longer empathy, but a projection of your fantasy of who they are. The prisoners in Guantanamo are not cuddly teddy bears, or men caught stealing bread for their child, or people pulled at random off the street, or forced to work as laborers, and they are not fighting for anybody's freedom. That romanticized view is misguided and dangerous. These people saw off heads, lest we forget.

Yet more press has been afforded these people than all the mass graves, all the Gulags, and all the oppression in regimes like North Korea combined. Not because the Left does not care, but because those things, those regimes, do not stand in the their way. And who does stand in their way? The people who reject their ideology, who vote to prevent it from becoming. Terrorists are not preventing the liberal ideology, at least not on a large scale, but conservatives and Christians in America are. When Howard Dean talked about George Bush being the enemy, he really meant it. When Howard Dean talked about hating everything Republicans stood for, he meant it.

Just as Vietnam got in the way of the liberal evolution, so does the war on terror. Not because they don't want to fight, but because they should have been the ones to win it. And obstruction and political war is the only way to keep the other side, conservatives, and more specifically the current object of their ire, George Bush, from "winning."

But with political losses mounting, as the public continues to reject their ideology, the Left is getting even more vocal, more desperate, more frenzied. Until this is where we are: enemies of America subjected to Christina Aguilera music...and the Left calling it torture. Not because it is (your care for Ms. Aguilera's music notwithstanding), but because if it isn't then George Bush wins again.

And this brings us back to the "greater good" again, because it is in the rejection of their own religion and their refusal to accept that rejection that liberals have devolved into their current state. And I don't see them backing down any time soon.

Somebody call Jack Bauer...please...

(hat tip: Powerline)

The investigation into the Father & Son terror pair in Lodi, California is heating up. A fifth person is now in custody, and the FBI is expanding the investigation. Via the L.A. Times:

The initial arrests of a Northern California father and son with alleged terrorist connections were the result of a several-year investigation focused on the Muslim community of this Central Valley agricultural center, an FBI official said Wednesday.

"We believe from our investigation that various individuals connected to Al Qaeda have been operating in the Lodi area in various capacities, including individuals who have received terrorist training abroad," said Sacramento FBI chief Keith Slotter.

Umer Hayat, a 47-year-old ice-cream truck driver, and his 22-year-old son Hamid Hayat, a worker at a fruit packing plant, were charged with making false statements to federal investigators after being arrested Sunday. Three others were detained on immigration violations.

The Times then goes on to cast doubt on the entire law enforcement arm of the war on terror, bringing up several cases where individuals had been falsely accused. The Times does mention, however, that all those falsely accused were apologized to and released.

The FBI, not phased by the media hand-wringing, thank God, is moving forward with the investigation, and they announced that the arrests were tied to "a broader investigation into suspected Islamic militants within the Pakistani community in the United States, including Lodi."

Meanwhile, questioning of the son, Hamid Hayet, revealed this nugget:

...Hayat allegedly told federal agents that he attended a terrorist camp in Pakistan for six months in 2003-04 and was instructed on attacking targets in the United States.

Included in the training, Hamid Hayat reportedly told agents, was target practice using pictures of President Bush.

Federal agents are "racing" to track down the leads. Somebody find Jack Bauer...please...

Terrorists go to journalism school.

I expected this to happen: media gives new ideas to terrorists.

Militants Display Pictures of Torn Qurans

The militant Islamic Jihad on Wednesday presented pictures of torn copies of the Islamic holy book, the Quran, claimed they were taken inside an Israeli prison and said soldiers were responsible for the desecration. Israel denied the charge and said the pictures were a fabrication.

The Islamic Jihad transmitted the pictures by e-mail to a reporter in the West Bank. They show two Qurans with torn pages. The militants said prisoners took the pictures with cellular telephones sent them electronically to militant leaders. [They get cell phones in prison?--ZP]

The militants said Wednesday that soldiers desecrated six or seven Qurans as they searched Palestinian prisoners' cells at the Megiddo jail in northern Israel early Tuesday. The prisoners were outside the cells at the time but could see what was going on, the Islamic Jihad militants said. [Yep...uhuh...sure--ZP]

The charges closely followed a report in Newsweek _ later retracted _ that American soldiers flushed a Quran down the toilet at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. The report set off deadly riots in the Muslim world.

The Pentagon later issued a report of its own in which the military acknowledged five instances of mistreatment of the Quran at Guantanamo Bay.

The charges against Israeli soldiers originally surfaced on Tuesday, when prisoners charged that soldiers tore three Qurans and stepped on them. In a later version, they said soldiers ripped pages out of one Quran.

The Israeli Prisons Authority had its own conflicting versions on Tuesday as well. At first, a spokesman said that as a soldier searched an old Quran, pages fell from it, and he put them back.

Later that day, the authority showed reporters the book they said was at the center of the affair. The pages that were replaced were larger than those in the rest of the book, and the Prisons Authority concluded the whole matter was a fabrication by the Palestinian prisoners.

On Wednesday, Prisons Authority official Orit Stelser said the pictures and new charges were fabricated.

During the search on Tuesday morning, soldiers confiscated dozens of cellular phones, forbidden among the prisoners. Stelser said it was unlikely that there were many left behind to take such pictures.

"They have staged things like this in the past," she said. "This is staged." She noted the early, conflicting stories and said, "If there were really torn Qurans (Tuesday), they would have presented them then. There are no more books, period." [Which is what the U.S. needs to do! Get the Korans out of the prison at Gitmo.--ZP]

The pictures transmitted Wednesday showed Qurans with several pages torn in the middle. It was impossible to tell from the pictures themselves where they were taken or when.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what irresponsible and "gotcha" reporting breeds. And until we get serious about this fight, until we stop working ourselves into a tizzy about who pissed on a book or tore a page, we will never win this war.

U.S. Soldiers are dying so we can fight a humane war, so that we can prove to the world that we are not barbarians, that we are not killing just for the sake of killing, that we care about the innocents in this fight. Nobody is a saint, and America has its share of idiots, but this country is a force for good in the world, and we have to start believing that again, and REPORTING that again. Torn pages should NOT get massive press. True, it says a lot about the people who would riot and kill over a book--or even use that as a call to recruit more terrorists. But we know about the terrorists, we expect this. But I think as Americans we should really be able to expect more from our media.


Update: Clarified that the rioters were individual people, not a culture. But right now its the only culture in the world spinning off terrorists (sorry Reuters). Oh, and spellcheck, of course.

Is Bush going to cave on Gitmo?

Incredibly disturbing article here.

President Bush on Wednesday left open the possibility that the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be shut down following mounting criticism from former President Carter and others.

"We're exploring all alternatives as to how best to do the main objective, which is to protect America," Bush said when asked in an interview with Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto if he would close the detention center.

With all due respect, Mr. President, DO NOT DO THIS! The terrorists will be dancing in the streets! How can you even consider caving over a BOOK!

This is NOT going to stop criticism of the war, it will NOT save American lives, soldiers or citizens at home, and it will NOT stop al-Quaida from claiming abuses. There is never a perfect war. And book abuses and soldiers pissing on detainees is NOT a reason to surrender.

So who says "24" is fake?

Father and son arrested for supporting al-Quaida. The article reads like a nightmare. Reproduced here in full.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A father and son were charged with lying to federal agents about the son's alleged training at an al-Qaida camp for a mission that a judge said was "to kill Americans whenever and wherever they can be found."

According to an FBI affidavit, Hamid Hayat first denied any link to terror camps, but then told agents he attended an al-Qaida camp in 2003 and 2004.

"Hamid advised that he specifically requested to come to the United States to carry out his jihadi mission," according to the affidavit. "Potential targets for attack would include hospitals and large food stores."

Hayat and his father, Umer Hayat, were arrested over the weekend, FBI agent John Cauthen said Tuesday. Two other men have been detained on immigration violations, he said. The court complaint alleges that Umer Hayat lied about his son's involvement and money he sent for the son's training.

Both men were being held at the Sacramento County Jail. Umer Hayat's attorney, Johnny Griffin III, called the allegations "shocking" but said his client "is charged with nothing more than lying to an agent."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter A. Nowinski denied a bail request for the elder Hayat, saying he was a flight risk and a danger to the community.

"He just returned from Pakistan where he built a new home and contributed financial assistance to an al-Qaida sponsored program training his son and others to kill Americans whenever and wherever they can be found," Nowinski said.

Hamid Hayat's attorney wasn't in court, and Nowinski set his bail hearing for Friday.

Umer and Hamid Hayat are American citizens, and the younger man was born in California.

According to reports in the Los Angeles Times and The Sacramento Bee, Hamid Hayat was trying to return to the U.S. on May 29 when the FBI told its Sacramento office that he was on the federal "no-fly" list.

The plane was diverted to Japan, where Hayat was interviewed by the FBI and denied any connection to terrorism. He was allowed to fly to California, but was interviewed again on June 3-4. He then acknowledged spending time at the training camp, the affidavit said.

Cauthen identified the two other men as Shabbir Ahmed and Mohammed Adil Khan. He said he couldn't give any further details, citing an ongoing investigation.

The Lodi News-Sentinel reported that Ahmed is the imam of a mosque in the town, and Khan is the former imam. The Bee reported that the men were detained after meeting separately with Umer Hayat on Saturday.

Does anyone find this even slightly alarming? I wonder if CAIR has a response?

Ground Zero, stolen...

(hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

Michelle Malkin raises the red flag over this article in today's Wall Street Journal (registration req'd). Written by Debra Burlingame, who, as Michelle Malkin notes is "...sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, pilot of American Airlines fight 77, which terrorists crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001..."

Ms. Burlingame repots that the World Trade Center Memorial Cultural Complex is being organized by the International Freedom Center, and they are apparently pulling a fast one on America. Visitors can expect this:

The public will have come to see 9/11 but will be given a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man, from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South, from the Third Reich's Final Solution to the Soviet gulags and beyond. This is a history all should know and learn, but dispensing it over the ashes of Ground Zero is like creating a Museum of Tolerance over the sunken graves of the USS Arizona.

The public will be confused at first, and then feel hoodwinked and betrayed. Where, they will ask, do we go to see the September 11 Memorial? The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation will have erected a building whose only connection to September 11 is a strained, intellectual one. While the IFC is getting 300,000 square feet of space to teach us how to think about liberty, the actual Memorial Center on the opposite corner of the site will get a meager 50,000 square feet to exhibit its 9/11 artifacts, all out of sight and underground. Most of the cherished objects which were salvaged from Ground Zero in those first traumatic months will never return to the site. There is simply no room. But the International Freedom Center will have ample space to present us with exhibits about Chinese dissidents and Chilean refugees. These are important subjects, but for somewhere -- anywhere -- else, not the site of the worst attack on American soil in the history of the republic.

From the article:

The driving force behind the IFC is Tom Bernstein, the dynamic co-founder of the Chelsea Piers Sports and Entertainment Complex who made a fortune financing Hollywood movies. But his capital ventures appear to have funded his true calling, the pro bono work he has done his entire adult life -- as an activist lawyer in the human rights movement. He has been a proud member of Human Rights First since it was founded -- as the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights -- 27 years ago, and has served as its president for the last 12.

The public has a right to know that it was Mr. Bernstein's organization, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, that filed a lawsuit three months ago against Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was Human Rights First that filed an amicus brief on behalf of alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla, an American citizen who the Justice Department believes is an al Qaeda recruit. It was Human Rights First that has called for a 9/11-style commission to investigate the alleged torture of detainees, complete with budget authority, subpoena power and the ability to demand that witnesses testify under oath.

Ms. Burlingame then goes on to say that the IFC lists those who "...are shaping or influencing the content and programming for their Ground Zero exhibit..." It reads like a nightmare:

• Michael Posner, executive director at Human Rights First who is leading the world-wide "Stop Torture Now" campaign focused entirely on the U.S. military. He has stated that Mr. Rumsfeld's refusal to resign in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal is "irresponsible and dishonorable."

• Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, who is pushing IFC organizers for exhibits that showcase how civil liberties in this country have been curtailed since September 11.

• Eric Foner, radical-left history professor at Columbia University who, even as the bodies were being pulled out of a smoldering Ground Zero, wrote, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." This is the same man who participated in a "teach-in" at Columbia to protest the Iraq war, during which a colleague exhorted students with, "The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military," and called for "a million Mogadishus." The IFC website has posted Mr. Foner's statement warning that future discussions should not be "overwhelmed" by the IFC's location at the World Trade Center site itself.

• George Soros, billionaire founder of Open Society Institute, the nonprofit foundation that helps fund Human Rights First and is an early contributor to the IFC. Mr. Soros has stated that the pictures of Abu Ghraib "hit us the same way as the terrorist attack itself."

Soros having his name on ANYTHING related to 9/11 is an absolute smack in the face to all Americans. As Ms. Burlington notes: "...these activists and academics are salivating at the prospect of holding forth on the "perfect platform" where the domestic and foreign policy they despise was born."

And then, of all publications, the New York Times blows the lid off this: "...early renderings of the center's exhibit area created by its Norwegian architectural firm depicted a large mural of an Iraqi voter. That image was replaced by a photograph of Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson when the designs were made public."

I have respect for Martin Luther King, but he does not belong at Ground Zero. And Lyndon Johnson belongs NOWHERE except for the space center.

I visited Ground Zero, in December of 2001. The scale of the devestation, it was immense, a huge pit surrounded by mesh fencing and boards--all adorned with writings and flowers and memorial tributes. The surrounding buildings all had netting covering them, because they were damaged too. The construction crews were working non-stop. The smell in the air, of dust and burning and haze, it hit us as soon as we got off the subway near Wall Street. My cousins told me the smell and haze carried all the way out to Long Island when the buildings fell.

Our country was attacked on 9/11 by Muslim extremists, on the orders of Osama bin Laden, not U.S. Cavalry soldiers clearing out Indians, or rednecks from the Old South, or Chinese communists or hard-line Soviets, or anybody mentioned in a Michael Moore movie. Muslim extremists killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11. And we should honor the fallen, and never forget.

John Bolton will win confirmation...Biden says Bush loses

In backwards land, apparently it's a loss when the President gets a nominee confirmed. At least that's how Senator Joe Biden sees it, as he told ABC's "This Week."

President Bush will "probably be able to win the vote, somewhere between 45 and 47 votes against, and he'll think it's a victory."

Why is it not?

"It reduces the confidence in the administration, and ... the president will have lost more credibility, and lost support."

The AP has this to say about Bolton:

Opponents of Bolton have cited his dismissive remarks about the United Nations, his reputation as an uncompromising and hotheaded conservative, and allegations that he shut out or retaliated against any voices of caution or dissent.

And many of his detractors highlight this exchange he had with a New York Times reporter:

Once asked by the New York Times to explain the administration's policy on North Korea, Bolton "strode over to a bookshelf, pulled off a volume and slapped it on the table. It was called 'The End of North Korea.'"

"'That,' he said, 'is our policy.'"

Sounds like the right guy to me. The stuff about him shutting out or retaliating against voices of "dissent" is pure nonsense, more of the same "he put his hands on his hips" and "he shook his finger at me" crap. And in the instance where he sought discipline against an employee, the person had clearly overstepped their bounds.

Once more, the Democrats are left trying to take a stalwart and diligent, if not brutally honest, servant of this country and parse together a media bio of an unhinged, deranged conservative. They do this because there is no going around the Constitution; Bush has every right to his nominees. And the Senate Democrats have every finger plugging up holes in the dam that is their obstructionism. Thank God, on Bolton at least, this dam is about to break.

Ronald Wilson Reagan

On June 5, 2004, Ronald Wilson Reagan passed away. I'm not old enough to remember the Carter years, nor even most of Reagan's presidency. I was too young to care about politics then--in fact only since 2000 have I really started getting involved. I remember that my parents liked him, and at the time that was enough for me. But I did recall some of the media coverage, even as a child--they were hateful as ever. He wasn't supposed to win the elections, either of them. He was a cowboy. Something bad, they said. But I used to like the pictures of him on his ranch. I liked cowboys and horses. Grenada was a travesty...according to my third grade teacher, who had us write letters to the President to express our horror, at what I can't recall, she wouldn't say, but we did get a personalized letter in response, thanking our class for the letters. My teachers hated him, which actually meant it was fashionable to like him. He spoke about the Challenger disaster, which was a big thing for me. It hit very close to home. He said this to the schoolchildren--which I was at the time:

And I want to say something to the school children of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's takeoff. I know it is hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It's all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we'll continue to follow them.

And then of course there was Iran-Contra--the media told me it was another Watergate, whatever that was. But the triangle trade of giving guns to anti-communists and freeing hostages didn't sound all that heinous at the time. But then again, GI Joe and Han Solo were personal heros of mine back then--GI Joe would have been fighting the communists and Han Solo would have been running the guns. What? They would have. Anyway...

During the run-up to the 2004 Presidential election, C-SPAN played and replayed the Bush/Kerry debates. And mixed in with those they also played a few speeches by President Reagan, and as I listened to the man I realized how much I had missed. And the more I learn about him, the more I hear and read his speeches and study history, the more I realize that he was perhaps one of the greatest presidents of our time. Here is just an excerpt of one speech. I highly recommend them all:

We are not a warlike people. Quite the opposite. We always seek to live in peace. We resort to force infrequently and with great reluctance--and only after we have determined that it is absolutely necessary. We are awed--and rightly so--by the forces of destruction at loose in the world in this nuclear era. But neither can we be naive or foolish. Four times in my lifetime America has gone to war, bleeding the lives of its young men into the sands of beachheads, the fields of Europe and the jungles and rice paddies of Asia. We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted.

We simply cannot learn these lessons the hard way again without risking our destruction. [So true, so true--zp]

Of all the objectives we seek, first and foremost is the establishment of lasting world peace. We must always stand ready to negotiate in good faith, ready to pursue any reasonable avenue that holds forth the promise of lessening tensions and furthering the prospects of peace. But let our friends and those who may wish us ill take note: the United States has an obligation to its citizens and to the people of the world never to let those who would destroy freedom dictate the future course of human life on this planet. [Damn right!--zp]

And...

Can we doubt that only a Divine Providence placed this land, this island of freedom, here as a refuge for all those people in the world who yearn to breathe freely: Jews and Christians enduring persecution behind the Iron Curtain, the boat people of Southeast Asia, of Cuba and Haiti, the victims of drought and famine in Africa, the freedom fighters of Afghanistan and our own countrymen held in savage captivity.

I'll confess that I've been a little afraid to suggest what I'm going to suggest--I'm more afraid not to--that we begin our crusade joined together in a moment of silent prayer. God bless America.

Yes...God bless America.

New York Times throws in the towel...

This New York Times editorial is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read. Tail between its legs, the position of the Times is that America has been so embarrassed, so humiliated, that the war against the terrorists has been...essentially lost...because...wait for it...

Guantanamo exemplifies - harsh, indefinite detention without formal charges or legal recourse

The Times goes on to explain:

Our colleague Thomas L. Friedman offered just the right solution a few days back. The best thing Washington can now do about this national shame is to shut it down. It is a propaganda gift to America's enemies; an embarrassment to our allies[Must be that global test again--zp]; a damaging repudiation of the American justice system; and a highly effective recruiting tool for Islamic radicals, including future terrorists.

Are we talking about prisoner abuse?--beatings?--shootings?--dismemberments?--beheadings?--air force pilots crashing planes into mosques? Oh, no, that's what the terrorists do to innocent people. No, we are talking about vague descriptions of abuse...of...a...book. Ahhhh...it's Apocalypse Now all over again...there's nothing like the smell of urine in the morning...Yes, apparently our worst nightmare has been realized, a soldier urinated outside near an air vent, and a mighty wind came along and sent the pee-pee onto a Koran. An honest mistake, perhaps, but never fear, the soldier has been disciplined and the Koran replaced--the terrorist apologized to. Though I'm not sure why, as the terrorist detainees were caught doing these things to their Korans:

Hood also said his investigation found 15 cases of detainees mishandling their own Korans. "These included using a Koran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Koran, attempting to flush a Koran down the toilet and urinating on the Koran," Hood's report said. It offered no possible explanation for the detainees' motives.

In the most recent of those 15 cases, a detainee on Feb. 18 allegedly ripped up his Koran and handed it to a guard, stating that he had given up on being a Muslim. Several guards witnessed this, Hood reported.

Give me a break. The best thing we can do now is to just drop this ridiculousness. And I humbly suggest that the New York Times grow a freaking spine. Here's how the Times ends...or surrenders:

It is time to return to the basic principles of justice that served America so well even in the most perilous times of the past. Shutting down Guantanamo is just a first step. But it is a crucial step that would pay instant dividends around the world, not only toward repairing America's reputation but also toward enhancing its overall security.

Yeah, sure, releasing terrorists will enhance our security. They'll be dancing in the streets again, just like after 9/11. Tales of Koran torture--as ridiculous as it is--does NOT cause terrorists to line up for suicide bombs or airplanes. CLOSING the prison will. It will prove to the terrorists that their little terrorist handbook actually works. This absolute cowardice and self-loathing in the face of NOTHING is sickening and incredibly dangerous to the war effort. And what is this "most perilous times of the past" junk? The most perilous time for the U.S. was the Revolutionary War, followed by the Civil War. The U.S. proper did not exist during the Revolutionary War, so I'll skip that one. I'm curious, though, how Grant and the Union Army questioned prisoners from the Confederate States of America. hmm...WWI? Not sure if we took prisoners, the trenches in France were full of gas and the DMZ's were machine gun alleys. WWII?--maybe the Times is referring to the Japanese Internment camps that FDR set up, IN THE U.S. I'm sure the Times would like to comment on that pinnacle of American problem solving during war time. The U.S. had POW camps too, but of course we were fighting actual countries then, not terrorists with airplanes. The Times has descended into spouting utter nonsense, honestly a paper not even worth flushing.

I believe Ed Morrisey of Captain's Quarters says it best:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the blogosphere, dear readers, and friends, I submit to you that this week represents the nadir of responsible thought about the war on terror..."

"...Can you imagine our grandparents having this kind of debate had an American guard pissed on Mein Kampf at a POW camp for German POWs?"

Indeed.

EU...on the mend...

Gotta love Cox&Forkum.

The Left, and Bush Derangement Syndrome

Watergate, and the pull-out from Vietnam...the pinnacle of liberalism in the U.S., and their model for all journalism and policy into the present. And yet it has cost them; slowly but surely, conservatives have been winning election after election, and issue after issue. Bill Clinton's presidency, eight years of high times and scandal, was the Left's last gasp at true power. In 1998, with the Clinton impeachment imminent, when Hillary Clinton invoked the "vast right wing conspiracy," the Left began it's long, painful journey to psychological meltdown.

In 2000, when Al Gore and his presidential team attempted to sue their way into the White House, Democratic party hard-liners, liberal institutions and the media succumbed to what Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit aptly coined "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Speaking about Amnesty International and their attempt to brand the U.S. military as thugs and the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay a Gulag, Mr. Reynolds said:

Amnesty once realized that balance, fairness and -- most importantly -- self-discipline were vital to its mission. It seems, however, to have joined the rather lengthy list of those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Bush's ability to induce that state in his critics, and thereby cause them to blow their own credibility, is astonishing, and surely one of his greatest strengths.

2000 saw this syndrome take root, and it has grown to epidemic proportions. In this post, and in subsequent others, I hope to discuss this topic in the hopes of combating it. Even though I'm conservative, and I'd like nothing more than to see Republicans gain even more seats at all levels of government, this affliction, the Bush hating and pure paranoia of the Left, is a situation we need to understand.

To start, I direct everyone to this post by Dr. Pat Santy. Here is an excerpt:

One of the hallmarks of the paranoid, and paranoia in general, is the ability to fixate (or obsess) on one particular point to the exclusion of all other reality and to select that point as the "evidence" of their predetermined delusion.

The paranoid is actually quite perceptive--rigidly so; and they focus their attention only on those details that give support and credence to their beliefs.

David Shapiro, in his book "Neurotic Styles" comments on the Paranoid style:

In the paranoid person, even more sharply and severely than the obsessive compulsive, every aspect and component of normal autonomous functioning appears in rigid, distorted, and, in general hypertrophied form....[The]paranoid person's attention is so purposefully and narrowly directed as to amount, not merely to rigidity, but to a fixed bias.

Normal people are able to see things in context and their judgment is therefore more reliable and unbiased. The paranoid's pre-existing bias distorts his judgment and makes him unable to place facts or events in any appropriate context.

Note also all the conspiracy theories and deeply held conviction that the abuses exposed at Abu Ghraib are part of a massive government and military plot to deliberately commit atrocities and that the plot goes up the military hierarchy to the Secretary of Defense and through the Department of Defense to the White House itself. Of course, this belief pre-dates Abu Ghraib, but firmly became attached to that place when it was perceived that what happened there could be used to prop up the belief system.

Please refer to her full post for the context of her assessment, for I have taken these excerpts as reference only. But I find this description to be highly relevant to the discussion, especially in light of Abu Ghraib II, or the Newsweek Koran-flushing story (now discredited and retracted), that became the most recent rendition of "Ahh Hah!!" finger-pointing and pornographic fascination amongst the Left. And in this case, the media's unsourced eagerness to damn the U.S. military and Bush led to riots and deaths all across the Muslim world. I do not solely blame Newsweek for the deaths--the rioters are primarily to blame, as were the instigators and terrorists who incited mobs over the claims of a Koran in a toilet.

But one does not have to take my word on any of this, or any doctor's for that matter. Merely sifting through the posts at the Democratic Underground, one can sense the sheer terror and conspiracy in the air. The U.S. is the cause of every problem in the world. They truly believe that Bush and Rove are out to take over the world, that Haliburton is the reason for the war in Iraq, that our goal is to torture innocent prisoners, that the Republican majority is out to install a theocracy. Is it so far removed from reality to accept that George Bush WON the election?--that John Kerry was an absolute joke?--that Saddam Hussein was evil and had to be dealt with?--that even Bill Clinton advocated invading?--that the socialist governments of Europe care not for the U.S. but only for their own political and financial gain?--in fact that every country on this planet has an interest in their own betterment?--that France and Germany and Russia were eroding the sanctions for financial gain?--that the U.N. is a sick organization, prone to rampant corruption, abuses, nepotism, and has removed itself from accountability not for altruism but for pure power?

I phrase these questions not as absolutes, but as possibilities, the possibility that the Democrats lost because...they lost. People looked at what they were selling, and voted for Bush, agreed to the war in Iraq, believe that Muslim extremists want to kill us and they believe in the goodness of America. Normal people can understand motive, corruption, nefarious behavior, conniving behavior, they are not blinded--normal people encounter this stuff every day. Is the company you work for clean? For the most part, probably, but you know there are corrupt people working there. You've met them. But they are not ruling the world. Enron, as horrible as it was, got it's comeuppance. The government has done nothing to Ken Lay yet--why?--not because he's a Bush crony, but because the government lawyers and investigators can't figure out what the freak Enron did! They were so smart, the Enron people used the system, almost all legally. Grossly unethical, yes, and the market took care of them. Loan rating dropped, stock dropped to nothing, the money left. The burning heap of Enron was a lesson to every other corporation out there. The company I work for, like many others, are constantly looking to increase accountability within. Their goal is to streamline, increase profit, to grow--not to run off the rails with pyramid schemes like Enron. The 4,000 people at Enron who lost their jobs and the 28,000 at Anderson moved on. I know people from both companies, they have moved on, and have better jobs now and are happy. But the minions of the Left have not moved on. Every company is an Enron, every motive is suspect and evil, profit is evil, shareholders are evil, Haliburton is evil. How dare they work in Iraq! Cheney is running them still, somehow. Yeah, right, I'm sure the Haliburton shareholders have approved that one, that the whole purpose of the company is to make Bush money. Overcharges?--you say. Sure. Investigated, brought to light--by the company, I might add--and those responsible fired.

This affliction has also infected the media. The Texas ANG documents and the Swift Boat Veterans. How is it that documents--probably--printed up in MS Word, with so many factual errors, from Bill Burkett, a man with documented psychological problems, who claims he got the documents from Lucy Ramirez, care of an unknown man at the Houston Rodeo, are lauded by Dan Rather and CBS as the missing book from the New Testament, while a group of actual veterans, lots of them, who wrote a book, clearly documented, who were more than willing to submit to media scrutiny, were branded as crackpots and "Rove minions" out of hand?

The New York Times, the bastion of non-partisanship... As the Swift Boat issue heated up, and the media, trying as they might, could not keep a lid on the story any longer, the New York Times put out its hand, calmed the waters of the Democratic masses, and...twisted itself into a pretzel with a chart to show how the second cousin of the head of the advertising firm that made the Swift Boat commercial once knew Karl Rove's gardner. Case closed, obviously. I embellish, yes, but only to make a point. Never before in my years had I witnessed a media dance quite like the TANG memos. It was comical to watch the media deny reality in plain sight of day. Not one document expert signed on to those TANG memos, yet they supposedly "met with factual ideas." Yet with the Swift Boat veterans, because conservatives donated to their cause, obviously they were evil and politically motivated. Uh...I'm sorry, I thought the stated purpose of the Veterans was to deny Kerry the White House. Sounds like it was political to me. The least the media could have done was check their facts, in a non-biased way, and report the findings. I thought that's what the media was supposed to do? But alas, no. The media continues to fall, adopting more radical opinions, motives, methods of attack--and still they ponder their plight and why no one is listening to them.

So where does this leave us, this nation? Bush has won the election; Republicans have gained even more seats in both houses of Congress; the new media has exploded onto the scene--a direct response to the sickness of the Mainstream Media; and Democrats continue their slide into the fever swamp. One only has to look at the election of Howard Dean as the head of the DNC, and the obstructionism of Harry Reid to see where they are headed. A large portion of the Democratic party has descended from anger into hatred, and they have gone so far around the bend that now every news headline evokes a tieback to "Bush lied", or "Rove is behind this," or some other fantasy about the "Bush Empire." Fahrenheit 9/11 is driving the Democratic policy, and I predict that the vilification of Bush, evangelicals, religion, the Culture of Life, and our military will continue and intensify as the Democrats slide even further. Nominations to the Supreme Court, tax issues, Social Security, and the continuing fight against the terrorists will ensure this slide. And it is a slide I'm not sure how to remedy.

Thus ends Part I of this discussion.

2006...Stem Cells...How the Media will frame the agenda

I just finished reading a particularly alarming article, in Newsweek of all places, about the stem cell fight in Congress. (hat tip: National Review Online: The Corner)

The Media, sensing that they will need to carry the Dems this next round, have developed a rather ingenious debate for '06. As the bill on stem cells leaves the Congress, to the President's desk, destined for a certain veto, the press and the Democrats are carefully crafting their next round of coverage and commercials to seize the high ground for the election. No longer will the argument be about life, but about cures, the Democrats being pro-cure, the Republicans being anti-cure, and anti-progress.

As Jonathan Alter explains:

After all, every American who has a relative with one of these diseases which means nearly every American is beginning to understand the issue in a new way: it's "pro-cure" versus "anti-cure," with the anti-stem-cell folks in danger of being swept into the medical wastebin of history.

He then inserts this gem:

Will the United States be part of the most exciting medical research of our time? With global competitors poised to eat our lunch, a few private and state-funded efforts won't be enough. "You can't do research with your feet bound and one hand tied behind your back," says Jerome Groopman, a professor at Harvard Medical School.

So did you catch that? We must cast off our petty pro-life thinking, because progress is coming through! Don't ask if the cells are alive, if they are nascent life, just experiment on them, there might be a cure out there...somewhere. You want to live forever don't you? Alter then laughs in the face of the opposition:

Bioethical blowhard Leon Kass of the University of Chicago conned Bush into seeing the issue as morally complex, but the rest of the world understands that it's simple enough reproductive cloning (to create Frankensteins), no; embryonic-stem-cell research (to cure diseases), yes. (The phrase "therapeutic cloning" should be retired.) Enshrining this basic distinction in law is a better bulwark against the "slippery slope" problem than hair-splitting limitations. Most nations understand this. Only Bush bitter-enders and the pope are in the perverse position of valuing the life of an ailing human being less than that of a tiny clump of cells no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.

Excuse me? Perverse? What ailing human being? You mean like Terri Schiavo?--the woman the media and the courts starved to death? Ohh, you mean sick people. Ohh...okay. So what cures can we expect? Anything right away?

Unless there's another war, stem cells will become one of the defining issues of the 2006 campaign. Look for smart Democrats to run ads with relatives of the afflicted ("My sister has Parkinson's," "My father has Alzheimer's") pointing out that Congressman X is so extreme, he voted against a bill supported by many Republicans to begin curing these diseases. This will inevitably lead to backpedaling and compromise and the victory of a broad-based "pro-cure movement" that may help save not just my life, but your cousin's or your mother's or your own.

So as always, it's political. No cures are certain, only the loss of embryos. Alter also includes this jab:

The stem-cell debate has been linked to abortion, as if depriving science of the use of these cells somehow extends "the culture of life." But here the "pro-life" position should argue for therapeutic research. Under Bush's stem-cell policy, 400,000 surplus blastocysts at fertility clinics are eventually thrown in the trash instead of a few thousand being used to enhance life. To be intellectually coherent, Bush would have to shut down all in vitro clinics, depriving millions of infertile couples of the chance for a child. Fat chance.

Most Americans still don't know all these details, but they're beginning to understand that religious extremists are hijacking the political system and robbing us of our essential national character--faith in the future. House GOP leaders were annoyed recently when the Republican Main Street Partnership, a moderate group, conducted polls showing support for stem-cell research even in very conservative districts.

Ahh, should have known, a poll. How can a group with 'Republican' in the title be moderate?--I think what he's trying to say is, don't be scared by the name, we in the MSM trust them (i.e. liberal). And I love the "hijacking and robbing" line. "Faith in the future," a dead embryo for every cure...but its for the children, right?

Stolen artifacts from Iraq museum found...some items even stolen by journalists.

(hat tip: Powerline)

Remember that huge "scandal" about the Iraq museums that were looted after the war? How the American military was to blame for not guarding a museum in the middle of a war? Powerline has an update, discussing an article in the Washington Times.

Apparently nearly 15,000 artifacts have been recovered, the museum rebuilt, a new security system installed. Overall the museum management had much praise for the U.S. military and their response.

Here's the relevant portion of the article:

U.S. troops, journalists and contractors returning from Iraq are among those who have been caught with forbidden souvenirs -- mostly paintings and small seals and cylinders that can be carved exquisitely and hidden easily.

Shame on the U.S. military soldiers who took artifacts, but even more shame on the journalists who did the same--and then blamed the military for security lapses.

And just how did those detainees get Koran's in the first place?

Charles Krauthammer is one of the best political writers. His take on the Gitmo Gulag is exceptional:

The self-flagellation over reports of abuse at Guantanamo Bay has turned into a full-scale panic. There are calls for the United States, with all this worldwide publicity, to simply shut the place down.

A terrible idea. One does not run and hide simply because allegations have been made. If the charges are unverified, as they overwhelmingly are in this case, then they need to be challenged. The United States ought to say what it has and has not done, and not simply surrender to rumor.

Moreover, shutting down Guantanamo will solve nothing. We will capture more terrorists, and we will have to interrogate them, if not at Guantanamo then somewhere else. There will then be reports from that somewhere else that will precisely mirror the charges coming out of Guantanamo. What will we do then? Keep shutting down one detention center after another?

The self-flagellation has gone far enough. We know that al Qaeda operatives are trained to charge torture when they are in detention, and specifically to charge abuse of the Koran to inflame fellow prisoners on the inside and potential sympathizers on the outside.

In March the Navy inspector general reported that, out of about 24,000 interrogations at Guantanamo, there were seven confirmed cases of abuse, "all of which were relatively minor." In the eyes of history, compared to any other camp in any other war, this is an astonishingly small number. Two of the documented offenses involved "female interrogators who, on their own initiative, touched and spoke to detainees in a sexually suggestive manner." Not exactly the gulag.[I'm having a tough time cracking a tear over prisoners who've had a lap dance--zp]

The most inflammatory allegations have been not about people but about mishandling the Koran. What do we know here? The Pentagon reports (Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, May 26) -- all these breathless "scoops" come from the U.S. government's own investigations of itself -- that of 13 allegations of Koran abuse, five were substantiated, of which two were most likely accidental.

Let's understand what mishandling means. Under the rules the Pentagon later instituted at Guantanamo, proper handling of the Koran means using two hands and wearing gloves when touching it. Which means that if any guard held the Koran with one hand or had neglected to put on gloves, this would be considered mishandling.

On the scale of human crimes, where, say, 10 is the killing of 2,973 innocent people in one day and 0 is jaywalking, this ranks as perhaps a 0.01.

Moreover, what were the Korans doing there in the first place? The very possibility of mishandling Korans arose because we gave them to each prisoner. What kind of crazy tolerance is this? Is there any other country that would give a prisoner precisely the religious text that that prisoner and those affiliated with him invoke to justify the slaughter of innocents? If the prisoners had to have reading material, I would have given them the book "Portraits 9/11/01" -- vignettes of the lives of those massacred on Sept. 11.

[May I just say that Charles is my hero--zp]

Why this abjectness on our part? On the very day the braying mob in Pakistan demonstrated over the false Koran report in Newsweek, a suicide bomber blew up an Islamic shrine in Islamabad, destroying not just innocent men, women and children, but undoubtedly many Korans as well. Not a word of condemnation. No demonstrations.

Even greater hypocrisy is to be found here at home. Civil libertarians, who have been dogged in making sure that FBI-collected Guantanamo allegations are released to the world, seem exquisitely sensitive to mistreatment of the Koran. A rather selective scrupulousness. When an American puts a crucifix in a jar of urine and places it in a museum, civil libertarians rise immediately to defend it as free speech. And when someone makes a painting of the Virgin Mary, smears it with elephant dung and adorns it with porn, not only is that free speech, it is art -- deserving of taxpayer funding and an ACLU brief supporting the Brooklyn Museum when the mayor freezes its taxpayer subsidy.

Does the Koran deserve special respect? Of course it does. As do the Bibles destroyed by the religious police in Saudi Arabia and the Torahs blown up in various synagogues from Tunisia to Turkey.[And the bibles and religious artifacts defiled in the Church of the Nativity standoff--zp]

Should the United States apologize? If there were mishandlings of the Koran, we should say so and express regret. And that should be in the context of our remarkably humane and tolerant treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners, and in the context of a global war on terrorism (for example, the campaign in Afghanistan) conducted with a discrimination and a concern for civilian safety rarely seen in the annals of warfare.

Then we should get over it, stop whimpering and start defending ourselves.

Here, here!

I've never made an honest living in my life...

I was quite surprised to learn this, but apparently it's true. Howard Dean, that great orator of the Democratic party has put forth this gem when he spoke at the Campaign for America's Future (hat tip: LGF):

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

Never made an honest living? Is this guy serious? I hope so, I truly hope so--because if this is the direction of the Democratic party, Republicans are going to have the majority for a VERY long time.

Oh, and for the record, I have to own up to my own laziness, blogging from work, so I guess this is not an honest living. But I will defend my grandmother, as she was a Republican, but has since passed on. She earned an honest living, Dr. Dean.

My grandmother came to the U.S.A. as a child from Italy. Her father, my great grandfather had come to this country as a young man, with a work visa. He was then drafted into the U.S. army during WWI. Let me say that again...he was NOT a citizen of the U.S., but he was drafted into the U.S. army. After the war, he returned to Italy. In return for his service, the U.S. granted him citizenship. He came to the U.S. to work, and then brought the rest of the family over. My grandmother arrived in the U.S. in November of 1929, right as the Depression hit. They had no money, or job. When my grandmother went to school, no one taught her English, she had to learn it on her own. She was taken out of school in the sixth grade so she could work to help support the family. She worked in the sweatshops, sewing clothes. My grandmother worked hard all her life. Her husband died at a young age, from heart attack, and she had to raise two girls with only her family to help her. She was devotely religious, caring, and a wonderful person. But she was never rich, though she was a conservative.

Are you going to tell me she never earned an honest living, Dr. Dean? Maybe you'd like to slander my grandfather too? Maybe my parents? Maybe my sister?--she has a college degree, she must be rich. And she's an accountant, so she's evil too. But she works more than 55 hours a week, so I'm curious, what is the cut-off for "honest living"? Is it 60 hours?--maybe 70?

Democrats can attribute their losses to the evil Bush/Rove machine, out duping the public, or whatever other paranoid-delusional idea strikes their fancy. It won't matter, they'll still lose elections. That's because Democrats are the ones who have been duped, eating shit from people like Dean and thinking it's pate.

U.S. stops nuclear material bound for Iran

How I missed this one I have no idea. (hat tip: Captain's Quarters)

The U.S. and its allies in a program to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction prevented Iran from obtaining material for its nuclear weapons program within the past nine months, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.

``The trans-shipment of material and equipment bound for ballistic missile programs in countries of concern, including Iran'' was blocked as was the transfer of ``equipment used to produce propellant'' to a ``ballistic missile program in another region'' of the world, Rice said.

Rice disclosed the intercepts in a speech celebrating the second anniversary of the Proliferation Security Initiative, a global effort started by President George W. Bush to stop trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.

Rice gave no details but said that the U.S. and 10 of its partners in the initiative have cooperated on 11 successful interdiction efforts over the past nine months. Iran was the only nation interdicted that she cited by name.

This is seriously frightening. North Korea I could care less about. No way China wants a nuclear Japan--which would be tit-for-tat. And North Korea cannot eat the nukes. They are starving, and Kim can't keep this stonewalling up forever. But Iran is a different animal altogether. Rich oil nation, terror-enablers, the mullahs in power hate the influence the West has on its younger generation--who outnumbers them and loves America. They will do anything to stay in power.

More from the article, leading up to the stunning conclusion:

Sixty countries have expressed their support for the PSI network, according to the State Department.

And...the best part:

Noticeably absent from the PSI event was John Bolton, Bush's nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. As undersecretary for arms control and international security, Bolton has led the U.S. drive to win endorsement for the nonproliferation initiative, negotiating cooperation agreements with worldwide.

Senate Democrats blocked a vote on his nomination to the UN post last week. The earliest the Senate could vote again is June 7.

Isn't real life stranger than fiction?

ahh...Amnesty International...charming to the last...

Still touting the 'gulag' claim.

Amnesty defends 'gulag,' urges Guantanamo access

Reuters
Thursday, June 2, 2005; 9:51 AM



TOKYO (Reuters) - Human rights group Amnesty defended its description of Guantanamo prison as a "gulag" Thursday and urged the United States to allow independent investigations of allegations of torture at its detention centers for terrorism suspects.

A verbal feud between Amnesty International and Washington has escalated since Amnesty last week compared the prison at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the brutal Soviet system of forced labor camps where millions of prisoners died.

President Bush dismissed as "absurd" the Amnesty report, which also said the United States was responsible for an upsurge in global human rights violations, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called the description "reprehensible."

"The administration's response has been that our report is absurd, that our allegations have no basis, and our answer is very simple: if that is so, open up these detention centers, allow us and others to visit them," Amnesty International Secretary General Irene Zubaida Khan told a news conference.

"Transparency is the best antidote to misinformation and incorrect facts," said Khan, who is here to meet with Japanese officials.

The United States holds about 520 men at Guantanamo, where they are denied rights accorded under international law to prisoners of war.[Ed: Okay, I'm calling bullshit here. They are detainees, NOT prisoners of war. They are terrorists without a country and not even party to the Geneva Convention.--zp]

Many have been held without charge for more than three years.

Khan rejected a suggestion that Amnesty's use of the emotive term "gulag" had turned the debate into one over semantics, and distracted attention from the situation in the detention centers.

"What we wanted to do was to send a strong message that ... this sort of network of detention centers that has been created as part of this war on terrorism is actually undermining human rights in a dramatic way which can only evoke some of the worst features of human rights scandals of the past," she said.

"I don't think people have got off the hook yet."

Khan also said Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council meant Tokyo should play a bigger role in the global fight for human rights and improve its own record at home.

Japan has stepped up its campaign for a permanent seat as part of an effort to boost its global clout in security affairs.

"Japan, by its strong bid to become a U.N. Security Council member, is subjecting itself to greater international scrutiny and that creates an imperative for change," she said.

Khan urged Japan to abolish the death penalty, improve the treatment of prisoners, revise a strict stance toward refugees -- only 15 refugees were accepted last year -- and do more to prevent and protect victims of human trafficking

I haven't the words. Although Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit does. Here's the best part:

Amnesty once realized that balance, fairness and -- most importantly -- self-discipline were vital to its mission. It seems, however, to have joined the rather lengthy list of those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Bush's ability to induce that state in his critics, and thereby cause them to blow their own credibility, is astonishing, and surely one of his greatest strengths.

And that pretty much sums it up.

I feel badly for these people, I truly do, but...

...this has to be the single most stupid thing I've seen in a while. Can they win a Darwin for this?

24 May 2005
Two people suffer burns in mock 'Star Wars' fight


Two people are critically ill in hospital after an apparent attempt to recreate a ‘Star Wars’ lightsaber fight went tragically wrong.

Police said that a 20-year-old man and a 17-year-old woman had been found in woodland in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, suffering from severe burns. The pair were taken to hospital in Chelmsford, Essex and are described as being in a critical condition - it was reported that the man had suffered more than 40% burns to his body.

It is believed that the pair had attempted to fill a fluorescent light tube with fuel, before setting it alight, in order to recreate the weapon made famous in the hit sci-fi films.

Police said that they do not know the exact circumstances of the incident, but said that glass tubes and traces of a flammable substance had been found at the scene. It is thought that one of the devices may have exploded, setting fire to the pair’s clothing.

It was also reported that a videotape had been found at the scene and police believe they may also have been filming themselves at the time.

The accident comes just days after the sixth and final film in the ‘Star Wars’ series, ‘Revenge of The Sith’ opened in cinemas to tremendous acclaim. One of the main scenes in the film features a lightsaber battle between Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan MacGregor) and Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen).
(KMcA/SP)

As I said, horrible that they got burned, but come on, what the heck were they thinking?

So for all of you wondering...just what is the Zero Point?

Anyone? It's not just some clever poetry. Okay, maybe it is. ;-) No actually, the zero point is a physics term. Wikipedia says it best.

In a quantum mechanical system such as the particle in a box or the quantum harmonic oscillator, the lowest possible energy is called the zero-point energy. According to classical physics, the kinetic energy of a particle in a box or the kinetic energy of the harmonic oscillator may be zero if the velocity is zero. Quantum mechanics with its uncertainty principle implies that if the velocity is measured with certainty to be exactly zero, the uncertainty of the position must be infinite. This either violates the condition that the particle remain in the box, or it brings a new potential energy in the case of the harmonic oscillator. To avoid this paradox, quantum mechanics dictates that the minimal velocity is never equal to zero, and hence the minimal energy is never equal to zero.

Basically, what this means is that there is nowhere in the Universe where the energy level is ever zero. Even in the vacuum of space, at the smallest level, the energy level is not zero. In fact, because of this, space is literally exploding with particles, electrons and quarks and such, popping in and out of existance, all the time, everywhere. And this phenomenon is at the core of particle physics (electrons, quarks, neutrinos...those particles).

Okay class, that's enough for today. More on particle physics later, and the realization that nothing is real. No really, NOTHING is real.

Nixon and his people were Nazis?

I love how the press never misses a chance to throw 'nazi' Republicans' way. In this article, interviewing Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward about the now revealed "Deepthroat", W. Mark Felt, the AP compiled this:

Woodward said Felt learned clandestine techniques during his World War II assignment as a Nazi hunter.

"The relationship with him was a compact of trust," Woodward wrote. "Nothing about it was to be discussed or shared with anyone, he said."

Why did Felt leak information — likely an illegal act — in spite of the risk? Woodward surmised that Felt was protecting the FBI's integrity and independence as well as making Nixon and his aides answer for their actions.

"There is little doubt that Felt thought of the Nixon team as Nazis," Woodward wrote. "He had nothing but contempt for the Nixon White House and their efforts to manipulate the bureau for political reasons."

Honestly, Nixon and his people deserved everything they got. Breaking the law is still breaking the law. But the melodrama playing out here is quite over the top. Nixon was not a nazi. There is no comparison to WWII and 46 million dead, and breaking into the DNC office. And Felt is no hero, he was a man in a position of power with a grudge, but not so much of a grudge or hatred that he wanted to ruin his own career in the process. And no, he did not do it because it was the "right thing to do." Felt himself was on trial for something very similar to what Nixon's team did, breaking into homes of people associated with the Weather Underground[Ed: corrected reference to Weather Underground--zp]. And Reagan pardoned him. Presidential pardons are...well, another subject...but I'll leave Clinton and Mark Rich alone if everyone else promises to leave Bush alone.

UPDATE: heh...and in the mother of all ironies (hat tip: James Taranto, Best of the Web), according to the AP:

When Felt was on trial for authorizing illegal break-ins during the 1970s at homes of people associated with the radical Weather Underground, Nixon testified on his behalf.

And after Reagan pardoned Felt in 1981, he received a bottle of champagne and this brief note from the disgraced former president: "Justice ultimately prevails."

Kofi Annan fires staffer...case closed.

So that's who did it!--it was Joseph Stephanides, in the U.N., with the Oil-For-Food money! He scammed the world! Fire him! oh wait...

hmm...wait...according to the article...

The Volcker committee has levied its most serious allegations against the oil-for-food program's executive director, Benon Sevan, finding that he improperly solicited oil deals with Baghdad on behalf of a friend's oil company.

Sevan, 67, also from Cyprus, has been suspended by the United Nations and denies the charges. He remains on a symbolic dollar-a-year salary to cooperate with the Volcker probe and is basically retired.

So...Sevan is possibly the guy...but he's still on the payroll, probably so he cannot be subpeonaed by Norm Colman. You know, that Senator who is running the REAL investigation in the Oil-For-Food mess.

And then of course there is this little jewel, from the LAST PARAGRAPH in the article:

Volcker also looked into the awarding of a separate contract to Cotecna, a Swiss inspection firm that replaced Lloyds -- and which employed Annan's son, Kojo. While Volcker wound up clearing the secretary-general of wrongdoing, he blamed him for management lapses and the failure to address an under-audited program.

So Kofi's son was involved, Sevan was involved up to his neck, Volcker was a paper tiger sent in to appease the masses, the soft language of the Volcker report allows misinformation like this "While Volcker wound up clearing the secretary-general of wrongdoing," and to close the affair they fire the guy at the bottom... Sounds like the U.N. to me. Now they can get back to important things like denying the genocide in Darfur and letting their "Peacekeepers" rape children in the Congo...these people are absolutely disgusting.

I would be in favor of a Congressional resolution to use buldozers to push the U.N. building in New York into the river and maybe set up a nice park. All in favor?