Now I Really Miss Rusty
I’m torn that two of my favorite bloggers are in a bit of a spat. On one side we have Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. The other half is Dean Esmay of Deansworld. Dean is upset that Robert spends so much effort projecting a negative image of Islam. He thinks Robert is creating more problems than he solves. Robert is understandably standing his ground. The amazing part is neither seems read each other very much. Both are on the same side so to speak but have very different styles.
The subject of the discussion is more than relevant to The Jawa Report. We also engage in exposing the ideology of the terrorists. We also try and make as much fun of them as we can and have a good time doing it. Occasionally people get upset with us too. It’s a very difficult balance to take it to the ideology of terror and Islamic oppression and not upset at least some of the people Dean speaks of.
more...
3
You could say that Spencer is a johnny one note, on the other hand..
Spencer is doing admirable and vital work considering that he's up against the very well funded [eg Saudi billions] al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation machine building mosques, corrupting Universities w/ grants, think tanks etc. around the world causing the advancement of sharia law and all the other sorts of corruption attached to the Ummah/ Religion of Peace®.
is Dean as effective as Spencer?
Posted by: Rubin at May 18, 2006 09:37 AM (edDuI)
4
Very thoughtful and balanced post, Howie. I absolutely agree that we, the west, have to figure out a way to be both critical of various aspects of Islam without being prejudiced against Islam and Muslims. One way to think of it is to look at our own history. For decades, black Americans were lynched, in public. They were denied the right to vote, to own businesses, to speak freely. They were denied right to jobs, to housing, to equal education. Those that spoke up were often killed or thrown in prison. These practices went on well into the second half of the 20th century.
What did our friends in Europe do? Some, like Gunnar Myrdal, studied our pathologies, and tried to aid our reforms. While Myrdal was vilified throughout much of the south (he got death threats), eventually, his work helped build the base for Brown v. Board and the civil rights movement.
But if Europe had tried to use force? Tried to fix our evil ways with aggressive sanctions?
Nothing Saudia arabia is doing to women or to shi'ites or to Christians is worse than what the American South did to blacks for decades after the civil war. We got better. There is hope for Islamic countries, but it will not come at the end of a gun. At least not the end of OUR guns.
Posted by: jd at May 18, 2006 09:42 AM (aqTJB)
5
I'm going with Spencer here, too. It is not the West's job to be loved by Islam, to reform it, or to accomodate itself to Islam. Islam must accomodate itself to Western values and ideas; until then it remains an enemy ideology. While, like Spencer, I would welcome any 'moderate' that respects western values, the fact remains that these people are, to steal a concept, "a tiny minority of extremists."
There is no reason to be sensitive to Islam or to tiptoe around this issue, as you seem to be implying. Those who are just, will know that we are not talkng about their beliefs; those who are not, should not be accomodated or knowtowed to.
Posted by: MiB at May 18, 2006 09:44 AM (B9sDR)
6
It may seem contradictory but it's not. I don't intend to be any softer or harder as I don't feel we can let up much. But I do recognize the value of making friends as well. They are both vital functions in my book. One balances the other and both are required to be effective. It's an odd synergy but I feel it works overall.
I can understand the frustration of one with the other because It's an internal stuggle I face daily.
I got an email tip the other day on the UAE hostages. He prefaced his tip with his less than favorable opinion of our blog. Immediately afterward he admitted we do a good job with hostage issues and asked that we post on it. So we have a half person out there who is both pissed at us and working with us at the same time.
Posted by: Howie at May 18, 2006 10:12 AM (D3+20)
7
Dean kind of trolled him to the argument/started it.
Posted by: Howie at May 18, 2006 12:30 PM (D3+20)
8
Friends do not have to be "made." You act as a just, good man, and the people who should be your friends become them; those who shouldn't, don't.
Posted by: MiB at May 18, 2006 10:26 PM (B9sDR)
9
Dean needs to review the history of islam beginning at the death of mohammed until the present.
If the muslims that were muslim at the time of momo's death didn't know how to faithfully execute his teachings who would?
Posted by: Tempest at May 19, 2006 07:32 AM (T9L62)
10
Tempest--if we apply that same standard to Christianity, most people would not approve of Christianity. Early Christians were taught to tolerate slavery, for example, and they did (Southerners found many defenses for slavery in the Bible, and they weren't always wrong in their exegesis). And if we applied the same standard to those who follow Moses today...polygamy, anyone? Stoning?
Seems a poor way to judge the worth of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.
Lorie Byrd Leaves Polipundit.
So what gives? This doesn’t seem to fit the Spirit of the blogosphere, in fact it’s the exact opposite.
Polipundit via Lorie Byrd's blog Byrddroppings : "From now on, every blogger at PoliPundit.com will either agree with me completely on the immigration issue, or not blog at PoliPundit.com."
Posted by: john Ryan at May 16, 2006 08:54 AM (TcoRJ)
2
Its his website. I don't let communists into my home, and I certianly wouldn't let them use a forum I own to pontificate on their positions.
Even if I disagree with him, I'm surprised he lets people disagree with him post on his website at all.
Posted by: MiB at May 16, 2006 09:37 AM (XuEw/)
3
That is what I love about The Jawa Report, being able to post comments and engage in debate over an issue in an intelligent manner. Or at the very least, read other's debates. Only the very worst trolls are ever banned and even they are usually tolerated for quite a while before that happens. They generally have to be very offensive to have their posts removed or to be banned entirely and I would dare say they deserve it.
To totally ban any individual comment much less to ban a person from being able to make comments strictly because of them being against the blog's owner's views, results in that blog then becoming nothing more than a propaganda site. So long as the disagreement is civil and engaging there should be no reason to ban that view from being posted.
Yes I realize the blogosphere is NOT a democracy, but I feel that open dialogue and debate allows for better information sharing, and better understanding of the world in which we live.
Posted by: memphis761 at May 16, 2006 09:58 AM (D3+20)
4
So now Moderate conservatives are commies. Sheesh. Yes it's his blog and he has every right to be an asshole.
Posted by: Howie at May 16, 2006 09:58 AM (D3+20)
5
I read Lorie's post and then I read the "editor's" post. I was struck by this comment he made:
"Suppose three out of four columnists at the Old York Times were pro-Republican. You can bet publisher “Pinch†Sulzberger would do something about that right quick.
Suppose a Bush administration official came out openly against amnesty. The Bushies would show him the door."<.i>
Frankly, that's what separates the blogosphere from regular media outlets, and particularly blogs with more than one blogger; differing opinions in one open and balanced venue. Of course he has the right to invite, uninvite, ban and change who he wants on his blog. So I'm not criticizing him for the simple act of "uninviting" Byrd, just his motivations considering the fact that his blog is not traditional media which we've all grown so tired of. Nor is it an administration where consensus is really necessary. As readers we want balance in opinions, not necessarily consensus, but balance.
As long as their differences there were submitted respectfully there shouldn't have been a problem.
Posted by: Oyster at May 16, 2006 10:25 AM (ASk6Y)
6
Yeah, really, that's not very blogospheric. Rusty and Howie give me a hard time over my pro drug war stance but I was told I could post here about anything. And I have done so. Still do, once in a while. I'd hate to think there was anything besides converting to Jihad that would get me kicked off the Jawa.
And having a different view of border control isn't converting to Jihad.
Polipundit's going to take a huge hit in ad revenue over that break.
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 16, 2006 10:39 AM (ghzbI)
7
Read it and weep Howie. You have plenty of back-pedaling to do! Repeat after me: " I will not tamper with or edit Last gasp Larry's posts " There, now don't you feel better?
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 16, 2006 11:08 AM (FCC6c)
10
He's going to pay the price for this stupid move as Lorie, Jayson, Alex etc helped make Polipundit what it is. I'm keeping him blogrolled but don't have high hopes for his future.
Posted by: traderrob at May 16, 2006 01:36 PM (3al54)
11
A question to you all who consider it okay to have "civil debate" over such important issues:
Are your values really held all that highly, if you're willing to talk peaceably with someone who, by rights, you should be condemning as horribly wrong at best, utterly evil at worst?
That is the attitude that almost lost the Cold War, despite the Soviets' best attempts to destroy themselves for us.
Posted by: MiB at May 16, 2006 02:18 PM (Uesws)
12
Ummm, Lorie Byrd is neither horribly wrong nor utterly evil. And yes, I'm willing to speak peacebly with people I consider horribly wrong. Do so every damn day.
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 16, 2006 02:30 PM (ghzbI)
The Post Where *I* Defend Jeff Goldstein's Honor
I've had panic attacks.
For some reason, although I know what's causing it, I swear I'm having a heart attack.
The root cause is my screwed up shoulder and back. If I move a certain way, or do a certain thing, it causes pain in my chest muscles.
Since my left shoulder is a constant source of misery to me, thanks to chronic tendinitis, the combination of of chest pains with left arm pain triggers the attack.
I haven't seen a doctor about it, nor even mentioned it to anybody but my wife until now. Mainly because the first couple of times it happened, I ended up realizing that I really wasn't having a heart attack, and that it was my screwy left shoulder causing the pain.
I still get the pain in the chest, and in the left arm, and the first thought in my head is "heart attack!" Which, of course, causes the heart to start racing. And the brain to start irrationalizing. I must be a mild case, though, I can usually talk myself out of it.
I will always get great mirth out of a group of people who will lambast a Conservative for ingesting a legal substance, be it Klonopin, alcohol, or nicotine, but will defend to the death a meth addict who robs and murders.
Maybe they should be reminded that Liberalism is a mental disorder, and far more people suffer from it than those who have panic attacks.
1
Given the conditions in which we live, the occasional panic attack is just a sign of sanity.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 11, 2006 08:08 AM (0yYS2)
2
Yep, I would expect most bloggers are "high energy people". If you live that hard and productive and have all those irons in the fire it happens. Those who have nothing to do or nothing to loose hardly ever have panic attacks.
Posted by: Howie at May 11, 2006 08:32 AM (D3+20)
3
I can FIX your shoulder, or teach you over the phone how to have your wife fix your shoulder. Power stretching....and I've got the perfect stretch for you. Email me. You'll feel better in 10 minutes. Promise.
Posted by: suemac at May 11, 2006 08:44 AM (1fK6i)
4
Sounds to me like Sue is offering a *tantric* cure (wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more)
5
I thought we were supposed to be beyond looking down on a person because they seek help to maintain mental health. Isn't that what the liberals taught us years ago? Seems there are a bunch of them who missed school that day. Would they make fun of a cripple?
Posted by: Retread at May 11, 2006 10:16 AM (mtsTe)
6
I have a very amusing right knee, which will "pop" if I have it bent in just the wrong way, as happens when I am squatting down. I am invariably left writhing on the ground in agony for a few seconds until the knee corrects its position and the pain stops.
Good for laughs at parties, restaurants, in the office, and especially at home while doing yard work, my trick knee is well-known to my family. So if I do have an actual hear attack, they will see me writhing on the floor and think I'm only showing off my knee again....
Posted by: austin Mike at May 12, 2006 11:06 AM (X2/XB)
7
Ever had any tests for tachycardia? Sometimes it can cause the same sensations of pain.
Posted by: The Babaganoosh at May 12, 2006 06:37 PM (v1W1X)
The Post in Which I Protect Jeff Goldstein's Honor
I'm not sure at what point Jeff Goldstein became the whipping boy for the Left. Whatever he's doing, I'm jealous.
Exhibit A: Atrios' plan for a progressive tomorrow, when not advocating tax hikes and a return to paper ballots, includes this ditty: Imprison Jeff Goldstein for crimes against humanity for his neverending stupidity
Ouch, calling Jeff stupid. Neener, neener, neerner, Jeff is stupid and I is so smart.
Exhibit B: Thesaurus Rex calls Jeff an asshole. To show in said argument that Jeff is, indeed, an asshole, Rex points readers to Jeff's ode to Klonopin.
Because nothing says asshole more than drug humor.
Exhibit C: Jane Hamsher's diatribe against Jeff, which, to be honest, starts out incoherent and then, well, just goes downhill from there.
I'm sooo smart because I know reallity, while Jeff is sooo dumb because he swallowed the Bush-Rove pill.
Collectively, the three posts add up to a total waste of time. They are no more nor less than a bunch of tired cliches mixed with insults.
So, why did I waste my time reading them? Just to let Jeff know that somebody out here has his back.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 10, 2006 05:38 AM (rUyw4)
3
The idea that Goldstein--having a "conversation" with a bottle of Klonopin(!)--can elicit such a torrent of vitriol from a bunch of assholes is friggin' comedy gold!, and sets a new standard for moonbat baiting.
Hitchens vs Cole The Saga Continues
My money is on Christopher. Remember my Hitchens rule, odd no, even Yes. Juan I read now and then but after a while he comes off as one of those oh my holy brain academic stereotypes.
Updated 05/04: Hitchens eats Cole for breakfast!
Radioblogger :Hewit to Hitchens: Why don't you tell people what's going on here?
It's a blog war. Well, some of your listeners may know of Professor Cole of the University of Michigan. He is acclaimed, at least by himself, expert on matters Shiia, particularly, and he also says he's fluent in Arabic, Persian and Urdu. And for all I know, he is. But he's 10th rate, and he's a sordid apologist for Islamist terrorism, and for Islamist terrorist regimes. And I've been on his case for a while......Professor Juan Cole does not know what he is talking about, in any language.
It's toe to toe now! Cole seems to be tiring. I'm not sure he can make another round. There's the bell for round two. Hitchens looks fresh, he seems unaffected by Juan's weak jabs. Angleo Dundee now screaming at Cole in his corner...
1Moreover, Iran cannot fight Israel. It would be defeated in 72 hours, even if the US didn't come in, which it would (and rightly so if Israel were attacked). Iran is separated by several other countries from Israel. It has not attacked aggressively any other country militarily for over a century (can Americans say that of their own record?) It has only a weak, ineffective air force. So why worry about it?"
Proving once again that the Left is utterly allergic to intellectual honesty, Juan Cole-- a Leftwing wacademic and therefore supposedly a GENIUS-- has never heard of nuclear tipped Shahab missiles.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 04, 2006 07:11 AM (WCwrR)
Even the resident professor will have to agree that not all who earn a Doctoral are necessarily of higher intellect than those that do not. Cole, well, I've never even understood where he's coming from and it pains me to see him quoted as an expert when I can easily find at least 10 people that live or lived in the region to rebutt each of his points.
I do find it humorous that Cole doesn't bother to respond to Hitchens' points but would rather call him a boozer. It is also humorous that Cole, who is not a professor in journalism mind you, speaks out against journalism ethics and pretends to have the high ground here. In terms of a listserv, I'm not sure the actual ethics of whether to use items on a listserv should or should not be used has even been determined. It is a fairly new concept, and since the old guard of journalism ethics seems to be discarded with the wind, why should this new ficticious one be considered absolute?
Posted by: Chad Evans at May 04, 2006 01:30 PM (vKISv)
3
Bah! That should read ". . . I'm not sure the actual ethics of whether or not to use items on a listserv has even been determined."
Posted by: Chad Evans at May 04, 2006 01:35 PM (vKISv)
4
Chad, I know I've actually read Juan a bit. I tried but... never mind. You know me I just like the fight. Chris are you going to take that from Juan? Why I'd....
Juan you going to take that from Chris. You should....
Freedomdogs :Frank J from IMAO and I want to try to steal a march on the port side of the blogosphere. We want to proudly usurp their insulting jargon and turn it against them, and have a little fun while we do it. We'd like to fully embrace the moniker "101st Fighting Keyboardists" and the chicken hawk as our mascot.
When we looked into it, it turns out that the chicken hawk is a pretty impressive predator. It’s the largest of its family. This species vigorously defends its territory, getting even more aggressive when the conditions get harshest. It adapts to all climates. Most impressively, it feeds on chickens, mice, and rats.
Middle Earth Journal needs to get their head our of their Sci Fi books (substitute rectal reference here) for just a minute. Seems they would prefer that our troops not have the support of the nation they fight for. So we should just sit by and not support those fighting? Should an ordinary citizen not be allowed to support our nation and troops? Should we stop publishing the evil of the enemy or exposing their propaganda? I think not. I think ordinary citizens have a duty to help as they can with what they have. More than one way to skin a cat and there are also many ways to help in the fight. Men working at Centcom have thanked me for publishing their work. Hostages and their families and families of troops who gave their lives have thanked both Rusty and I for blogging their issues. We'll take their word for it that it helps. Wear the badge of The Pajamahadeen proudly.
more...
Oh, ye of little faith and reading comprehension skills. I never mentioned the video, only these facts, which remain the same.
http:/(no link whoring for you! -Vinnie)
Jill Carroll's an extremist. And you apparently have a problem with premature articulation. Next time, read first.
You got something wrong, though. More than thirty seconds in a room with you, and I think I'd have to kill you.
Debbie Schlussel
"Premature articulation." Ha-ha, coming from someone who couldn't get laid at a Chippendale's convention with a purseful of Benjamins. Plus, I'd be dead by my own hand 29 seconds before you got around to it, spanky. Especially if you showed up without those 800 lbs of makeup that disguises your fugliness.
Posted by: Donnah at April 02, 2006 11:25 PM (1q3hZ)
5
Vinnie, what is your hard-on for Jill Carroll all about? She chose to take sides with the enemy, and they used her for propaganda, so to hell with her. You can't take sides with reservations, and wars are not won by allowing traitors to go unpunished.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 03, 2006 06:09 AM (0yYS2)
6
"Schlussel's unique expertise on radical Islam/Islamic terrorism and a host of other issues make her a popular speaker and television and radio news talk show guest, both nationally & internationally."
lol...
Posted by: Venom at April 03, 2006 08:11 AM (dbxVM)
7
She hasn't threatened to kill me, but she did threaten to sue. Does that make me fatwah-worthy?
Posted by: rightwingprof at April 03, 2006 10:29 AM (hj1Wx)
8
A Shlussel fatwa. What would that be called? A "fatwussel"? or a "shlutwa"?
Posted by: Oyster at April 03, 2006 06:29 PM (YudAC)
Just Five Minutes, Your Honor, Her And Me Alone
I've heard of grasping at straws, but this is ridiculous.
Okay, so, Jill Carrol arranges her own kidnapping with her Islamist buddies, hangs out with them for three months, gnawing on falafel and gettin' funky with that down home Ashura thang, you know, chips dips chains and whips. Or she realizes the Sunni really does rise in the East, and bows down whenever the hell Achmed says it's time, because, well, she left her watch back in the room. Or maybe she just likes Kurds with her whey.
Well, then, she says this:
I want to be judged as a journalist, not as a hostage. I remain as committed as ever to fairness and accuracy _ to discovering the truth _ and so I will not engage in polemics. But let me be clear: I abhor all who kidnap and murder civilians, and my captors are clearly guilty of both crimes.
Wow, that's some anti-American sentiment right there. That's right up there with ole Giuliana Srgena. Nay, dare I say it? That is downright....Nazi propaganda.
If you want to be judged as a journalist, ok, well, I think you suck at it. If you wanted fairness and accuracy, you would have gone out like Ralph Peters did and rode with the troops. You didn't, you rode with your translator, and now he's dead and you're an ex-hostage.
But I'm going to judge you as a hostage, despite your plea. You did what you needed to do with a gun to your head. You said what you said, and wrote what you wrote, under duress. You wore the hijab as ordered, you conductecd yourself in the manner which was prescribed for you.
Not because you're some inane leftard moonbat (although you may be, but, that's irrelevant) but because you wanted to live. And the desire to live overpowers everything we do in the course of our days. Even, yes, our basic ideology.
5 minutes with Schlussel in my basement, and I'd have her singing the praises of Stalin. It's just that simple.
Could you see the blog titles on that one? "Schlussel endorses Stalin." "Schlussel embraces Marxism." "Schlussel says: Lenin, not such a bad guy after all."
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people sitting behind a computer trying to divine the intuitions of someone thousands of miles away. People who do it like Schlussel does it are no different that buzzards circling a decaying corpse.
BTW, I just have to wonder if Schlussel would have even bothered to post anything if Jill Carrol's headless body had appeared on a Baghdad street one day.
We at the Jawa Report do, and always will, hope for the release of all hostages held by Islamofascistpricks. Better to celebrate the release of one Giuliana than to lament 10 Nick Bergs.
1
Nope. Don't buy it for a second. Anyone who isn't a complete idiot can tell which way the wind is blowing. If she wants to sell that book/movie deal, she's gotta have a sympathetic market. Call me a cynic, but cynic is the opposite of sucker.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 02, 2006 07:32 AM (0yYS2)
2
Oh, ye of little faith and reading comprehension skills. I never mentioned the video, only these facts, which remain the same.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/04/premature_artic.html
Jill Carroll's an extremist. And you apparently have a problem with premature articulation. Next time, read first.
You got something wrong, though. More than thirty seconds in a room with you, and I think I'd have to kill you.
Debbie Schlussel
3
Uh, actually Jill Carroll DID travel with U.S. troops as a journalist for a month. The captain of the company was even quoted by the CSM shortly after her release and he spoke pretty well of her.
BTW, how many of you have actually read her articles? I'm sure some of you have, but I only detect a moderately liberal slant. And no, she did not portray Iraqi officials in a necessarily favorable light nor did she paint the insurrection in glowing terms. Suffering civilians appeared to be the burr in her saddle.
Posted by: David at April 02, 2006 01:24 PM (wZLWV)
4
Nothing that anybody says while a gang of fanatical thugs stand behind them sharpening their scimitars counts for anything at all.
When your head is about to roll you tend to co-operate.
Jill Carroll may well be an extremist (she's a journalist after all), but she did what 99.999% of people would have done in those circumstances.
Including Brave Debbie Schlussel.
Posted by: Martin at April 02, 2006 01:30 PM (7T22U)
5
You got something wrong, though. More than thirty seconds in a room with you, and I think I'd have to kill you.
With what? The exploding Silicone Implants Of Doom? Or would you grab a trowel and remove the makeup.
That would scare the piss out of me.
Sounds threatening, maybe I need to hire a lawyer.
Posted by: Vinnie at April 02, 2006 02:08 PM (/qy9A)
That saggy titted, sow faced shithead Schlussel just threatened to kill you. I would pass that little tidbit on to the FBI.
Oh wait, she gives regular freebie blow jobs to the FBI so they probably won’t arrest her.
Anyway, I sure that was a warning not a threat. I suspect she meant that if she were in a room for more than thirty seconds with you, the stench emanating from her crotch would kill you.
Posted by: Ranger 6 at April 02, 2006 03:33 PM (o+/cZ)
7
Debbie Schlussel - Definitely, we should "call the fbi" on her - as she threatened to do to me. . The beeatch thinks that anyone who disagrees with her on anything should be in jail. Bwaaaahahahahaha
Posted by: Beth Donovan at April 02, 2006 04:10 PM (9FPYz)
8
Really, why aren't you on medication? You're the right's version of the unhinged moonbat. Quit pretending to be right of center--you are an embarrassment, distressingly like Fred Phelps. We're all tired of your deranged, negative bloviating. Is there ANYTHING you actually support?
While I will note there are profound areas of disagreement between my views and many who post here... I applaud the intellectual honesty of those who call out the purveyors of manufactured outrage. It shows me there is reason to hope we will finally stop gravitating towards the extremist poles and lobbing grenades at each other.
Nobody's going to have any "reading comprehension" problems with that crack.
Goddamned nutcase.
I will forego the obvious jokes that such comments call to mind... I have never heard of Debbie Schlussel. However, a couple minutes on her site and it is clear she is a low frequency in the echo chamber ...seeking to till the same fields where Malkin and Coulter run wild ... she isn't worth commenting on further.
On to a more substative matter:
Vinnie and I see eye to eye on virtually nothing... so the areas of agreement are notable.
The point he makes, which is particularly worth noting by those on the left, is the fact that most American soldiers see their mission as protecting Americans...without regard for race, sex, religion or creed.
As I have noted before, it was the US Army that found evidence of death squads operating in the Interior Ministry basement. It was Maj. General Joseph Peterson who provided the first official confirmation that death squads are operating within the Iraqi police force.
I believe there is a material distinction between the leadership of Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Peterson, as significant as the difference between Westmoreland and Abrams. Unfortunately, I think it is too late to change the reality on the ground...things have spun so far out of control over the last year and a half.
However, the point worth remembering...especially as reports of torture and abuse continue to build... those who participate or condone such behavior deserve to be punished. Those who have the courage to reveal or rebuke such behavior deserve our support. Remember, the only reason we even heard about Abu Gharib was a young sargeant from a small town in Maryland knew this was not what he was there to do. He and his family have paid dearly for that.
They have been the victims of harassment in their community. They have been shunned by friends and neighbors. Their property has been vandalized, and they now reside in protective military custody at an undisclosed location. On May 16th 2005, he received a John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, recognizing his bravery in uncovering the abuse at Abu Ghraib.
That is the kind of soldier that Americans should be proud of. They are a clear concrete example of why I am so opposed to the present administration. The policy makers of this administration are not worthy of the men and women who serve them.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at April 02, 2006 04:11 PM (K5Ko+)
9Oh wait, she gives regular freebie blow jobs to the FBI so they probably won’t arrest her.
Freebie blow jobs? Who would ever do that?
Posted by: Feisty at April 02, 2006 05:38 PM (HYxlu)
10
Debbie Does The Blogosphere strikes again. It's reactionary feces flinging idiots like her that makes me want to give up blogging and politics completely.
Vinnie, do us all a favor and use amend the post with basil's handy link redirect trick. I hate to think of Debbie getting off on the referrals from My Pet Jawa.
(Sorry for any visual images that might have produced. Feel free to poke out your mind's eye now.)
Posted by: Janette at April 02, 2006 05:44 PM (OcgcA)
11
Schlussel's a pathetic propagandist. She keeps using words like "documented" to mean "in a previous post I vaguely inferred". She uses racist nicknames for white United States attorneys she doesn't like. She throws out words like "Islamist", simply flaunting her ignorance of what that ideology is or means.
You're smart to disassociate yourself from such a wack-job.
Posted by: Dan Hartung at April 02, 2006 06:12 PM (WVHXm)
12
Hah, I'm using Basil's redirect link for her too. LOL.
Posted by: Donnah at April 02, 2006 08:13 PM (1q3hZ)
13
Wow Debbie Schlussel you threatened the life of one of my friends (Vinnie) who is also my Blog brother. Debbie you are totally fucked up! I knew that before but this confirms it even more.
OH and Debbie, you are the perfect example of a woman that ONLY got ahead in her career because of HEAD if you get my drift! In other words girls that work on the street have more class then you have in one of your fake eyelashes. You are truly pathetic!
Posted by: Wild Thing at April 02, 2006 09:24 PM (tj1zH)
14
As a chef (a person who gets paid to cook things and must continually suffer white collar retards explaining to me earnestly that they would be a great chef) Feisty I feel your pain, but for some folks it's more of a hobby than a profession.
Posted by: Jake Jacobsen at April 02, 2006 11:02 PM (X2ChO)
15
Since Debbie Schlussel keeps asking people to apologize to her I decided to step up just so she could see how it's done:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/04/premature_artic.html#comments
Posted by: Jon Swift at April 03, 2006 03:09 AM (fNQUw)
You are clueles. Completely clueless. You couldn't get a clue if we doused you in clue musk and set you to dancing the clue mating dance in a field of horny clues.
STFU, would ya?
LindaSoG
Posted by: LindaSoG at April 03, 2006 05:27 AM (TET2s)
17
To bad the cunt didn't get the Nick Berg treatment...
Posted by: juandos at April 03, 2006 06:14 AM (2bfAx)
Posted by: rightwingprof at April 03, 2006 09:05 AM (hj1Wx)
19
I think I misunderstood the Carrol story, thinking she had made those statements _after_ being rescued, and safely outside of Iraq. Usually what a hostage says while having been a hostage seems to me to be suspect; if they confirm the stories once they are safe & sound, that's different.
Posted by: h0mi at April 03, 2006 04:42 PM (zpJBl)
20
The whole thing with Jill Carrol seemed strange from the start. The people who "captured" her wanted women prisoners released. We released several women and then we heard nothing from her. Then several weeks later after the "deadline" we heard from her again. This time she was seen alone crying but, she only said that we must do what the people holding her said. She never said what that was!! What did these people want in return for her release?
So she was released. I saw her when she was released and she looked great next to most that are/were being held. She said that her captures never threatened to hit her but, they held guns to her head while she was making those statements? There were no guns anywhere near her in those videos. I have seen others make statements that are captured, like the ones that have their heads cut off, and they have men standing next to them holding guns to their heads.
Today, I saw Jill when she came home to see her family and I wondered when she had time to get red highlights in her hair. I know that most people wouldn't care about that after they were held by brutal animals like those who take Americans in Iraq.
I know a thing or two about the war in Iraq and the people that do this sort of thing and I can't understand why these people would pass up the chance to use this person to get everything they want. Why is it that no one has heard of this group? Why did they just let her go? The only thing that "they" got was the release of some women.
I am glad that Jill is home with her family and safe but, I can't help wondering if maybe Jill made this whole thing up just to make a story or try and free some women because she doesn't like the war. That would be horrible and the worst kind of journalism I have ever seen. Something someone should spend many years in jail for doing.
I really hope I am wrong. I want to believe that this whole thing really was true. I hope that the men and women in the military didn't spend countless hours looking for her for no reason.
Until I have proof I am going to wonder.
Posted by: scooterbell at April 04, 2006 12:31 AM (rZTWE)
21
Vinnie, to put it in as few words as I possibly can: you're a prick. You're the kind of limp-wristed dweeb that used to get the hell beat out himself in highschool. Yeah, actually, I do think Debbie could bitch-slap you around the parking lot. I know I could.
Posted by: Tanker at April 05, 2006 08:50 AM (6G6z9)
Maybe You Can Join the Pirate Fleet
*Non-pirate talk version below
Matey, d'ye burn to carry the light of reason to the benighted libby masses at their own internet ports o' call? Have ye held yer fire and sheathed yer cutlass, knowin' that ye'd be swarmed by mindless moonbats chanting the Bushitlerburton mantra? Ye bin waitin' fer a better day.
Yarr, yer day is here.
Just sign on to The Pirate Fleet and ye be guaranteed t'have stout mates at yer back.
The The Pirate Fleet will give ye yer targets and a crew o' fellow buccaneers to guard yer flanks whilst ye board the fat galleons o' the Leftie merchant fleet. All set up by email sose the lefties won't see yer comin'.
Bloggers - d'ye wants ter hoist the Jolly Roger an' set sail with The Pirate Armada? Email me ter get this icon ter display on yer site and be added ter the The Pirate Armada blogroll.
* The Pirate Fleet will be a fun way to post on liberal sites, knowing that you have a few friends along to back you up. After you join the Fleet you'll be offered the chance to go on planned "raids", organized via email, with a group of like-minded fellow "pirates".
Bloggers can sign on to support the Fleet by joining The Pirate Armada and displaying the icon and blogroll. You're also encouraged to organize your own raids, as long as everyone follows The Pirate's Code.
Posted by: Oyster at March 11, 2006 07:14 AM (YudAC)
5
In case it isn't clear from the post: The Pirate Armada is for bloggers, but The Pirate Fleet is intended for blog-commenters. I'd like to see some of you Jawa regulars get your hands red with moonbat blood!
6
This er - pirate/sailor armada thing - these swabbies are not gonna start holding hands, singin' songs, n' takin' showers together - are they?
I mean - this grunt's heard "stories" - don't want to find myself singin' chorus for a conservative seafarin' version of "The Lumberjack Song". I like sailors and marines - but not that much, or in alternative ways.
(I'm joking - you understand. Just in case that some lurking idiot decides to send me another death threat email over some gay comment (don't even know what he was referring too.)
Posted by: hondo at March 11, 2006 02:17 PM (fyKFC)
7
No, hondo, you're probably thinking of the Brokeback Armada. The Pirate Fleet is co-ed.
Muslims are not children. They are adults. As such, they understand that, as I stated in my previous post:
Alliances are relationsips based on mutual interests.
To think of an ally as a friend is to misunderstand the basis of a relationship. Indeed, much political theory has been devoted to arguing that nations cannot have friends, only allies. This is the core of most modern international relations theory, as I understand it, which is rooted in one branch or another of realism.
Neocons, in my view, are just another branch of realism which see the long term interests of the United States being tied to the state of freedom in other countries. So the term "ally" should be a term familiar to them.
Our alliances with any number of Muslim countries are based on our mutual interests. Where those interests end, so too does the alliance.
more...
1
Rusty,
Did you catch, "Maxim Magazine's", coverage of the 9-11 Truth Movement?
It is actually, quite fair and balanced.
http://www.911blogger.com/files/MAXIM-MARCH-2006-911-Conspiracy-Theories.pdf
Posted by: greg at February 22, 2006 05:09 PM (q5wwn)
2
Were there pictures of hot chicks? Because I don't go to Maxim to read the articles.
Posted by: Rusty at February 22, 2006 05:18 PM (JQjhA)
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 22, 2006 05:30 PM (rUyw4)
4
Yeah, it was the JOOOOOOOOOZ that did it. Where ya been greg? Didja beat the pedophilia charges?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 22, 2006 05:41 PM (0yYS2)
5
Yeah, Rusty.
There are some hot pics! OOOOooooohhhh YYEEEEEAAAAHHH, she's the shy one, she's ever soooo shy. (Yank, Yank)
Check it out man, they say it's the next, "who shot J.F.K."
We've penetrated the market now and it will, at the very least, become part of the American Lore. Hell Fire, we might go on and do some good.
BOOOOOYYYYAAAAA!
Posted by: Greg at February 22, 2006 06:32 PM (q5wwn)
6
That Maxim article is pretty funny, I guess it beats the other magazines it normally gets published in, "U.F.O Weekly" "Black Helicopters Magazine" and "MAJESTIC12 MONTHLY"
Posted by: dave at February 22, 2006 08:31 PM (CcXvt)
To tolerate these "alliances" with muslim countries, calling them "strategic," as if it is in our interests to have "alliances" with these people. An "alliance," of course, traditionally means a two-way street of aid between two countries who's interests intersect in some way.
However, it is plainly not true that US and Saudi Arabian, or Egyption, or any of our other so-called "allies" in the region intersect at all. Each country pays lip service to the cause of freedom and Republicanism (if even that), while in turn reaping support in money, business or at the very least the stability of knowing you're not going to be on America's shitlist for the next few years.
What does America gain in return? Precious little. We have (had?) bases in Saudi Arabia; in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan routinely contradict our wishes and even their own rational interests by tolerating, even encouraging the Wahhabist and other Islamofascist traditions within their own borders, in a desperate effort to buy their own crumbling, intolerable governments some more time by outsourcing the righteous hatred any even semi-reasonable man would feel against them, to Israel or the United States or whatever.
So, what does America gain from these alliances? Nothing in particular that is worth all the money, pain and simple fact that we're supporting, by and large, the people who wish to destroy us with our own money and effort.
America attempts, through these alliances, to gain what it can never have: moral sanction under the current code of altruistic, relativistic ethics that by and large the world follows. It is an attempt to say, "Hey, look! We're not at war with the arab world, honest! We're helping you guys out, see?"
Of course, the money and recognition fail to do even that. The only thing that will save America's image, either to the American people (who are hopelessly confused as to our purpose in the region now, with all the contradictory mishmash of BS that is being fed to them from both sides - and I, for one, cannot blame them for their confusion) or those sane people in the world at large, is a principled stand for freedom, individual rights, liberty - all of the things that have made this country great, and which we should rightly be proud of.
Yet we are lead by a band of cowards who are afraid of principles on principle. "Realists" who have made deals with the devil for some nebulous gain and very real losses, both existentially and morally. Can you honestly say Bush is concerned with spreading freedom in the middle east when he allows this disgusting spectacle of a constitution to be written by Iraqis, who have had no tradition as a freedom-loving peoples, and no philosophical enlightenment to guide their actions? Can you say he has interests in fighting terrorism when he attacks Iraq, no doubt a cog in a huge terrorist machine in the region, yet gives money, support, protection and recognition to Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
The plain fact of the matter is the American people - myself included - are no longer sure what, exactly, we're there for. We are taking no principled stands against anything - up to and including Islamofascism in Afghanistan or Iraq! Bush has been quoted as saying, "Democracy is democracy," as if that institution is a good all by itself. Well, he's reaping the consequences of such foolish sophistry - in the form of constitutions that open the door to combining church and state and large portions of the leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan who hate America and love Islamism.
What are we fighting for? The "self determination of nations"? That went well the last time we tried it. Democracy? Who in God's name would wish to die, not even for their own right to vote, but for some stranger's right to vote themselves into another Islamic dictatorship? Freedom? I don't see any principled support for individual rights anywhere in the region, least of all from Americans. American safety? How is America made more safe by sacrificing the heroism of brave American soldiers so that Muqtada Al-Sadr, who tried his even best to kill them, can have a shot at kicking them out legally?
This war is a farce. Not for all the reasons the cowardly leftists give, but because its a war that must be fought - and must be fought, not just on the material realm, with our plethora of bombs, guns, bullets and brave soldiers who trust in their leaders to use them wisely, but also on the moral realm, in defense of seperation of church and state, of individual liberty and of the right for each man to live as he wishes, so long as he does not attempt to make another free man to do something by force.
Yet, from even the mostly-admirable Kurdistan on down to Afghanistan, and our "allies," this is precisely what the Bush administration has refused to do. And we will pay for it, when both endeavors in the middle east fail miserably for lack of spiritual (moral/ethical) leadership that does not involve killing the infidel.
Islamism is a hard thing to sell. It makes men miserable, poor, and often dead. But when its the only game in town, it is still what men will flock to.
Posted by: MiB at February 23, 2006 04:06 AM (tFcEO)
8
The post above by fucktard is what you get for letting the moron back in.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 23, 2006 05:21 AM (0yYS2)
9
I assure you IM he as nbot let back in he goes around the features.
Posted by: Howie at February 23, 2006 08:59 AM (D3+20)
Posted by: MiB at February 23, 2006 09:28 AM (tFcEO)
11
Seems to me we either have to decide whether or not we can have alliances with muslim countries in the fight against islamofascism. If we can, then maybe the UAE is one that we should pursue. According to some, they've been an ally in the past. If, on the other we've decided that arabs are the enemy and we need to write them off, then we need to say so and move on. I hate to say it, but I agree with the latter. I don't think any of them can be trusted and we just need to proceed from that. I don't see any way the US can finesse these relationships to our advantage. The networks and ties are so complex, we'll never really know who are friends are. But we should at least keep from handing over our ports to countries that are knowingly harboring elements whose stated goal is the destruction of The West. And I still cannot understand why a the country that has landed men on the frikkin moon, can't seem to run its own ports for godsake.
Posted by: Richard at February 23, 2006 11:51 AM (7KF8r)
12
There is no advantage to be gained in dealing with totalitarians. Our history has been riddled with so-called "pragmatists" dealing with totalitarians of all stripes, and getting bitten in the ass for it. From South American "our bastards," Josoph "arguably not as bad as Hitler" Stalin, and many others, no act of support in totalitarianism has ever - repeat, ever - netted us any long-term benefit.
Islamism is, by its nature, an anti-freedom establishment. The first step before any relations at all - even diplomatic - with any country, especially arab ones, is "Respect individual liberty, seperate church and state, denounce terrorism publically and loudly."
Otherwise, all we're dealing with is another totalitarian who will continue to take our money and support and sell us out at the first possible moment.
Posted by: MiB at February 23, 2006 01:22 PM (tFcEO)
Holocaust Denial Lunacy
I disagree with Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred. Denying the Holocaust is lunacy, but it should not be a crime. If one were to put people in jail for denying the 'truth', our jails would be full of Elvis spotters. Just because the truth that they deny is so disgusting and evil, does not give government the right to outlaw the telling of lies.
Besides, what government do you trust enough to decide the difference between 'opinion' and 'truth'?
But laws establishing "official truth" create categories of the Unmentionable into which subjects like the Jihad, feminism, abortion and Global Warming -- all the assertions, half-truths and humbug of the world -- will presently seek refuge.
1
Agreed.
Stupidity is now a crime in Austria, what next ten years for denying the world is round?
Posted by: dave at February 21, 2006 12:51 PM (CcXvt)
2
This conviction is crazy !! ? What about the crazy things crazy people say in crazy hospitals ?
Posted by: john ryan at February 21, 2006 01:15 PM (TcoRJ)
3
I prefer to let the crazies speak up so I know who they are.
Posted by: Oyster at February 21, 2006 01:19 PM (7YTVr)
4
Support free speech:
Somebody needs to begin the "Buy Danish,
Boycott Austria" campaign.
Posted by: thomas at February 21, 2006 05:30 PM (6nMOD)
5
Europeans don't have free speech - they have perscribed privileges grant by the state - which can be redefined or suspended according to the needs of the state. Get use to it. Don't ever confuse US with them (Euros) just because they dress well and have cable.
Posted by: hondo at February 21, 2006 07:20 PM (fyKFC)
6
Holocaust Deniers = Elvis Spotters
That's the best analogy I have heard yet! Did you know Elvis would be in his 70's at this point? Wrap your brain around that one... yikes!
Posted by: Babs at February 23, 2006 07:57 AM (iZZlp)
No, I'm not a Conservative
No, I'm not a conservative and neither is Glenn Reynolds. I'm a neo-libertarian. It's kind of like being a conservative, only we dig the notion of legal pimps and hoes. And it's kind of like being a libertarian, only we really dig our military. Is that clear?
Posted by: dave at February 21, 2006 10:33 AM (CcXvt)
5
No need for sarcasm Jesusland Joe and Dave. I know it's that obvious.
Posted by: Max Power at February 21, 2006 03:36 PM (5E0ex)
6I'm far right? Please, explain what that means to you, before I tear into you.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 21, 2006 04:29 PM (0yYS2)
7
I'm not looking for trouble Improbulus Maximus. I'm just saying you are far right. There's nothing wrong with being far right. Please don't hurt me. I'll admit I fear you. I remember what you did to the last guy that criticized you.
Posted by: Max Power at February 21, 2006 05:52 PM (5E0ex)
8
Rusty, that model might also have an interesting "look" if you rotated it clockwise 90 degrees.
Posted by: Don Miguel at February 21, 2006 05:58 PM (+KixN)
9
Yeah, fine, but what the hell does far right mean to you? What ideology are you subscribing to me? To whom are you comparing me? Let me cluebat you real quick; I believe in liberty and justice for all, the rights of individuals to self-determination, and constitutional republican government, i.e., everything our founders intended. I don't care who you are or what you want to do with your life, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, particularly mine. But, if you do infringe, I'm ready to fight to the death without question or hesitation, which is why I hate islam and wish the hell that the muslims would go ahead and start the war in America, which is inevitable, so I can enjoy killing some of the bastards before I get too old. My birthday is soon and all I want is a muslim in my rifle sights. And a pony.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 21, 2006 06:44 PM (0yYS2)
10
Well, to tell you the truth, wanting to legalize prostitution (which I find abhorrent) is so far right that it's left. In other words, it's so far to the right in that a person wants the gov't to stay out of it that they end up agreeing with liberals who want a bye for bad behavior.
Same with marijuana. Someone like Dr Rusty might say, "don't enter my house to look for drugs" while a hippie lib would say, "Dude, I'm just looking for a good time. What's the crime."
Posted by: RepJ at February 21, 2006 07:45 PM (ju4XF)
11
I believe in letting stupid people kill themselves and ruin their lives and not interfering in the process. In that case I think that if people want to pay prostitues for sex and shoot drugs, I couldn't care less. But to think that either of these will ever be legalized wihtout onerous legislation and an increase in crime and that the taxpayer won't bear the cost of both is ridiculous. Which brings us back to letting stupid people kill themselves and ruin their lives without interference.
It'll never happen that way.
Posted by: Oyster at February 22, 2006 06:01 AM (YudAC)
12
A crime should be defined thus: A deliberate act which causes direct harm or loss to any person or group of persons. Anything which does not fit this description shouldn't be a crime, including prostitution and drug use. Not that these things shouldn't be controlled, but putting people in jail hasn't done anything but fill the jails.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 23, 2006 04:18 PM (0yYS2)
Atheists to the Left of Me, Religious Fanatics to the Right
I actually disagree with Danny on this one. Intentionally offending people is often (but not always) legitimate discourse. Especially during times of war. I would suggest readers recall all of those wonderful Bugs Bunny cartoons vilifying the Japs and Germans during WWII. For some odd reason we hold the conflicting idea that these intentionally offensive cartoons were somehow wrong, yet killing those who were lampooned was ok.
1
Intentionally offending muslims is not going to help us in the war on terror. Speak your mind, stand on principle, YES. Gratuitously offend just for shits and giggles, NO. Shits and giggles could very well come with American lives as the price.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 09, 2006 08:48 AM (8e/V4)
Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? (Updated: Warning--geeky references to methodology)UPDATE: Rusty responds. Scroll down for my responses. UPDATE 2: Demosophist responds to a few things, in that Italian font. UPDATE 3: Rusty back at ya!
I started out tapping out a comment to Rusty's post on this topic, but it grew to the point that I decided to publish it as a separate essayette. Rusty graciously establishes the empirical parameters of this thesis, but I don't think they necessarily address the issue:
If one were really interested in seeing whether or not there is a relationship between Islam and liberalism, I would suggest the following. In fact, I dare any one to run the following analysis.
Hypothesis: there is a strong correlation between the percent of a nation's population that is Muslim and the extent to which that country's population is free in the liberal sense of the word.
Null Hypothesis: there is no relationship between the percent of a nation's population that is Muslim and the extent to which that country's population is free in the liberal sense of the word.
Plot a simple OLS regression model with the two variables. The first variable would simply be % Muslim. The second variable would be the Freedom House numbers. Since the Freedom House Numbers are coded negatively the following results should be found.....
If we are agreed that the above is a moderately fair way of empircally testing the relationship between Islam and tyranny, then the gauntlet has been thrown. I personally do not have the time to run the numbers, but perhaps some enterprising blogger with moderate experience using SPSS would like to give it a go?
The problem with this method is that, while it's a reasonable way of testing the relationship between Islam and political freedom, that's not the research question that's being considered.
more...
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 06, 2006 03:14 PM (rUyw4)
3
any culture that rejects the prevailing democratic laws in pursuit of its own perceived rights is incompatible, and Muslim extremism which seems to be more mainstream now, is criminal.
Posted by: Jawapuke at February 06, 2006 03:18 PM (SR3XG)
4
any culture that rejects the prevailing democratic laws in pursuit of its own perceived rights is incompatible, and Muslim extremism which seems to be more mainstream now, is criminal.
Well, not two weeks ago there was lots of polling data suggesting that the extremists were losing the battle for hearts and minds across the Middle East. So, given that, it shouldn't be a surprise that they'd launch some sort of propaganda offensive to change the parameters of the fight. They've partly succeeded, but they've also created a host of unintended consequences that might easily work to their disadvantage. For instance, the nature of the confrontation has changed. It's clear that the instigators of the main riots and destruction are not the average "man on the street" in Damascus, but agents of the Bashir regime itself. I submit that this suggests weakness, rather than strength, as does the fact that they had to include two cartoons that were not in the original publication in order to get people riled.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 06, 2006 03:37 PM (6VoEN)
We just about see it the same way. Islam lends itself to tyranny very easily - but a case can be made for virtually anything - it being just a question of ease.
I don't believe its incompatible with democracy though it will be different. It remains to be seen however - and I want to see this thru.
I do see these events as a staged tactic on the part if the islamists and their allies (Syria's participation is kinda wierd though) - and as a sign of growing weakness. on their part. More like a frenzied hyped pep rally to bring/force them together.
I also see this as a sign of weakness in Europe - notice how the islamists target weakness - shia crowds, schools, mosques in Iraq with bombings - current events in Europe (don't for a minute think Spain's pullout didn't help lit the fuse).
Posted by: hondo at February 06, 2006 04:21 PM (3aakz)
6
What is effective? The Muslim extremists are absolutely stupid! Tell us to do anything and guess what, nada, death! Show the proper respect and beg properly and every once in a while your superior masters might throw the lowly dog a bone just to shut him up...something is better than nothing...
Posted by: Bob at February 06, 2006 04:25 PM (EKMxC)
7
Hondo, you are exactly right, and I and many others here said that Spain's capitulation would only cause things to get worse. We now look like sages, except it is so easy to see one wonders why the Europeans couldn't see it at the time. I remember being called a racist by several Europeans for suggesting that Europe confront the Muslim radicals before it was too late.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 06, 2006 04:36 PM (rUyw4)
Can we stop referring to these ululating, slobbering, hate filled, bags of flesh as men? They are so far removed from the definition of a man and what real men are! Semantics, some might say but not I. Other than that...I'm mostly in agreement.
Posted by: forest hunter at February 06, 2006 05:26 PM (Fq6zR)
The phrase "man on the street" refers to the concept of an average, or mean... so by definition I'm not talking about the "ululating, slobbering, hate filled, bags of flesh." Moreover, there have been a lot of anti-terror demonstrations in Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon that don't get much play on our media... so given the opposition they have to contend with they might actually be more a man than I.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 06, 2006 05:46 PM (5V96/)
10
Demosophist
I'm not picking on you whatsoever and I understood the reference. I'm truly sorry If I offended your sensibilities, it was unintentional.
As a man, It offends me to be lumped in with this or any other category of idiots, when MSM and others refer to these grape-less clots, as men. I certainly hope I don't sound like the wailing hoards of hypersensitive jerks going off about every little thing under the sun. I am simply hoping for them to be more accurately described.
Posted by: forest hunter at February 06, 2006 06:23 PM (Fq6zR)
11
I am simply hoping for them to be more accurately described.
Well, I'd ululate to that if I had the first idea how. But I had enough trouble learning to whistle.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 06, 2006 06:56 PM (AbJ2W)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 06, 2006 08:57 PM (0yYS2)
13
I was still in puberty when I first ululated! Then I met an ex-employee of a cell phone company but a budding young "Hindunaut" and he demonstrated how some of the best pie isn't round at all. It's been said that If you listen reeeeal close and put your to ear to the ductwork.....can you hear me now? (I vote for the Dill sandwich).
Demosophost:
We can get into the whistling thing another time.
As to the other things for them to be referred to as, I'm sure we can come up with something more in alignment with their stature...with all due respect.
Posted by: forest hunter at February 07, 2006 02:26 AM (Fq6zR)
14
Of course Islam is incompatible with democracy. As pointed out elsewhere, democracy implies equality.
One site puts it thus:
In Western democracy, the people are sovereign; in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives. The laws given by Allah through His Prophet ( Shari ‘ah) are to be regarded as constitutional principles that should not be violated.
Other Muslims make much the same claim. As Allah is the source of all law, parliaments are not needed to make laws. All that the state needs is the Khalifate to enforce the laws of Allah. Thus democracy is a direct challenge to the innate authority of Allah and the sharia since the law of Allah cannot be changed or challenged.
And it is all a load of BS :-)
Posted by: Jan at February 07, 2006 05:03 AM (bcz28)
No, Islam is Not Just Like Buddhism
The following is a letter I wrote to Dean Esmay last night. He gave me a challenge in this post, as his first response to my essay Marx, Communism, Totalitarianism; Muhammed, Islam, Terrorism, and I wanted to respond. I wanted to post a more coherent answer, but it will have to do in a pinch. I do have other work. Let me preface it with a funny quote Dean sent me in reply: "I apologize for the length of this letter, but I lacked the time to make it shorter." Also, the disclaimer that it's not exactly spellchecked. Sorry.
more...
1
I think Dean focusses too much on how the church influences the state, rather than the church BEING the state itself. The fact that you had kings and a pope at the same time should tell you right off the bat that power is not exclusive to a sigular church-state entity.
Moses came down from the mountain with a book of laws that came from God himself. Early Jewish society was governed by such laws, and the great jewish kings administered these laws. This is similar to most of Islamic history, especially shi'at, where the job of the king is to be the prime enforcer of Sharia laws, which are thought to be from the mouth of God himself delivered to Mohammad in the 6th century.
Since Christ abrogated all of the laws of deuteronomy and leviticus, save two (love your neighbor, love god). The state has to achieve social cohesion with an improvised justice system that cannot be derived from any sacred legislature. If these statutes are just and reflect the light of Christ, then of course the king should recieve your obedience.
One could interpret "the divine right of kings" as described by Paul to the Romans as the "devine right of the existance of secular governments outside of the church" as the proper means to achieve social cohesion on this earthly plane. If you do this, then you have implicitly advocated the separation of church and state by modern standards.
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at February 06, 2006 01:15 PM (+BgKd)
2
Oh sure islam is exactly like Buddhism, except for the headchopping, terrorism, suicide bombing, fanatical zealotry, primitive behavior, etc.. Yep. Just like it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 06, 2006 01:39 PM (0yYS2)
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Islam
Dean Esmay has a pretty good post about whether or not Islam compatible with democracy or not. Go read it.
Also, after you have read it you should probably read my essay Marx, Communism, Totalitarianism; Muhammed, Islam, Terrorism, in which I argue that Islam is a socio-political ideology every bit as much as it is a religion. It is much like Marxism in that the core ideology itself leads is incompatible with Western liberalism.
Now, let's return to Dean's post. Unfortunately, the data he provides is a classic example of what statisticians call selection bias. That is, you use data which supports your hypothesis and then exclude data which nullifies it.
Another problem is that the data do show that Muslim nations are becoming more free. A good sign, no doubt. But becoming more free does not make one free. One might argue that China is becoming more free, or that the Soviet Union in the late 1980s was becoming less authoritarian, yet there is no doubt in my mind that Communism is somehow intertwined with the fact that freedom was so scarce. Becoming more or less of anything is kind of irrelevant to the discussion.
Last, he gives the example of Senegal and Mali as the only nations on earth that have a Muslim majority and which are listed by Freedom House as liberal democracies (excluding Indonesia). Given that Freedom House gets it dead wrong on Indonesia, I suspect that there may be problems with their coding of Senegal and Mali as well. But I could be wrong. I don't know enough about these countries to speak on whether or not Freedom House correctly codes them.
However, statistically speaking two examples do not a falsification make. There are always exceptions to rules. My original point was that the Left loved to use Yugoslavia as an exemple of a 'free' Communist country. Even if we were to grant them that Yugoslavia was 'free' during the Cold War, to claim that there was not a causal relationship between Communism and totalitarianism based on a single outlier is an example of poor analysis (or poor operationalizing skills).
If one were really interested in seeing whether or not there is a relationship between Islam and liberalism, I would suggest the following. In fact, I dare any one to run the following analysis.
Hypothesis: there is a strong correlation between the percent of a nation's population that is Muslim and the extent to which that country's population is free in the liberal sense of the word.
Null Hypothesis: there is no relationship between the percent of a nation's population that is Muslim and the extent to which that country's population is free in the liberal sense of the word.
Plot a simple OLS regression model with the two variables. The first variable would simply be % Muslim. The second variable would be the Freedom House numbers. Since the Freedom House Numbers are coded negatively the following results should be found.
If Dean is right, and there is no relationship between Islam and freedom, then obviously the plots should be completely randomly distributed.
If I am right, and there is a relationship between Islam and freedom, then a positively sloping line should emerge. That is to say, as the percentage of Muslims in a country goes up, the Freedom House numbers should also go up.
The third alternative, of course, is that there is a positive correlation between Islam and liberal democracy, in which case one would find a negatively sloping line.
If we are agreed that the above is a moderately fair way of empircally testing the relationship between Islam and tyranny, then the gauntlet has been thrown. I personally do not have the time to run the numbers, but perhaps some enterprising blogger with moderate experience using SPSS would like to give it a go?
more...
1
that looks like a lot of reading Rusty.....ill set aside an hour for that later.
Posted by: ian uk at February 06, 2006 11:21 AM (GhCfc)
2
I must say that I do see most countries with a Muslim majority as not truely "free" in any sense of the word, however the one country in the above article that always draws in my interest is Turkey. The Turks seemed to have done a much better job of integrating the freedoms of the West with the teachings of Islam. Using the cartoon fiasco as an example, I have not heard of any mass rioting in Turkey in response to these cartoons. While it is not yet fully integrated with the teachings of a true democracy, and I will not be happy until it does, Turkey may be a good country to look at as to where to start "converting" a nation from Islam to a true democracy.
Posted by: Geoff at February 06, 2006 11:28 AM (QOljS)
3
Geoff, the Turks already shot a Christian priest dead over the cartoons, I guess they are not as liberal as they would like to be seen as. Can read the story here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/05/news/turkey.php
Posted by: dave clarke at February 06, 2006 11:33 AM (V8wjL)
4
The interesting thing about Turkey is it is an experiment in 'forcing one to be free'. Turkey has had to ban many religious expressions precisely because past leaders believed they had to force secularism down the throats of the Turkish people.
Posted by: Rusty at February 06, 2006 11:42 AM (JQjhA)
5
Let's see. I have had two death threats made against me by people from Turkey over this cartoon issue. I would not allow Turkey to enter the EU for any reason. Europe will be flooded with radical Muslims, who make up between 25-40 per cent of the Turkish population.
Geoff, the people of Europe need to study Turkey very carefully. The trends are not encouraging, as the radicals and even jihadists are seeing gains in power and influence. I would never let Turkey enter the EU. The power of Islam is just too great a risk. Of course, that is just my opinion, but I urge caution.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 06, 2006 12:15 PM (rUyw4)
6
Well Rusty I believe YOU failed to mention the two best models for muslim democracy Afghanistan and Iraq. LOL
Posted by: john ryan at February 06, 2006 12:21 PM (TcoRJ)
7
Thank you all for the enlightning posts and comments. Although I have heard about what I thought were remote instances of abuse against freedom, I was much more misinformed than I would have thought.
Posted by: Geoff at February 06, 2006 12:21 PM (QOljS)
8
Yes, John, you may laugh, as the present situation has shown that there is no hope for any Muslim country.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 06, 2006 12:25 PM (rUyw4)
9
If you look at Jesus' and Paul's philosophy, you would expect all Christian countries to be pacifist communes. Fortunately, for most of Christianity's history the masses were unable to read the Bible, so the West was mercifully spared these ideas. By the time it was translated into the vernacular, a firm tradition of not taking inconvenient portions of the Holy Writ seriously had been established which continues to the present day. The modern Christian can bomb people and get rich while he imagines he follows the Prince of Peace who despised wealth.
On the other hand you have the Muslims. They have been cursed with a Holy Book that they can read. Worse still, the text actually makes sense--not that it's *good* advice, mind you, but at least it sounds like something other than what you'd find scrawled in purple crayon by a schizophrenia patient. Worst of all, it actually sounds good. No kidding. By all accounts Koran is spellbinding poetry to native speakers of Arabic, and of course they believe every word because it's beautiful. The entire Middle East has been enthralled for 1300 years by an uncommonly good MTV rotation. Imagine if all U.S. domestic and foregn policy had been founded on the lyrics of Tracy Chapman and Madonna!
We hope that the Muslims will follow in the spiritual footsteps of the West so we won't have to blast the whole lot of them to bits. We hope that Mohammed and the Koran will become revered yet disregarded figures for Islam as Jesus and the Bible are for Christianity. In blunt language we hope that the Muslims will grow a pair of nuts and learn to thrust their moral opinions into the mouth of God like Christians have been doing since the Enlightenment. I'm not confident that they will. These people love their poetry and they're not all that brave.
Posted by: ShannonKW at February 06, 2006 12:26 PM (dT1MB)
"Becoming more or less of anything is kind of irrelevant to the discussion."
Er, no it's not. What part of trend analysis do you not grasp? All of it?
"Geoff, the Turks already shot a Christian priest dead over the cartoons, I guess they are not as liberal as they would like to be seen as."
The Turks? Like, all of them/i> and stuff? Hey Dave Clark - "the Americans" torture and eat young boys! I guess they're not as into vegetables as they'd like to be seen as. You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
Posted by: Bill from INDC at February 06, 2006 12:28 PM (yZMsp)
11
There is no muslim nation that is not our enemy, some just pretend not to be so as to benefit from a relationship with us.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 06, 2006 01:42 PM (0yYS2)
12
No, many Muslim nations are our allies. But alliances are formed over mutual interests, and not necessarily mutual ideologies. Just because they are less repressive than, say, the Taliban does not mean that they are not repressive.
Bill,
Trend analysis only matters based on assumption that the trend line continues in one direction. But as you well know there is such a thing as a plateu.
Also, to say Islam is the root cause of Muslim theocratic tyranny and the vast majority of terrorism in the world is not to say we should not support regimes like the ones that are emerging in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It should be remembered that Afghanistan does not allow freedom of religion, even post Taliban. Nor in Iraq. Yet, we support them because their brand of tyranny is far better than the tyranny they replaced. That is to say, it is in our interests that what passes for a democracy in an Islamic country be established in Iraq and Afghanistan but it is folly to imagine that Afghanis might ever be free spread the good news of Krishna.
Posted by: Rusty at February 06, 2006 02:33 PM (JQjhA)
13
Very depressing, Rusty, but this shows that the number one priority of the US should be to become energy independant. If we need to do something akin to the Manhattan Project, so be it, but let's do it now.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 06, 2006 03:39 PM (rUyw4)
14
Who said that there is anything in history is called holocaust, who said that it is true who said that it happened. Ask yourself before others why is it important to us to accept a big lie in history that this matter took place during a second world war.
Facts millions and millions of people were killed no one till today knows where there graves are.
On the soviet side alone (Russia) lost 20 million people whom were killed during war, so how they are calling for the holocaust that it is a fact if many millions were also killed.
How can any one prove that those so called concentration camps were not for Jews but for troops during the war?
It is the biggest lie in history and today leaders in Europe are supporting the Jews not for any thing but to stay in the power.
Jews are black milling Europeans to pay for a big lie.
People in Europe are illiterate of history it is the second generation who are living in Europe and those who were alive during the war days they were kidnapped by the allies during the war to write history the way new comers want it.
It is not clearer than today that nothing in history took place was called the holocaust.
This is a real fabrication done by liars in Europe received money by rich Jews to be either silent or supporter for the big lie.
We and every body know that the gas rooms, concentration camps are all false incidents to collect long-term benefits through all European governments.
No one knows the true of the lie except the fabricators from the Jews who took all the advantages from Europe.
Do I dare in Europe to express this idea in the media do I dare to talk in the TV do I dare to announce this in the newspaper.
Where is freedom to talk about the biggest lie in history?
In addition, till when we should accept the false history I will say the truth.
Posted by: sim at February 07, 2006 10:06 AM (Zl2Qs)
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 01, 2006 09:26 PM (rUyw4)
8
Notice how Mo-HAM-med's eyes are rolling back in his head. He love piggy long time.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 11:14 AM (0yYS2)
9
Dude! When I said, "Somebody get Mohammed a McRib." that's /not/ what I meant!
Posted by: Der Tommissar at February 03, 2006 12:06 PM (7cVlV)
10
There are some lovely works of art available by clicking on my name below. The artists wish to remain anonymous and are happy to have you spread their works around the world if you so choose.
I don't know that it's proper for me to insert anything here so I leave that to your discretion.
If you are a Muslim, please don't blow up yourself over this. At least not in public. It's such bad manners.
Posted by: dag at February 03, 2006 05:25 PM (24N/R)
11
Damn, that is some serious deep diquing by "the other white meat" there...ouch
Posted by: Jeremy at February 03, 2006 09:00 PM (YHJZp)
12
The secret to why they don't like pork revealed!
Oh, Mohammed, you got a real pretty mouth there boy...
Now squeal...squeal like a....MOHAMMED (piss be upon him )
Posted by: Wind Rider at February 05, 2006 10:48 AM (su1/M)
13
I have seen what u want to make out. But I m
sure, u know nothing about Mohammad(peace be
upon him). I would respect the western for
they are not biased. But now I have really
come to know u have no sympathy to the ones
u feel are wrong. Suppose, according to u
muslims are not right, they are such and
such, u r not supposed to make fun of them,
but sympathise with them that may they come
on the right track.
Now listen, I m teacher and now I have seen
ur defaced face. Now I have convinced my
students to study more and more and be firm
with what right is. Whatever u people have
done is nothing but awakened them. It is the
start, see how it will work. It has changed
my life because I know my prophet more than
u do, and I have gone through the whole
Koran, and I know,u have not understood the
Koran and the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him).
Remove ur prejudice and biasness. U will be
able to see the true picture what is far
more vivic and beautiful.
Posted by: zubair at February 06, 2006 12:43 AM (IvuxP)
14
*dies of laughter*
Thos posts about muslims are the bomb!
Posted by: akmarksman at February 06, 2006 08:55 AM (7U6zw)
15
Our friend Derek has a warning placed on his blog by Google.
Derek posted an editorial graphic of Mohammed.
Now Derek's site is under a warning.
I am outraged.
Please support Derek and all others who exercise their right and your right to free speech.
Derek is our Denmark.
http://thestudyofrevenge.blogspot.com/
Posted by: dag at February 07, 2006 05:52 PM (24N/R)
16
would it be this funny if it was jesus and a sheep having sex?????????????
Posted by: jon at February 09, 2006 01:43 PM (vFxI6)
17
ne mutlu müslüman türküm diyene All for Muslims and My country scare from us!!!!!!!!! :S:S:S:S:S:S:S:S:S:S:S:S
Posted by: Braveheart at February 22, 2006 04:25 AM (cySK2)
An Appeal to Center-Right Bloggers
I received an e-mail from N.Z. Bear earlier today inviting me to be one of the original signers of a letter from center-right bloggers to the House Republican leadership. A lot of bloggers have signed on to the letter. I did not. Most of them are people I respect, so it is baffling that they signed it even though one would think they agree with my central argument. The letter is silly and meaningless. Here is my response.
more...
1
I must confess I really don't see the big deal in this whole Abramoff thing. Should we be shocked or outraged politicians were paid by a lobbyist to influence their decisions? Isn't that was lobbyists do?
I know a lobbyist and he is a very decent man and has told me a great deal of how he tries to advance his client's wishes upon politicians. Abromoff was sleazy, but the act of lobbying is just as democratic and American as Freedom of Speech and apple pie.
Posted by: Chad Evans at January 13, 2006 09:51 PM (+DXHJ)
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 13, 2006 10:12 PM (rUyw4)
3
Lobbying is just legalized, institutionalized, regulated bribery, and Abramoff is no more or less guilty than anyone else. That being said, I think lobbying must be outlawed.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 13, 2006 10:14 PM (0yYS2)
6
Or we could set an example by sending crooks to jail. But then, getting gravity repealed would be much more realistic. Democracy allows us to give ourselves exactly the government we deserve. Good and hard.
Sometimes I wished I still believed in God, because at least then I could smile thinking of politicians burning in hell for eternity, but I'm afraid the only justice they'll ever know is what we give them, and we don't seem to care enough to do what needs done, i.e. mass hangings of the sons of bitches.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 13, 2006 11:36 PM (0yYS2)
7Give me 435 unethical, whoremongering, immoral, back room elected Congressman committed to limited government. Keep your transparency. I will gladly let my Congressman get away with just about anything in exchange for protecting me from the bad guys of the world and keeping his grubby paws out of my pockets. Let their paws remain in the pockets of whoever is trying to bribe them. Better their's than mine.
I hope every Congressman who is committed to winning the war on terror and getting the hell out of my life will support a candidate who doesn't give a damn what the New York Times or Chris Matthews thinks about them.
Now THAT I'd sign.
But I ain't signing the other one either.
Posted by: Misha I at January 14, 2006 12:50 AM (UJ8z1)
8
As well as a petition to make your software remember the blockquote around the second paragraph.
Posted by: Misha I at January 14, 2006 12:51 AM (UJ8z1)
9
Rusty, I agree more with you on this one. I'm not against reform in the Congress where lobbying and giving favors is concerned, but I'm more concerned with the issues. Shadegg seems to be a pretty good guy and mostly conservative, but I've only just heard of him. As for Abramoff, from what I can tell, he siphoned money into his own pockets. How this make Tom DeLay or anyone else guilty of anything, I really couldn't say. It's just the MSM trying to make DeLay guilty by association, and it makes me madder 'n hell.
I've met DeLay personally, and he was very approachable. I felt at the time that he was a genuinely nice person which is a totally different experience than I have had with other politicians.
Why Republicans in power decided not to defend DeLay is beyond me and it really makes me angry that they did not defend DeLay nor Lott when it was crunch time.
Thanks for your insight.
Posted by: RepJ at January 14, 2006 11:28 AM (kEpN/)
10
Come on. This is a demonstrable and outrageous example of corrupt sleaze and it ought to have consequences. First, Congress is not the CIA. The CIA is supposed to work with sleazy methods and use sleazy people to accomplish national goals. Congress is not. They should have seen Abramoff for what he was and steered clear.
Second, Abramoff's main goals were to fortify and manipulate an enormous government monopoly that is tied to a specific ethnic group. He wanted to give some indian tribes the right to build casinos, and deny that same right to others. Nice libertarian, free-market system you got there.
As for who is being "realistic" here: what do you think the effect next November will be if the Republicans show up at the polls fat, drunk, and unrepentant with wads of lobbyist cash stuffed in their pockets? Whether you're right or not, the limited government and strong national defense guys are vulnerable at the ballot box and they need to publicly hose out the monkey cage.
Posted by: See-Dubya at January 14, 2006 01:01 PM (NZHCc)
11
Misha has a point; I'd rather have a known crook in office than a pretend honest man any day. It seems to have worked out well for everyone who ever voted for the Kennedys...
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 14, 2006 09:41 PM (0yYS2)
12All your Abramoff'ds are belong to trash.
Don't put officially dirty politicians in visible places of power.
Posted by: A Finn at January 15, 2006 08:42 AM (lGolT)
13Give me 435 unethical, whoremongering, immoral, back room elected Congressman committed to limited government.
Yeah, as soon as you find ONE of those folks, let us know, 'kay.
Posted by: bryan at January 15, 2006 09:04 AM (Pa0YX)
14
I have no problem with the bastards going to Hedonism II either, just let them do it on their own dime like the rests of us...err... like other people do.
Posted by: Digger at January 16, 2006 05:05 PM (Vu+DO)
15
"Give me 435 unethical, whoremongering, immoral, back room elected Congressman committed to limited government."
The problem with this idea is if the unethical involves taking bribes to advance special interests, there is no way the will be committed to limited government. Simply isn't possible. Yes, the congressmen will be taking the lobbyists money, but they lobbyists are paying Congress to take your money and give it to them, either directly or indirectly.
Posted by: Dave Justus at January 16, 2006 05:07 PM (Ttn36)
16
Rusty, you are right that the Abramoff thing is not a big deal in truth . . . but it is a big deal in the minds of the Dems and their MSM comrades (but I repeat myself).
They will continue to blow on these embers until the fire catches. Then, as usual, it will be up to us blogs and Drudge and FoxNews to set the record straight and hold the MSM's feet to the fire to tell the truth.
My sources in the RNC (yeah, I actually do have sources at the RNC) tell me that they are beginning to hear from their members about the "scandal" and, while, as you said, most people do not actually understand the situation or its ramifications, these members say they are "concerned" about it.
When you start to hear this sort of thing from the rank-and-file members, you can bet that there are more out there who are thinking that way but simply have not spoken up to date. If it has crossed that threshold, it won't be long until the faux scandal becomes perceptually real.
The Dems and the MSM will continue their caterwauling until the public believes it.
(But they'll somehow forget that Harry Reid is one of only five official persons of interest in the current case . . . go figure.)
I signed the petition. I still think that it is something the Reps should do and do immediately, if only from a political strategy point of view.
Getting out in front of a "scandal" is the best way to minimize it.
Posted by: The Artist at January 16, 2006 05:33 PM (FVAyP)
17
While I agree with much of what you say here, especially about how the voters are ultimately responsible through their disinterest, I must question the statement, "My major concern is that the next Majority Leader has a bloodlust for terrorists, will not be shirk from calling fascism fascism when the fascists in question are a group favored by the Left,and who will make sure enough money is spent to win the war on terror."
So, are fascist who are favored by the Right acceptable?
I think fascism of any stripe should be called fascism, rejected outright, and fought against, regardless of which wing favors it.
Posted by: Jack at January 16, 2006 06:20 PM (ne61C)
18
Unfortunately, to change the rules you've got to play the game. In playing the game, you "forget" that you want to change the rules.
That said, I have two proposals to reform Congress:
1) Annual salary should be 10 X whatever it is now (~$160,000?) Free Congressional health care for life and a $30,000 annual pension for each term served (3 terms = $90,000.) These benefits become null and void should the Congressperson ever be convicted of any crime.
2) Term limits. No one may serve in a congressional office more than three terms. Congressional staff may not work for congress more than 7 years.
3) Repeal McCain-Feingold and make every campaign contribution publicly known on the web.
(Always underpromise and over deliver)
The idea behind these three proposals is to get seasoned, competent people into the Congress. Let's attract talent by the paycheck and not force Congressmen to fulfill their natural desires by short-changing the country.
Posted by: Allan at January 16, 2006 07:31 PM (Veogk)
19
"Give me 435 unethical, whoremongering, immoral, back room elected Congressman committed to limited government."
Well hell, I can lower that by one if the bastards would just accept my application. Geez.
Posted by: Hector Vex at January 16, 2006 09:03 PM (fjqPS)
Professor Chaos is a Traitor (on dual citizenship)
Professor Leopold Stotch has jumped the shark and claimed Irish citizenship as is his right. After calling him a traitor, he responded to me by saying that if the U.S. and Ireland ever got into a war that he'd be the first to volunteer to push the button turning Belfast into 'The Forbidden Zone' of any number of Mad Max films.
Although I don't doubt his loyalty, I say it again: traitor. Or, if not a traitor, something really really icky.
One of the main problems with mass-immigration is that it leads to mixed loyalty. Soccer games between the U.S. and Mexico bring crowds of Mexican immigrants who root for Mexico. That's just a little example of the mixed loyalty of immigrants who fail to assimilate fully. In the conflict between the I.R.A. (allied with the Soviets) and the Brits (allied with us), pro-republican sentiments were often expressed by Irish-Americans who backed their sentiments up with aid to the terror organization.
So, how can having dual citizenship ever be a good thing?
1
Because there's a seekrit clause that give's people holding both US & Irish Citizenships access to all the free Cheezy Poofs they could want.
Well that and if you don't mind the hairy legs and stench of body odor being able to say you're a citizen of any country, especially one with people one with terrorist ties, works really well on hippy chics. Maybe he's going deep undercover?
To boldly go where no man has gone before...
Posted by: phin at January 10, 2006 09:42 AM (Xvpen)
2
When the ethnicity in question is entirely symbolic, there is no problem. When it's the primary identity, then it implies disloyalty. You should know this -- didn't you read my dissertation?
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at January 10, 2006 11:55 AM (6saA1)
3
There is nothing symbolic in the dream that is Guinness.
Posted by: MOG at January 10, 2006 01:52 PM (uvSxr)
4
Having dual citizenship is an advantage - to the dual Visa holder. Rusty, you write "pro-republican sentiments were often expressed by Irish-Americans who backed their sentiments up with aid to the terror organization." Yet IRA support in Boston, San Francisco and other burroughs lives on.
Posted by: tee bee at January 10, 2006 04:58 PM (q1JHF)
5
Ok, Rusty: how do you feel about the dual loyalty of the J-O-O's?
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at January 10, 2006 05:49 PM (1dODd)
6
Who are the J-O-O's? Is that like rascist or something?
Posted by: General Disarray at January 10, 2006 06:53 PM (tKidN)
7
Why would you nuke the Queens territory (Belfast is in Northern Ireland, if you didn't notice) when in war with Ireland? I'd figure attacking your last ally, the English, in a war against white people would be a terrible political move, leading to destruction of the northern hemisphere in a nuclear winter.
Posted by: A Finn at January 11, 2006 05:18 AM (cWMi4)
On Propaganda in War II: Electric Bugaloo
Matt Welch has responded to those arguing for propaganda in Reason magazine here. Matt and I have exchanged several e-mails over the subject, the crux of which were "Boy, I just really wish we had the time to delve into this more deeply"--or, at least, I wish I had more time. I mean, it is Friday and I am a university professor and blogging is work.....
Nevetheless, the divide here seems to be between the neo-libertarian right--which believes liberty means something different in war time than in peace--and the paleo-libertarian right--which believes (at least under my reading) that liberty is a constant.
Here is one of the core arguments made by Matt:
Shackleford's folly, aside from the feeble unpatriotic slap, is that that formulation assumes all weapons are equally neutral in moral value and practical effectiveness, which they are not. There's a reason, aside from international treaty, we no longer use nerve gas on enemy lines, or napalm on villages, or atomic bombs on cities -- world reaction would cause more negative consequences than whatever "positive" gains could be had on the ground. And if we used horses to do a tank's job, or muskets instead of M-16s, these weapons wouldn't be an "asset," they'd be a hindrance.
Since the majority of Matt's Reason article targets my post on Propaganda in a State of War, and since I can't really respond to all of his objections right now, what to do? Call in the pinch-hitter, of course. This is the American League, after all.
Now then. If a nuke were to go off in New York or Los Angeles or even Des Moines tomorrow, do you doubt that even President Kerry (cough, cough) would hesitate before retaliating in kind? Oh, but that would be retaliation, wouldn't it? And would it not therefore be a fair response? And what about propaganda? It's not as if the enemy doesn't use it – so why should our government be so restrained? Especially when our stuff is pretty damn innocent? [Read the rest]
Home run!
The second, and more important argument made by Matt is on the effectiveness of propaganda. Even if it is moral to use, it should not be if it does more harm than good:
Is unlabeled propaganda a useful weapon? In the long run I don't think it is. First, people will eventually find out, either from military officials alarmed at the practice, or Iraqi journalists with whatever motive. As most dictators have eventually learned, truth [ed note: emphasis mine] has a way breaking through even the tightest of seals.
The major problem here is the assumption that propaganda produced by the U.S. military may not be true. To believe propaganda is always based on lies is to fundamentally misunderstand the definition of propaganda. Propaganda is the use of information to a specific ends, or the use of information (which may be true) to further specific goals.
And as long as we're playing with effete American League rules, why not send in two pinch-hitters for Shackleford (after all, I'm a pitcher not a catcher)? Now batting for Rusty Shackleford, Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdon:
....the actual “outing†of the propaganda effort by the LAT is, ironically, the only thing that might cause the effort to backfire—but then, we murder to dissect, as they say....
Taking this parallel one step further, let me add that our use of propaganda seems to me to fit this paradigm perfectly, insofar as we have used it to beat back the anti-American rhetoric coming not only from the Arab world, but from the western press as well.
Or to put it more bluntly, this campaign was designed to retaliate not only against enemy propaganda in Iraq and other parts of the middle east, but ironically (and sadly) against our very own media, whose coverage has been almost uniformly sensationalistic and dire. [Read the rest]
Ouch. If not a Grand Slam then at least a two-run homer.
UPDATE: Wunderkraut sends me a link to this nifty graphic from File It Under. Click it for a larger view and then go check out the original post here.
1
Nice work, Professor. Matt keeps on hammering on the point that *all* propaganda is useless or worse, without ever quite saying exactly how.
I don't know about you, but I'm a little tired with the whole thing. And when I say "the whole thing," I mean this hipper-than-thou libertarian pose that anything emanating from the Pentagon must be lies.
Posted by: Stephen Green at December 02, 2005 12:10 PM (QzFHt)
2
I am pretty confident that the "propaganda"in both the newspapers and the purchased Iraqi radio station was seen by most Iraqis for exactly what it was, propoganda. Do you think that this "outing" came as a surprise to the Iraqis ? Who do you think has a better idea of what is going on in Iraq ? Americans or Iraqis ? Did the pictures of abu Gharib come more of a shock to Americans or Iraqis ? For any propaganda to be useful, it must be believed.
Posted by: john Ryan at December 02, 2005 12:28 PM (ads7K)
3Did the pictures of abu Gharib come more of a shock to Americans or Iraqis ?
Pictures from when? If you're talking about Graner, et. al., from what I understand, the Iraqis were impressed that we owned up to the abuses and punished the abusers.
If you're talking about pictures from Saddam's regime, then I don't think they've seen much circulation here in the US. Too nasty for the press to let us know about, apparently -- not that covering up for Saddam's reign of terror is propaganda. No siree. That's just good journalism, protecting sources.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at December 02, 2005 12:46 PM (1j9aH)
It is a sad fact that we even have to be doing this to help offset our own media. But that is the part that the Left can not understand. See, to them we have a nice fair and balanced media.
Like I posted today: It's not like these stories are fake or false. No, they are stories about schools and hospitals and clean water and sanitation. Damn, our guys are EVIL!
File It Under has an awesome post about this today along with a great graphic.
Posted by: WunderKraut at December 02, 2005 01:42 PM (0yMxr)
6
The loneliest job in the world must be the public affairs officers working at http://www.centcom.mil
They release hundreds of positive stories in Iraq, and Afghanistan showing progress in both rebuilding the countries, and individual acts of charity by Units/Soldiers, other than Jawa and LGF I cannot remember anyone citing centcom as a source, and I don't think I can recall reading any of them on the site and seeing them on TV.
Posted by: dave at December 02, 2005 02:43 PM (CcXvt)
7
I wonder if those who object to gov't funding or furnishing of information that is intended to sway minds feel the same way about gov't funded or legislated information campaigns intended to reduce smoking, encourage seat-belt use, discourage racism, discourage teenage drinking and drug use, etc?
I wonder, but I think I can guess fairly accurately.
Posted by: DSmith at December 02, 2005 08:20 PM (xDhz9)
8
One question I have for those who think this propaganda is harmful to the mission is: Should the US never counter or promote itself in the Iraqi and Arabic media? Should we sit around with our thumbs up our collective @ss and not respond to the misinfomation and propaganda issued by the MSM and terrorists? That seems like a route to certain disaster under Vodkapundit's conjecture that the WoT is as much a media/information war as it is a hot conflict.
We are already disliked and distrusted by the majority of the Arab world, damaged done, for better or worse, our fault or not. You can't break a glass twice. Facts and emphasis on real projects and iniatives can't do anymore damage.
In a more tame arena, the Clinton's famous war-room was designed to counter and beat back all claims by the Bush team quickly. Now the American people distrust politicians and PR spokesholes as much then as they do now. I have yet to hear or read any negative consequences of the Clinton war-room, rather we are told again and again that the war-room was a big part of the campaign that got the Clintons into office.
Posted by: adamthemad at December 02, 2005 09:05 PM (Mv4Mu)
9
Agent Jones says that in the name of GAOTU, all crimes are leased.
Posted by: Agent Smith at December 02, 2005 10:53 PM (Y5zcg)
10
When did people with Welch's views become libertarians? I like to read the guy and think he is smart, but a libertarian? I always wondered why he called himself that, maybe it was the legalization issue? What I'm saying is that he seems pretty freakin' Left to me.
Posted by: Pepys at December 02, 2005 11:38 PM (TMQ/j)
11
Agent Jones has found photo images taken from Iraq at http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/albums.php?set_albumListPage=1
Posted by: Agent Smith at December 03, 2005 06:43 AM (gQOoS)
12
HEY! Obscure 80s refs in general, and "Electric Boogaloo" specifically is MY dohicky. I have a, well, .... , I pissed on that tree first.
Well, I will share in with the good Dr. Shackleford....that is the least I can do. I am honored that it isn't as dorky as Mrs. Salamander says.
Harumph.
Word to your mother!
Posted by: CDR Salamander at December 03, 2005 07:30 AM (RAU18)
13
The fact of the matter is that the LAT and NYT reporters have committed treason. I mean that as a matter of fact, not hyperbole. Deliberately exposing the Pentagon's propaganda/counter-propaganda program was an act in no substantial way different than publishing the routes and sailing times of convoys would have been during WWII.
These "journalists" deserve to spend the rest of their days in prison, or worse. No joke, no tongue-in-cheek here.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 03, 2005 02:54 PM (0yYS2)
15
Agent Smith hereby nominates Judith Miller and William Kristol as recipients of the Architect's "Treason Award".
Posted by: Agent Smith at December 03, 2005 09:51 PM (VDGim)
16
DSmith: Spend my tax dollars to discourage racism. Now that is what I call a waste of money. Racism rules and us racists are growing in number every day. White people must be racist to protect themselves from the ghetto loving liberals in our government.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 04, 2005 07:39 AM (gvOyZ)