Fat Steve's Blatherings

Well, I'm Up

2006-03-17T01:24:00.000-06:00

I just dropped in because Betsy Newmark of the fabulous Betsy's Page can't find her blog. And when the rest of us try, we get an "access not authorized page." Viking Pundit, Stolen Thunder, and Polipundit are all having this problem too.

Look like I got out at the right time (see previous post, or use the link).

Technorati tags:

Blogger, incompetence, Betsy Newmark.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

And That's ALL Folk's

2006-03-01T05:10:00.000-06:00

Now that Blogger is working again, I'm leaving, for good.

As I said here, with Google cooperating with Chinese tyranny, I'm gone. Being lazy, it took me a while, but now I'm out of here.

The NEW blog with the NEW title is here. Same old opinionated blathering, soon to have RSS and Atom Feed when I can figure them out.

To all blogger employees, I say: 'Nothing personal, just principle.' Sincerely, it was nice while it lasted.

I'd like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to "Towering Barbarian" for the suggestion that led to my new title, and to Pamela Geller Oshry of Atlas Shrugs for suggesting the new hosting site.

My last substantive Blogger post is here. But I'm not here, anymore.

Technorati tags: "Atlas Shrugs", Blogger, Google, Pamela Geller Oshry, Rants and Rayguns, Stephen M. St. Onge, Towering Barbarian.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

Back to the Grind

2006-03-01T05:06:00.000-06:00

I've been busy the last two days, sending an e-mail to every member of Congress (or trying to; some, the delivery failed, a few I couldn't defeat their protections against being bothered by citizens). The subject was the idiot decision to fund the Palestinian Authority, which I execrated here.

And currently (12:08 CST, 3/1/06), Blogger appears to be down. Oh well, I'm writing this in Notepad TM***, and will post it later.

Catching up on the web, Powerline has a fine post on a UN "human rights" conference. Glenn sums it up nicely:

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, and The U.N. cares about human rights.

Glenn also has an item immediately under that one, about a manifesto against Islamofascism that's worth reading. Significantly, the writers reject multi-culturalism, and by name.

Blogger update: Now its up, at 12:31, sort of, with new colors on the html composition pane. Almost makes me regret I'm leaving them because Google owns them.

No, it's not up, the attempt to post fails. But I cleverly saved the text first.

3:32 AM: Trying again. Failed. 4:03, trying again. No, "This server is currently experiencing a problem. An engineer has been notified and will investigate.

Status code: 1-500-11"

And now it's 5:07, I'll try again . . .

Technorati tags: Blogger, Islamofascism, lies, United Nations.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

Today's Religious War News

2006-02-26T14:45:00.000-06:00

Today's news mostly revolves around the will to dhimmitude.

As Mark Steyn says in the Chicago Sun-Times:

Something very remarkable is happening around the globe and, if you want the short version, a Muslim demonstrator in Toronto the other day put it very well:

"We won't stop the protests until the world obeys Islamic law."

Stated that baldly it sounds ridiculous. But, simply as a matter of fact, every year more and more of the world lives under Islamic law: Pakistan adopted Islamic law in 1977, Iran in 1979, Sudan in 1984. Four decades ago, Nigeria lived under English common law; now, half of it's in the grip of sharia, and the other half's feeling the squeeze, as the death toll from the cartoon jihad indicates. But just as telling is how swiftly the developed world has internalized an essentially Islamic perspective. In their pitiful coverage of the low-level intifada that's been going on in France for five years, the European press has been barely any less loopy than the Middle Eastern media.

The I'd-like-to-teach-the-world-to-sing-in-perfect-harmonee crowd have always spoken favorably of one-worldism. From the op-ed pages of Jutland newspapers to les banlieues of Paris, the Pan-Islamists are getting on with it.

(HT: Dr. Sanity)

You should read all of Steyn's column. The only thing I can add to what he said is that the one-world crowd always expected that they would be in charge of the global dictatorship. But still, they'd rather see a Muslim-run global dictatorship than no global dictatorship at all.

There's a little resistance going on (story also archived here):

Plans by a Republican student group at UC Irvine to showcase the controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that led to violent protests around the world are drawing condemnation from Muslim groups and university officials.

The caricatures will be part of a panel discussion sponsored by the campus College Republicans scheduled for Tuesday at 7 p.m. in UCI's Crystal Cove Auditorium.

"We are firm believers in the 1st Amendment," said Kristin Lucero, a 21-year-old UCI senior and president of the campus College Republicans. "The public has the right to discuss as well as view the cartoons."

Lucero said the cartoons depicting Muhammad, first published by a Danish newspaper, would be displayed along with what she called anti-Semitic and anti-Western cartoons that have been published in Muslim nations. Depictions of Muhammad are prohibited under Islamic law.

[Muslim studen Marya] Bangee has asked the College Republicans to hold the event without showing the drawings. She said Muslim students fear the cartoons will incite violence locally.

That is the primary concern of university officials as well, said Sally Peterson, UCI's dean of students.

Five things worth noting in that story: first, the University officials are eager to surrender; second, the labeling of the Danish Muhammad cartoons as controversial, while the Jew hating and West hating cartoons are qualified "what she called;" third, the false statement that it's against Islamic law to depict Muhammad — we're weeks into the story, and a crucial detail like this is still wrong in a major metropolitan newspaper, the Los Angeles Dog Trainer. Fourth, the lameness of liberals and Democrats, who are letting the campus Republicans be the ones who stand up for freedom of expression.

Fifth, and most important, the crap about being afraid the cartoons will incite violence. BY WHOM? This is a threat by Muslim students that they will break the law if you displease them, and in any sane society legal steps would immediately be taken to them. But as noted, the University officials want to surrender.

The Washington Post has a story about four British cartoonists. All of them are cowards who wouldn't dare offend Muslims, but only one has the moral courage to admit that his motivation is fear of what the ragheads would do to him.

The World Council of Churches is also eager for dhimmitude and dictatorship. But that's nothing new for them.

In Germany, a man who printed "Koran" on rolls of toilet tissue and offered them for sale has been convicted of insulting a religion, namely Islam. I have no quarrel with this, if the law is also used against those who insult any other religion. Somehow, though, I doubt it is being enforced evenhandedly.

And in a story so disgusting, it makes me consider voting Democratic, I find the U.S. will apparently continue funding the Jew hating Palestinians. Predictably, the Palis responded to this by threatening us. And who can blame them? Anyone still stupid enough to attempt to appease Muslims deserves to have the Muslims spit on him.

I'll be writing the Republican leadership in Congress, and my Congresscritters, saying that this must be stopped, and that I will vote against anyone letting this go through.

Technorati tags: blackmail, British cartoonists, Bush Administration, cowardice, Danish Muhammad cartoons, Democrats, dhimmitude, dictatorship, freedom of expression, intimidation, liberals, Muslims, Palestinian Authority, Republicans, sharia law, Mark Steyn, stupidity, University of California, Irvine, War With Islam, World Council of Churches.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

Reality is NOT Important!

2006-02-25T21:52:00.000-06:00

The International News Safety Institute says that journalists shouldn't carry guns in Iraq, just because journalists get murdered there:

"A journalist with a gun says 'some people in the situation I'm covering are my enemies and I am prepared to kill them if necessary'. That is not the position of a neutral civilian."

Yes, much better to die than to seem non-neutral.

Technorati tags: MSM, stupidity.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

"Show Courage!"

2006-02-25T20:06:00.000-06:00

So The New York Times advises "moderate Muslims" to show courage. They must stand up to the "radical Islamists" who are using the situation to intimidate political enemies.

This from "the newspaper of record" that refused to reprint them.

HT: Little Green Footballs, and stunned disbelief from Michelle Malkin, Captain Ed, Judith Klinghoffer, and All Things Beautiful.

Technorati tags: buffoonery, courage, cowardice, hypocrisy, MSM, New York Times.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

MSM Dishonest

2006-02-25T19:08:00.000-06:00

It's not just American anymore.

HT: Betsy Newmark.

Technorati tags: bias, MSM.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

If You're Not a Fellow Minnesotan . . .

2006-02-23T16:21:00.000-06:00

. . . you may be unaware of the ad surpression efforts being made by our local Democrats. But they're worth knowing about, regardless of where you live.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

I Don't Know Whether to Be Encouraged or Discouraged

2006-02-23T16:12:00.000-06:00

Iraq remains tense, but the violence doesn't seem too bad, yet. And A Free Iraqi thinks the worst is endurable, perhaps beneficial in the long run.

God's mercy on Iraq, I pray.

Technorati tags: Iraq, mosque bombings, terrorism.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

Shreds of Courage

2006-02-23T15:41:00.000-06:00

The Washington Post shows a few shreds of courage by publishing this op-ed on the MSM's cowardly refusal to publish the Muhammad Cartoons.

Technorati tags: courage, cowardice, Danish Muhammad cartoons, MSM, Washington Post.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

Unconscious MSM Bias

2006-02-23T13:37:00.000-06:00

I always find it interesting to watch the ways the MSM reveals its hidden assumptions without intending to. There's an excellent example up from the New York Times (here; also here when the Times free link goes bad).

The Times reports:
French Officials Now Say Killing of Jew Was in Part a Hate Crime
By ARIANE BERNARD and CRAIG S. SMITH
Published: February 23, 2006

PARIS, Feb. 22 — French authorities say a young Jewish man who was tortured and killed here this month was singled out because of his religion, supporting claims by French Jews that his killing was in part a hate crime. . . .

France has struggled to strike a balance between suppressing anti-Semitism within the country's large Muslim community and addressing rising anti-Islamic sentiments in the broader population. The government was widely criticized several years ago for responding sluggishly to an outbreak of anti-Semitic incidents.

Now tell me, why should "anti-semitism," or, as it's known in honest language, Jew hatred, have anything to do with Muslims? Why would suppressing Jew hatred, among Muslims or anyone else, cause "anti-Islamic sentiments in the broader population" to rise? The Times doesn't say. The Times doesn't care to admit the fact that almost all Muslims hate Jews, that this Jew hatred is systematically stirred up by Muslim religious and political leaders, that the Muslim leaders do this as a way of diverting the Muslim masses from their own dictatorship, and that Western civilization is engaged in a war with Islam. The Times, after all, hates Western civilization too, and wants to see it destroyed.

The Times won't admit this, not even to itself, because it's afraid of what will happen when the enemy wins — and with reason. A lot of the MSM will be the first beheaded if the Muslims ever take us over. But as they kneel, they'll partially exult at the thoughts of all the others who'll be following them. Ayn Rand nailed this sentiment in Atlas Shrugged.

But admit it or not, the Times knows that the Muslims hate the Jews and the West, and are at work to destroy both. The Times knows that France is in the process of a long surrender to its next set of conquerors, and that French officials will dance back and forth on this issue, periodically pretending to crack down on Muslim violence against Jews, while not actually taking any decisive acts. Even Nicolas Sarkozy, who's supposed to be a hard-ass on the subject of Muslims, can't bring himself to say that flatly that the people who kidnapped a Jew, held him for ransom, and tortured him to death because he was a Jew are just plain Jew haters.

If I were in charge of the U.S. government, I'd be trying to make a list of "left wing" and "right wing" Europeans, and making sure that only those on the "right wing" list were approved if they wanted to immigrate here. We'll be getting a lot of scared Europeans as the scimitar falls. European leftists, especially French ones, deserves what will happen to them when the Muslims rule there.

Technorati tags: bias, France, Ilan Halami, Jew Hatred, Jews, MSM, Muslims, New York Times, Nicolas Sarkozy, War with Islam.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

Concealed Good News For Republicans

2006-02-22T21:24:00.000-06:00

Update: Dr. Sanity has more news about the Democratic Dilemma.

Larry Summers, President of Harvard, resigned after five years on the job.

As this article notes, Summers was hired by the Harvard Board to modernize the institution. But attempting to do so angered the Leftists, who kept pushing to get rid of him. They succeeded.

Summers was Treasury Secretary under Clinton, and was known as tough. But as Stanley Kurtz points out, he's part of the "moderate" wing of the Democrats, rather than the Leftist wing. The Leftists despise Summers and all he stands for. Summers, according to Kurtz and the Times, wants to advise a Democratic Presidential nomination candidate. Apparently, Summers figured that if he didn't resign, the Left would fight him at Harvard and in the Donkey party.

As with all appeasement of radicals, this won't work. The Left will continue to jump on Summers, Harvard will stay left wing, and the Democrats will almost certainly nominate a lefty or someone who appeases the leftists for the Presidency.

Which means, a likely Republican victory in 2008.

All articles linked to above are also here.

Ht: Dr. Sanity.

Technorati tags: 2008 Presidential Campaign, Clinton Administration, Democrats, Alan Dershowitz, Harvard, Stanley Kurtz, leftists, moderates, Republicans, Amy Shales, Larry Summers.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

Image Problem

2006-02-22T04:13:00.000-06:00

I used up my free monthly quota at Flickr, and when I tried to buy a "Pro" account, they made it so inconvenient that I said "forget you, Flickr," or words similar to that (I think the first one was shorter, but I'm sure it started with 'f').

So that means I can't post this 'cartoon' of seriously anti-Islamic images on this site, or at my Archives. But I suggest you go take a look. You shouldn't have any trouble figuring out which one I mean.

Update: See also the cartoons on this page, this one, this one, this one, and this one.

Technorati tags: terrorism, terrorists, War With Islam.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

Hello, All

2006-02-20T19:46:00.000-06:00

Sorry to have been gone the past few days, but I wasn't feeling very well. Also, it's mind-numbingly cold, which tends to slow me down. And I seemed to be coming down with a cold. And I had things to catch up on, after the weekend of torture. And my dog ate the internet.

So, let's look at the West's War With Islam. The Cartoon Flap Continues, with at least ten killed in Libya, sixteen in Nigeria, and more elsewhere. The current known deathtoll is 45. For the moment, the best place I've found to keep up with developments is Yahoo's religion news.

The Washington Post had an "anatomy" of the controversy that was interesting as much for what it didn't say as what it did. The thing about the protests is that nothing happened until Danish Muslims got in touch with various Middle Eastern governments. This, and other things, raises the suspicion that the whole protest was deliberately stirred up by anti-Western, anti-democratic governments. The Post, in a stunning display of stupidity, put just enough references to this into their story to say that they were aware of it, while absolutely refusing to pursue the issue. You can read both the story, and my letter to the Post, here.

To their credit, the Post did publish an op-ed by Flemming Rose of Jyllands-Posten, explaining why he ran the cartoons in the first place. If you're registered with the Post, you can read it here. Otherwise, it's here in my archives, along with my letter to Mr. Rose.

And I finally found a source for the other cartoons the Danish Muslims took with them to the Middle East. You can find them here.

Technorati tags: Danish Muhammad cartoons, Fake Danish Muhammad cartoons, Flemming Rose, War with Islam, Washington Post.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

What a Bunch of Self-Righteous Idiots

2006-02-15T23:16:00.000-06:00

The Washington Post won't publish the Muhammad cartoons. They'd be offensive, and in bad taste.

But they did publish the armless, legless veteran cartoon, without worrying if anyone might be offended by that. And the Post Omsbudswoman says:

Most good newspapers don't set out to offend readers. But newspapers shouldn't avoid controversy, and if they don't occasionally offend readers, they're probably not doing their job.

So if you're offended, they did their job, and if your not offended, they did their job. The important thing to remember is, they're always right. The MSM is right not to publish the cartoons, and if they did publish them, that would be right too.

And what's truly amazing is, they expect us to believe they aren't flinching from cowardice.

Technorati tags: courage, cowardice, Danish Muhammed Cartoons, MSM, Washington Post.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

More on the Orchestration of the Cartoon Flap

2006-02-15T19:56:00.000-06:00

Jyllands-Posten has a new article on way Danish Muslims brewed up the present "controversy," in cooperation with diplomats from Muslim countries, and by using a lot of lies. It's available in Danish, or translated into English on Captain's Quarters. Go read.

Meanwhile, there's a nice article in The Australian about the manipulation of Muslims, the value clashes between East and West, and the idiocy of it all. Here's one very good shot:

Monty Python's biting satire of religion, Life Of Brian, as well as Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation [of Christ] and Terence McNally's Corpus Christi, each triggered protests, but not violence.

"With Life of Brian we were vilified," recalls Monty Python's Terry Gilliam. "Yet Christianity is alive and well. If your religion is so vulnerable that a little bit of disrespect is going to bring it down, it's not worth believing in frankly."

Perhaps that's the most important revelation in all this otherwise meaningless brouhaha. The Muslim world isn't ready for prime time. Muslims, as a group, aren't mature enough to deal with the modern world.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

Nightmare

2006-02-15T18:51:00.000-06:00

The Anchoress channels Stephen King, conceiving of a John McCain/Hillary Clinton ticket.

And then, it gets worse.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

Who Knew

2006-02-15T16:48:00.000-06:00

that Popular Mechanics did investigative reporting?

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

This is Droll

2006-02-15T10:17:00.000-06:00

The New York Times had a story on Democratic Party woes a few days ago (also here), and it revolves around the dilemma the Democrats have faced since 2002. They need to be:

Different from Bush and the Republicans;
Specific about their proposed policies;
Acceptable to the lefties who control the primaries;
Convincing to the general public.

Well, they failed in 2002, and in 2004, and for 2006:

Democrats said they had not yet figured out how to counter the White House’s long assault on their national security credentials. And they said their opportunities to break through to voters with a coherent message on domestic and foreign policy — should they settle on one — were restricted by the lack of an established, nationally known leader to carry their message this fall.

Yeah, I can see how not having any policies is a problem for a politician.

But it's very funny to see some reactions from lefties that I happened across. "Atrios" is mad because reporter Adam Nagourney didn't fawn on Kerry during the 2004 campaign. Instead, Nagourney emphasized Kerry's troubles in coming up with a message. Apparently, he thinks that if Nagourney and the Times had kept saying Kerry would win, it would have been a self-fullfilling prophecy.

And Matt Stoller apparently thinks the Democrats should just say 'If you don't like the way things are, vote Democratic,' without proposing any alternative policies.

Digby (whom I may have known in California, but I'm not sure), says the Democrats should lay it on the line. 'This is what I believe, this is what I'd do,' all in very specific terms. Alas, when someone like Dean does this, he alienates vast numbers of swing voters. When someone like Lieberman does it, he alienates Democratic activists. Would you rather lose the primary, or the general election?

As Tom Lehrer said, if people can't communicate, the least they can do is shut up. So, guys, stop screaming at reporters, and 'party leaders,' and start telling us what you want the government to do.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

The Phony Mohammad as Pig Cartoon

2006-02-15T08:41:00.000-06:00

See where it really came from.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

I Don't Think This Will Play

2006-02-15T07:27:00.000-06:00

Mickey Kaus thinks Democrats should run in 2006 and 2008 on a "Return to Normalcy" platform. The advantages, as he sees them:

1) It covers a lot: The essential premise is that Bush has stretched the military, the Constitution and the civility of our politics to the limit in reaction to the threat of future 9/11s. All this fevered straining and leveraging may have been appropriate at the time, but there's no real need to keep running in hyperdrive. We can routinize the anti-terror struggle the way we routinized the Cold War, when just as much was at stake. We don't have to make an end run around the Constitution or a duly-passed statute (wiretapping). We don't have to torture prisoners or hold them forever without hearings. We don't have to slight disaster relief (Katrina) because the Department of Homeland Security worries only about terrorists. We don't have to unmask CIA agents in a desperate effort to build a case for war. ** We don't have to alienate our allies. We don't have to run giant deficits to finance our armed forces, as if the "Global War on Terror" were a temporary crisis that will be over in three years. It's not. It's a semi-permanent part of the landscape. Democrats can contain the terrorist threat the way, for four decades, they helped contain the Russians--while (as during the Cold War) we allow ourselves to turn our attention to domestic problems such as health care and Social Security.

2) It not only changes the focus from foreign policy (on which Dems tend to lose) to domestic policy (where Dems are poised to win)--it does this a) without minimizing the importance of the anti-terror effort but also b) without requiring the public to decide that Democrats are actually better equipped to fight Al Qaeda. All they have to decide is that the Dems are right to say, "We can handle it. " Wright wants a full-blooded campaign that tells voters the Bush approach to the terror, including the Iraq War, is "completely wrongheaded." But Iraq has already been invaded--whoever is president is going to have to deal with the reality that exists now. The abnormal--an experiment in Iraqi democracy--is now the normal. Or, rather, it needs to be the normal. Isn't it easier to simply convince the public that a Dem approach will be just as effective at making the best of that situation, at a tolerable casualty level? Democrats, after all, already have the votes of Americans who think Bush's approach is "completely wrongheaded." And the mere goal of "returning to normalcy" will by itself do a lot to decathect the terror war abroad, without suggesting a reversal or retreat.

3) It bridges over the rift within the Democratic Party without seeming to be a vague compromise. The idea that Bush has gone a bit crazy trying to remake history after 9/11 incorporates a fairly severe critique of his presidency, all the more powerful because it is accurate. At the same time, "normalcy"--or whatever synonym you prefer--rhetorically counters the idea that Dems are the wacky, fringe, cultural boundary-pushing party of drugs, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. Mudcat Saunders will be happy. (Or else it implies that gay unions, tolerance, self-medication, etc. now are the normal American institutions--so Frank Rich will be happy too. Win-win!)

Kaus frequently writes about liberals and Democrats being in a cocoon that keeps them from hearing dissent, but I think this shows that he's stuck in it too. Let's examine this.

First, the phrase "Return to Normalcy" echoes Harding's "Back to Normalcy" of 1920. We were washing our hands of stupid European affairs. We'd be just fine, disdaining the old world. The results of that policy were Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. Hundreds of thousands of USAmericans died in the wars we could have stopped pretty easily if we'd acted in 1918-1920. Not a great slogan.

"The essential premise is that Bush has stretched the military, the Constitution and the civility of our politics to the limit in reaction to the threat of future 9/11s." Well, there haven't been any more 9/11s. Mickey's essential platform here is going to be that the Democrats can do just as well, but with much less effort.

Cue the news stories about the first World Trade Center bombing; the retreat from Somalia; the defiance of Clinton by Saddam; the embassy bombings in Africa; the USS Cole; 9/11 itself, planned during the Clinton years. The last time the Democrats were in charge of stopping terrorism, they didn't do so well. Are they going to advocate a return to failed policies? If not, just what will they do?

"We can routinize the anti-terror struggle the way we routinized the Cold War, when just as much was at stake." During the "routine" Cold War, the Democrats threatened war with the Soviet Union over Iran; supported Greece and Turkey against the USSR and it's puppets; rebuilt much of Europe, kept our first large scale peacetime standing military, and entered an "entangling alliance;" ran the soft-on-Communism crowd out of the Democratic Party; went to war in Korea (33,651 dead); built the H-bomb; went to war in Viet Nam (58,868 dead); and threatened "central war" with the Soviets in 1963. Compared to that performance, Bush doesn't look like he's straining the country. Wasn't the left decrying our lack of civilian "sacrifice" not long ago? Now the story is, we're doing too much. And the casualties in Iraq are horrible, but after the Gulf War, the problem was, our casualties were too low! This kind of 'Whatever is, is wrong' sentiment won't win elections.

"We don't have to make an end run around the Constitution or a duly-passed statute (wiretapping)." And we don't have the faintest idea of whether Bush did that or not. We don't know if the program violated any laws. There are suspicions, though, that it was leaked to the media, illegally, by a Democratic senator. Kaus proposes that Congress be told all about this, and then they will, in utter secrecy, pass a law that will allow the NSA to do something, we won't know what, and limiting the amount of surveillance currently being done, but without increasing the risks of successful terrorist attack. Good luck on accomplishing all that.

Then, having pulled off this legal tour de force, the Democrats will run as the people who will protect the U.S. from terror while obeying the law. Well, if the Democrats want to run on a platform of 'If a known terrorist abroad calls someone in the U.S., we promise we won't listen in till a judge says we have probable cause to believe the person in the U.S. is going to commit a crime, and if that means we miss another 9/11, well, that price is worth paying,' than as a Republican I say "YIPPEE!" As a patriot, though, I think it's awful for the country for the Democrats to do that to themselves. If, on the other hand, they aren't going to restrict the present surveillance activities, then they'll be running on the platform of 'We were against wiretapping before we were for it.' That will be fun.

"We don't have to torture prisoners or hold them forever without hearings." Cue stories of released prisoners who took part in later terrorist attacks. I await the campaign speeches about how letting terrorists go free improves U.S. security with eagerness.

"We don't have to slight disaster relief (Katrina) because the Department of Homeland Security worries only about terrorists." Cue stories about incompetence of Louisiana Democrats, and the exaggerations of the media concerning Katrina.

"We don't have to unmask CIA agents in a desperate effort to build a case for war." You going to try that one?!?!?!?! We still don't know who in the MSM knew Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA employee, we don't know that she was "unmasked," we don't know who said what to whom, but we do know that the MSM is desperate to avoid answering questions on these issues — AND that the Democratic-leaning media has exposed covert CIA air operations; done stories about secret prisons; and exposed an anti-terrorist intelligence operation that most people approve of. And the Donks are going to run as the non-leakers? ROTFLMAO!

"We don't have to alienate our allies." 'We'll let the French have a veto power over our foreign policy' — yeah, that's a real electoral winner. And if you say that they won't have a veto, then some nasty GOP person is going to ask 'What will you do when you disagree with our so-called allies, and how can you guarantee that you'll never have to make a choice between alienating them and protecting the U.S.? Explain to us how you'll decide when to do what the "allies" approve of, and when you'll just act unilaterally.' Kerry couldn't give a straight answer to that question, because it would alienate a large part of the electorate if he did. Now Kaus wants to do a replay. Unbelievable.

Kaus wants to convince the voters that the Democrats can handle national security competently. To do that, the Dems have to say, 'These are the actions Bush took that we will stop . . ., and these are the actions he isn't taking that we will do . . .' And they're going to have to be specific, as well as convince the voters their plan would work. Yet Kaus has no idea what that plan would be. In fact, he thinks the lack of specifics is a virtue, because it won't alienate any Democrats.

More vagueness: "We don't have to run giant deficits to finance our armed forces, as if the "Global War on Terror" were a temporary crisis that will be over in three years. It's not. It's a semi-permanent part of the landscape. Democrats can contain the terrorist threat the way, for four decades, they helped contain the Russians--while (as during the Cold War) we allow ourselves to turn our attention to domestic problems such as health care and Social Security." And during the Cold War, I don't think the Democrats ran a single balanced budget. This is the old 'Gut the armed forces and spend 150% of the savings on domestic programs' strategy. As soon as Democrats start yelling about deficits, Republicans will ask them to propose cuts in spending to balance the budget. The Donks won't comply. This will appeal only to the anti-military crowd, who are already on board.

Kaus's whole strategy can be summed up as 'Pretend 9/11 never happened, and go back to 1993. Hope that nothing bad happens as a result.' I can see why a Democrat would want to run on that (it's something that might allow Clinton or Bayh or Biden to get the nomination without moving so far left a loss is guaranteed in the general election), but again, it didn't work for Big John, so why assume it will work for anyone else? The Republicans will brand the Dems as flip-floppers, and it will work because they will be flip-flopping.

But for really insane wishful thinking, you can't beat paragraph 3). A plan with no specifics won't be seen as vague. Refusing to tell anyone what you will do will satisfy the hate-America left, the liberal hawks, and enough swing voters to get elected. Saying 'We're normal' is going to make all those cultural and religious issues that cost the Democrats victories in the last five elections go away. This is totally detached from reality.

What we have here is denial. Kaus knows what's wrong with the Democratic Party: it's in thrall to special interests and single issue groups that damage the country. He knows that this has to end. And he doesn't believe it will end. But his sentimental attachment to the Democrats is so strong, he can't bear to say that they have no reasonable prospects for a national victory in the foreseeable future.

Once upon a time, the Democratic Party faced a similar challenge. It was 1946, and the Cold War was heating up. Henry A. Wallace, former Vice-President, current Secretary of Commerce, was apologizing for the Soviets. Truman fired him, and the liberals of the day created the Americans for Democratic Action and forced the Wallace Democrats right out of the party (that story is also here), and Truman went on to win the election, and cement the Democrats as the majority party of the U.S. Today's Democrats need to repeat the performance of the old ADA. But they won't. Sad.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

A Valiant, Doomed Effort

2006-02-15T05:14:00.000-06:00

Glenn Reynolds tried to explain reality to CNN. Predictably, they didn't get it.

Technorati tags: CNN, MSM.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

Same Old Song

2006-02-14T20:33:00.000-06:00

There's a story in The New York Times (and also here) about how many Democrats are getting nervous they'll blow the elections in the fall because they don't have a message.

*YAWN* No, they don't have a message. That's because a large part of their party is anti-Americans whose only desire is to see the country 'as it is' destroyed, and a large part stands for nothing but bigger government, higher taxes, and more regulation under all circumstances. The majority doesn't agree with this, or with the pre-emptive surrender, contempt for the U.S., and worship of Europe that makes up the entirety of the Donks foreign policy.

The only interesting question left concerning the Democratic Party is 'How long till they either collapse or wise up?'

Technorati tags: Democrats.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

A Much Needed Clarification

2006-02-14T19:38:00.000-06:00

We'll Take That as a 'Yes'
"They want to test our feelings. They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers."--"protester" Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra in Afghanistan, quoted by the BBC, Feb. 6

Also here, if the above link stops working. Hat tip: Best of the Web Today.

Meanwhile, Austin Bay puts the controversy into the context of information warfare, Amir Taheri tells the truth about depictions of Muhammad and jokes about Islam, and Stratfor had a very interesting analysis on this, which I got in the mail, and archived here. (It may also be available on their site somewhere.) Who are the winners from all this? The answer may surprise you.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!

Funny Picture

2006-02-14T17:28:00.000-06:00

Here. Look closely at the hands.

Technorati tags: Hillary Clinton, lies, U.S. Military.

Google's Motto: Don't Be Evil — UNLESS IT PAYS REALLY WELL!