"Incredibly Rational" Left Still Exists! Incredible!!!

After two centuries of general liberal decline into "romanticism" and "dream[iness]"

Yes, Virginia, there is an actual, non-legendary, incredibly rational element of the left still in existence.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board has interviewed him.

(The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board has a habit of scooping the elite media "reporters", including the Wall Street Journal "reporters".

(The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board was the first publisher of convincing evidence that a president of the United States had an earlier career as a serial rapist.

(That evidence was particularly convincing to experienced vice squad officers.

(And also, probably, swung the vote in the House of Representatives on impeachment. They had this and more evidence available for reading but not copying.

(The Senate, in its wisdom, unanimously ignored this evidence, as they unanimously ignored the implied constitutional right of the House to fully present its case and the implied constitutional right of the public to fully know that case.)

From a WSJ Opinion Journal article, Get Your Priorities Right:

Get Your Priorities Right [/] A rationalist crusader does the math on global warming. [/] BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL [/] Saturday, July 8, 2006 12:01 a.m.

NEW YORK--Bjorn Lomborg is a political scientist by training, but the charismatic, golden-haired Dane is offering me a history lesson. Two hundred years ago, he explains, sitting forward in his chair in this newspaper's Manhattan offices, the left was an "incredibly rational movement." It believed in "encyclopedias," in hard facts, and in the idea that mastery of these basics would help "make a better society." Since then, the world's do-gooders have succumbed to "romanticism; they've become more dreamy." This is a problem in his view, and so this "self-avowed slight lefty" is determined to nudge the whole world back toward "rationalism."

Well, if not the whole world, at least the people who matter. In Mr. Lomborg's universe that means the lawmakers and bureaucrats who are charged with solving the world's most pressing problems--HIV/AIDS, malaria, malnutrition, dirty water, trade barriers. This once-obscure Dane has in recent years risen to the status of international celebrity as the chief advocate of getting leaders to realize the world has limited resources to fix its problems, and that it therefore needs to prioritize.

Prioritization, cost-effectiveness, efficiency--these are the ultimate in rational thinking. (It strikes me they are the ultimate in "free markets," though Mr. Lomborg studiously avoids that term.) They are also nearly unheard-of concepts among the governments, international bodies and aid groups that oversee good works.

Mr. Lomborg's approach has been to organize events around the globe in which leaders are forced to think in new ways. His task is certainly timely, with groups like the U.N. engaged in debate over "reform," and philanthropists such as Warren Buffett throwing billions at charitable foundations. But, I ask, can the world really become more rational? "It's no use just talking about all the great things you'd like to accomplish--we've got to get there," says Mr. Lomborg.

Bjorn Lomborg busted--and that is the only word for it--onto the world scene in 2001 with the publication of his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." A one-time Greenpeace enthusiast, he'd originally planned to disprove those who said the environment was getting better. He failed. And to his credit, his book said so, supplying a damning critique of today's environmental pessimism. Carefully researched, it offered endless statistics--from official sources such as the U.N.--showing that from biodiversity to global warming, there simply were no apocalypses in the offing. "Our history shows that we solve more problems than we create," he tells me. For his efforts, Mr. Lomborg was labeled a heretic by environmental groups--whose fundraising depends on scaring the jeepers out of the public--and became more hated by these alarmists than even (if possible) President Bush.
Yet the experience left Mr. Lomborg with a taste for challenging conventional wisdom. In 2004, he invited eight of the world's top economists--including four Nobel Laureates--to Copenhagen, where they were asked to evaluate the world's problems, think of the costs and efficiencies attached to solving each, and then produce a prioritized list of those most deserving of money. The well-publicized results (and let it be said here that Mr. Lomborg is no slouch when it comes to promoting himself and his work) were stunning. While the economists were from varying political stripes, they largely agreed. The numbers were just so compelling: $1 spent preventing HIV/AIDS would result in about $40 of social benefits, [[N.B. This must be taken cum grano salis. Much would be misspent. HIVis a fabulous monster, actually. The economists are either ignorant of this or collaborators in the greatest all time medical hoax.]] so the economists put it at the top of the list (followed by malnutrition, free trade and malaria). In contrast, $1 spent to abate global warming would result in only about two cents to 25 cents worth of good; so that project dropped to the bottom.

"Most people, average people, when faced with these clear choices, would pick the $40-of-good project over others--that's rational," says Mr. Lomborg. "The problem is that most people are simply presented with a menu of projects, with no prices and no quantities. What the Copenhagen Consensus was trying to do was put the slices and prices on a menu. And then require people to make choices."

Easier said than done. As Mr. Lomborg explains, "It's fine to ask economists to prioritize, but economists don't run the world." (This sounds unfortunate to me, although Mr. Lomborg, the "slight lefty," quickly adds "Thank God.") "We now need to get the policy makers on board, the ones who are dealing with the world's problems." And therein lies the rub. Political figures don't like to make choices; they don't like to reward some groups and not others; they don't like to admit that they can't do it all. They are political. Not rational.

So all the more credit to Mr. Lomborg, who several weeks ago got his first big shot at reprogramming world leaders. His organization, the Copenhagen Consensus Center, held a new version of the exercise in Georgetown. In attendance were eight U.N. ambassadors, including John Bolton. (China and India signed on, though no Europeans.) They were presented with global projects, the merits of each of which were passionately argued by experts in those fields. Then they were asked: If you had an extra $50 billion, how would you prioritize your spending?

Mr. Lomborg grins and says that before the event he briefed the ambassadors: "Several of them looked down the list and said 'Wait, I want to put a No. 1 by each of these projects, they are all so important.' And I had to say, 'Yeah, uh, that's exactly the point of this exercise--to make you not do that.'" So rank they did. And perhaps no surprise, their final list looked very similar to that of the wise economists. At the top were better health care, cleaner water, more schools and improved nutrition. At the bottom was . . . global warming.

Wondering how all this might go over with Al Gore, I ask Mr. Lomborg if he'd seen the former vice president's new film that warns of a climate-change disaster. He's planning to, but notes he wasn't impressed by the trailers: "It appears to be so overblown that it isn't helpful to the discussion." Not that Mr. Lomborg doesn't think global warming is a problem--he does. But he lays out the facts. "The proposed way of fixing this--to drastically reduce carbon emissions now and to solve a 100-year problem in a 10-year time frame, is just a bad idea. You do fairly little good at a fairly high price. It makes more sense to solve the 100-year problem in a 50-year time frame, and solve the 10-year problems, like HIV-AIDS, in a five-year time frame. That makes sense, and is the smart way to spend money."

Slipping into his environmentalist's shoes, he also says people need to get some perspective. "The U.N. tells us global warming will result in a sea-level change of one to two feet. It is not going to be the 30 feet Al Gore is scaring us with. Is this one to two feet going to be a problem? Sure," he says. "But remember that this past century sea levels rose between one-third and a full foot. And if you ask old people today what the most important things were that happened in the 20th century, do you think they are going to say: 'Two world wars, the internal combustion engine, the IT revolution . . . and sea levels rose'? It's not to say it isn't a problem. But we fix these problems."

Perhaps Mr. Lomborg's greatest coup at the recent Copenhagen Consensus event was getting the attention of John Bolton, a foe of U.N. inefficiency and bureaucratic wheel-turning. "I called Bolton's secretary and we finally got them to agree and she said 'Okay, you can have him for one hour.' And I said 'No, we need him for two days.' And she laughed her heart out and said 'That's never going to happen.'" But happen it did, and Mr. Bolton [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] was an enthusiastic supporter, appearing with Mr. Lomborg to announce the results of the exercise and lamenting that too often at the U.N. "everything is a priority." There is already talk of a bigger U.N. event in the fall.

Still, it strikes me that simply getting the top folks to prioritize (which itself would be a minor miracle) is only a start. How does Mr. Lomborg intend to deal with a compartmentalized bureaucracy, where every unit claims it is sacred and each one is petrified of losing funding? Here, Mr. Lomborg himself turns a little less rational and a little more political. It's no accident that the consensus organizers tell its participants to consider what they'd do with an "extra" $50 billion. "Most of these guys, the day-to-day guys at the U.N., went into their business to 'do good.' And we need to appeal to that bigger sense of virtue. The best way to do that is talk about 'extra' money, so that they aren't worried about losing their own job."

Mr. Lomborg hopes that prioritization up top will inspire "competition" down below. "Most people work in their own circles--malaria guys talk to malaria guys, malnutrition guys to malnutrition guys. But if they understand that there are other projects out there, and that they also have price tags, and that the ones with the best performance are the ones that will get the extra money--you start to have an Olympics for best projects. And that means smarter ideas for how to solve problems." In fact, Mr. Lomborg wishes there were more Al Gores. "It's good we have someone educating about global warming. But we need Al Gores for HIV/AIDS, Al Gores for malnutrition, Al Gores for free trade, Al Gores for clean drinking water. We need all these Al Gores passionately roaming the earth with power-point presentations, making the case for their project. Because at that point, the real Al Gore would be slightly sidelined, since he's arguing for the most expensive cure that would do the least good."

Mr. Lomborg is smart enough to realize that what really bothers political leaders with this approach is that "it would be launching a ship and it's unknown where it will land. That makes people uncomfortable." A Copenhagen Consensus exercise for the Inter-American Development Bank in Latin America or for the Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. (both of which Mr. Lomborg is working to organize) could result in findings that suggest the leaders of these organizations have been throwing good money after bad for years.

"Right now, politicians know that in public they have to say they support all things, and suggest there is an infinite amount of money to give to an infinite amount of good causes. Semiprivately, they know that if they have 10 good causes, the easiest thing is to give one-tenth of the funds to each--so there are no complaints. But privately they know there isn't enough money for everything and that they probably should have given most of it to the one or two groups that would do the most good."

At the very least, the Copenhagen Consensus might make it harder for public figures to defend bad decisions. "If you have a rational list that tells you that you do a lot more good preventing HIV/AIDS, then those in favor of such projects have slightly better arguments. Those arguing for climate change have slightly worse arguments." And while this may not change the world, it could be a start. "The Consensus isn't about getting it perfectly right," says Mr. Lomborg. "It's about getting it slightly less wrong." [/] Ms. Strassel is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. [My ellipses and emphasis]

J :) POLL: Will North Korea Wake Up the U.S. Giant?

See article below. Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!! Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 99562!!!. (Choices also given after article below.)

I fear that we have aroused a sleeping giant. - Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, December 8th (in Japan), 1941

From a Reuters via Yahoo! article, N. Korea missile aimed at area off Hawaii - report:

Friday July 7, 8:06 AM [/] N. Korea missile aimed at area off Hawaii - report

TOKYO (Reuters) - A North Korean missile launched on Wednesday [Tuesday, July Fourth, in Hawaii] was aimed at an area of the ocean close to Hawaii, a Japanese newspaper reported on Friday.
Experts estimated the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile to have a range of up to 6,000 km, putting Alaska within its reach. Wednesday's launch apparently failed shortly after take-off and the missile landed in the sea between the Korean peninsula and Japan, a few hundred kilometres from the launch pad.

But data from U.S. and Japanese Aegis radar-equipped destroyers and surveillance aircraft on the missile's angle of take-off and altitude indicated that it was heading for waters near Hawaii, the Sankei Shimbun reported, citing multiple sources in the United States and Japan.

North Korea may have targeted Hawaii to show the United States that it was capable of landing a missile there, or because it is home to the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific fleet, the paper said. [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Poll Question: J :) POLL: Will North Korea Wake Up the U.S. Giant? | Poll choices:

1. Yes. The crazy tantrums will increase until vigorously stopped. / 2. Yes. Even U.S. preachers of diversity have limits, actually. / 3. Yes. If China approves of provocations. / 4. Yes. If China does not frown. / 5. Yes. Unless Japan defends itself pre-emptively. / 6. Yes. Unless Alaskan or Hawaiian patriots defend their states pre-emptively. / 7. Yes. Compassion and fairness has no prejudice. / 8. Yes, American niceness will reign until then. / 9. Yes. / 10. Possibly. Should be investigated by Kofi Annan. / 11. Possibly. But fairness and compassion toward all people more important. / 12. No. If they nuke Japan, who are we to cast stones? / 13. No. / 14. No. Their neighbors will restrain them. / 15. No. Their incompetence will restrain them. / 16. No. Our military will knock down their rockets before they get very far. / 17. No. Our government will pre-emptively destroy the launch facilities first. / 18. No. Bush will do whatever has to be done to ensure domestic tranquility. / 19. No comment. / 20. No opinion. / 21. This poll is worthless. / 22. This poll is of negative value. / 23. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 99562! Vote!! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!!

J :) POLL: Is Patriotism a Disease? The Flag a Symptom?

See article below. Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!! Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 99410!!!. (Choices also given after article below.)

Agence France-Presse (AFP): "Flag Epidemic" Peaks on Forth of July

The Stars and Stripes were displayed openly in only one place in Nazi occupied Europe all through World War II.

It was a symbol of hope.

It was in France. (Over the grave of the Marquis de Lafayette, an honorary American citizen.)

Agence France-Presse (AFP) forgets so soon. (American commander Pershing remembered and paid tribute, in 1917, to the great assistance of France in the founding our Nation, proclaiming "Lafayette, We are here!"

From a AFP via Breitbart.com article, US 'flag epidemic' reaches peak on Fourth of July:

US 'flag epidemic' reaches peak on Fourth of July [/] Jul 05 4:43 AM US/Eastern

It's a true epidemic: the red, white and blue, stars-and-stripes banners are everywhere in the United States - on house facades, front lawns, cars and clothes. [/] Hitting an high point on the July 4 US Independence Day holiday, it is a genuine phenomenon of American national pride that, inevitably, gets a good but also sometimes unwanted boost from commercial exploitation.

"It's a little strange, this obsession of the flag," French author Bernard-Henri Levy wrote after traveling across the country. [/] "Everywhere, in every form, flapping in the wind or on stickers, an epidemic of flags that has spread throughout the city," Levy wrote in "American Vertigo" of the riot of banners he saw.

"Old Glory," as the US flag is affectionately called, can be seen in abundance through the year in the American heartland and the South, and to a lesser extent in cities like New York and Los Angeles. [/]

Patriotic flag-waving strengthened in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and increased even more with the beginning of the war in Iraq as a testament of support for President George W. Bush.

But the phenomenon hits its peak each year around the Fourth of July, when it becomes the focus of intense advertising and commercial promotions.

At shopping malls, big and small national banners show up on jeans, baseball caps, dinner plates and swimsuits. The Stars and Stripes decorate everything -- from tattoos and fingernails to huge cakes.

[…] "Global public opinion surveys regularly put Americans at the top of the patriotism index," [Brookings Institution analyst William] Galston told AFP. "The US flag is the visible symbol of that strong sentiment... Even our national anthem is about the flag." [My ellipses and emphasis]

Other interesting information may be found in the article quoted above.

Poll Question: Is Patriotism a Disease? The Flag a Symptom? | Poll choices:

1. Yes. The U.N.! The Baby Blue and White!! Forever!!! / 2. Yes. Workers of the World! Unite!! / 3. Yes. One World! / 4. Yes. The last refuge of the right wing. / 5. Yes. The last refuge of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. / 6. Yes. The last refuge of the right wing nuts. / 7. Yes. The last refuge of scoundrels. / 8. Yes, Let niceness reign. / 9. Yes. / 10. Possibly. Should be investigated by the Centers for Disease Control. / 11. Possibly. Fairness and compassion toward all people more important. / 12. No. But stop attacking godless liberals as un-patriotic. / 13. No. / 14. No. Support our unity of purpose for godly ends. / 15. No. Keep our commitments (and those of our forefathers) as citizens. / 16. No. Support the world's second best hope. (The best is Jesus.) / 17. No. The biggest kid on the block has big responsibilities. / 18. No. Use the big stick on the world's thugs whenever needed. / 19. No comment. / 20. No opinion. / 21. This poll is worthless. / 22. This poll is of negative value. / 23. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 99410! Vote!! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!!

France? Beating U.S. Internet Access?

Will U.S. cities be beaten by the capital of the much maligned French?

Stay tuned.

From a Reuters article, Paris wants wireless Internet access across city:

Paris wants wireless Internet access across city [/] Tue Jul 4, 2006 3:20 PM ET

PARIS (Reuters) - Paris wants blanket wireless Internet cover by the end of 2007, helping to make it the most connected capital city in the world, Mayor Bertrand Delanoe said on Tuesday.

Under a new plan, the city hopes to set up 400 free WiFi access points next year and allow Internet service providers to install antennae on strategically-located public property.

"We will act fast and firmly... to create the most favorable conditions for Paris," Delanoe told reporters at city hall. "It is a decisive tool for international competition and thus important for the city."

The plan also calls for slashing taxes on companies that lay down fiber optic cables in a drive to have 80 percent of all buildings within the city connected to so-called 'ultra-high speed' fiber optic networks by 2010.

"Sixty percent of Parisian households already have high-speed connections. ... Our goal will be not only to maintain this but also to move a step ahead," Delanoe said.

License fees for fiber optic cables already snaking through the city's sewer system would be cut by 25 percent, and the tax break would go up to 90 percent for the first 400 meters of new cables that branch out to connect buildings currently lacking the high-speed lines.

The free wireless access points -- to be located in parks, squares, libraries, and public areas -- will be set up by private firms that win contracts to be awarded in early 2007.

The project will also experiment with free WiFi access for an entire city quarter by the end of 2007.

Delanoe said he would be submit the plans for city council approval early next week. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Godly and Ungodly Politics -J:)

(A substantial enlargement and improvement of an important post starting a prior thread in some forums.)

Associated Press Stumbles Into the Basic Political Division

Mexico's presidential election was too close to call Sunday, with a leftist offering himself as a savior to the poor and a conservative free-trader both declaring themselves the winner. Officials said they won't know who won for days. [My ellipses and emphasis] - Associated Press article

The basic political divide of our times:

The Tax Collector Saving the Poor

versus -

Government Protecting Freedom of Opportunity

For the love of God, please listen to the true witness:

Government Protecting Freedom of Opportunity

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made [...] For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. - Paul, servant and apostle of Jesus (1 Timothy 2:1-2 KJV)

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. - Paul, servant and apostle of Jesus (Romans 13:1-4 KJV)

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. - A revelation from God about Jesus (Revelation 19:15 KJV )

Saving the Poor

For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. - Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 26:11 KJV)

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. - Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 11:28-30 KJV)

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? […] But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. - Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 6:25-33 KJV)

But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? - John, servant and apostle of Jesus (1 John 3:17 KJV)

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. - James, servant, apostle and brother of Jesus (James 1:27 KJV )

For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. - A revelation from God about Jesus (Revelation 7:17 KJV)

Hollywood Anti-War Stars Get Serious

Stars Align In "Rolling" Hunger Strike

Who says that the Hollywood anti-war star activists are not serious real people?

Who says that the Hollywood anti-war star activists are not (in their own way) true and courageous patriots?

Who says that the Hollywood anti-war star activists are not willing to make sacrifices for their country (and for all the billions of oppressed people, both here and abroad)?

Other supporters, including Penn, Sarandon, novelist Alice Walker and actor Danny Glover will join a 'rolling" fast, a relay in which 2,700 activists pledge to refuse food for at least 24 hours, and then hand over to a comrade.

Both above and following quotes from a AFP via Breitbart.com article, US stars align in anti-Iraq war hunger strike:

US stars align in anti-Iraq war hunger strike [/] Jul 03 6:34 PM US/Eastern

Star Hollywood actor-activists including Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon and anti-war campaigners led by bereaved mother Cindy Sheehan plan to launch a hunger strike, demanding the immediate return of US troops from Iraq.

As Americans get set to fire up barbeques in patriotic celebration of US Independence Day on July 4, anti-war protestors planned to savour a last meal outside the White House, before embarking on a 'Troops Home Fast' at midnight.

"We've marched, held vigils, lobbied Congress, camped out at Bush's ranch, we've even gone to jail, now it's time to do more," said Sheehan, who emerged as an anti-war icon after losing her 24-year-old son Casey in Iraq.

[…] "We have done everything we could think of to end this war, we have protested, held marches, vigils ... lobbied, written letters to Congress," said Dearborn.

"Now it is time to bring the pain and suffering of war home. We are putting our bodies on the line for peace."

It is all -- pretty wonderful.

The hunger strike will see at least four activists, Sheehan, veteran comedian and peace campaigner Dick Gregory, former army colonel Ann Wright and environmental campaigner Diane Wilson launch serious, long-term fasts. [/] "I don't know how long I can fast, but I am making this open-ended," said Wilson.

Other supporters, including Penn, Sarandon, novelist Alice Walker and actor Danny Glover will join a 'rolling" fast, a relay in which 2,700 activists pledge to refuse food for at least 24 hours, and then hand over to a comrade. […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

They used to say in the movies, in the days of yesteryear, "Monkeys are the funniest people."

Now, perhaps, the monkeys are getting serious competition.

Associated Press Stumbles Into the Truth

Mexico's presidential election was too close to call Sunday, with a leftist offering himself as a savior to the poor and a conservative free-trader both declaring themselves the winner. Officials said they won't know who won for days. [My ellipses and emphasis] - Associated Press article

The basic political divide of our times:

Saving the Poor

versus -

Freedom of Opportunity

For the love of God, please listen to the true witness:

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. - Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 11:28-30 KJV)

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. - Paul, servant and apostle of Jesus (Romans 13:1-4 KJV)

No Big-Time Anti-Americans in Africa

Since Libia's Gaddafi changed sides, seeing the handwriting on the wall after our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq showed that we were serious.

So the African Union was forced to go outside the continent to find big-time anti-American talent, and thus show the West that colonial days are over.

From a Reuters article, Africa invites top anti-Americans to summit:

Africa invites top anti-Americans to summit [/] Jul 2, 2:04 PM (ET) [/] By Barry Moody

BANJUL (Reuters) - Two of the world's most anti-American leaders, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, attended this weekend's Africa summit in Gambia to the consternation of Western diplomats.

Both lived up to their billing with Chavez railing against U.S. "hegemony" and Ahmadinejad blaming Western greed for "poverty, backwardness, regional conflicts, corruption, illicit drugs."

The role of West-baiting once fell at AU summits to Libya's colourful leader Muammar Gaddafi but he has now been welcomed into the Western fold and Libya is soon to be taken off the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.

So why were outsiders Chavez and Ahmadinejad invited?

The striking presence of such anti-Western figures, particularly the Iranian leader, raised eyebrows among the large number of foreign envoys observing the summit, diplomats said.

One non-aligned ambassador who asked not to be identified said the invitation to Chavez was more understandable than that to Ahmadinejad since Venezuela has AU observer status.

He said the Ahmadinejad invitation was apparently extended unilaterally by Gambian President Yahya Jammeh, and provoked criticism from some countries in the 53-member AU.

But Western diplomats suggested the two invitations may also have been intended to underline Africa's breakaway from the influence of former colonial powers in Europe.

"At one time the links with Europe were still strong. But in the 21st century Africa wants to show that these links have finally been broken," one European ambassador said.

Professor Shadrack Gutto, director of African Renaissance Studies at the University of South Africa, said the presence of Chavez and Ahmadinejad should not be seen as anti-Western.

"The AU is not suddenly turning against the West. These visits were not ideologically decided and there isn't necessarily an anti-Western aspect to it," he said.

But he added that it was easier for Africa to assert its independence from the West when meeting in the AU than as individual countries, many dependent on Western funding.

"It does indicate that collectively, as the 53 members of the AU, when they come together the West will not choose for them who they invite or who their friends are," he said.

"They are saying Africa can have a position that differs with that of the West."

Gutto suggested that whereas there were strong and logical reasons to invite Venezuela, Ahmadinejad had probably pushed for an invitation to lobby for African support in Tehran's nuclear standoff with the West.

He said African countries were eager to hear about Chavez's policies toward Western oil companies.

"Chavez has taken quite a radical line with regard to claiming national sovereignty over natural resources and that resonates with a lot of African countries emerging as substantial producers," Gutto said.

He said African producers were anxious to ensure they maximised the benefits of their resources and were not being short-changed in contracts with Western oil companies.

In his speech to the summit on Saturday, Chavez urged Africa to seize greater control of its energy resources, describing the low royalties paid by some oil giants as robbery. Chavez has hiked taxes on U.S. oil companies, which he dubbed "Count Dracula." [My ellipses and emphasis]

Limey Makes Fun of Us Colonials

It must be good to have this prayer answered, even in part:

Would that God the gift would gie us,

To see ourselves as others see us.

But it does not always feel good.

From a [London] TimesOnline.co.uk article, The united states of total paranoia:

The Sunday Times July 02, 2006 [/] The united states of total paranoia [/] Jeremy Clarkson

I know Britain is full of incompetent water board officials and stabbed Glaswegians but even so I fell on my knees this morning and kissed the ground, because I’ve just spent three weeks trying to work in America. [/] It’s known as the land of the free and I’m sure it is if you get up in the morning, go to work in a petrol station, eat nothing but double-egg burgers — with cheese — and take your children to little league. But if you step outside the loop, if you try to do something a bit zany, you will find that you’re in a police state.

We begin at Los Angeles airport in front of an immigration official who, like all his colleagues, was selected for having no grace, no manners, no humour, no humanity and the sort of IQ normally found in farmyard animals. He scanned my form and noted there was no street number for the hotel at which I was staying. [/] “I’m going to need a number,” he said. “Ooh, I’m sorry,” I said, “I’m afraid I don’t have one.” [/] This didn’t seem to have any effect. “I’m going to need a number,” he said again, and then again, and then again. Each time I shrugged and stammered, terrified that I might be sent to the back of the queue or worse, into the little room with the men in Marigolds. But I simply didn’t have an answer. [/] “I’m going to need a number,” he said again, giving the distinct impression that he was an autobank, and that this was a conversation he was prepared to endure until one of us died. So with a great deal of bravery I decided to give him one. And the number I chose was 2,649,347. [/] This, it turned out, was fine. He’d been told by his superiors to get a number. I’d given him a number. His job was done and so, just an hour or so later, I was on the streets of Los Angeles doing a piece to camera.

Except, of course, I wasn’t. Technically you need a permit to film on every street in pretty well every corner of the world. But the only countries where this rule is enforced are Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea and the United States of America. [/] So, seconds after breaking out the tripod, a policeman pulled up and demanded that we show him our permit. We had one that covered the city of Los Angeles . . . except the bit where we were. So we were moved on. [/] The next day I was moved on in Las Vegas too because the permit I had didn’t cover the part of the pavement I was standing on. Eight inches away was fine.

You need a permit to do everything in America. You even need a passport to buy a drink. But interestingly you don’t need one if you wish to rent some guns and some bullets. I needed a 50 cal (very big) machinegun. “No problem,” said the man at the shop. “But could you just sign this assuring us that the movie you’re making is not anti-Bush or anti-war.”

Also, you do not need a permit if you want — as I did — to transport a dead cow on the roof of your car through the Florida panhandle. That’s because this is banned by a state law. [/] Think about that. Someone has gone to all the bother and expense of drawing up a law that means that at some point lots of people were moving dead cows about on their cars. It must have been popular. Fashionable even.

Anyway, back to the guns. I needed them because I wished to shoot a car in the Mojave desert. But you can’t do that without the say-so of the local fire chief who turned up, with his haircut, to say that for reasons he couldn’t explain, he had a red flag in his head.

You find this a lot in America. People way down the food chain are given the power to say yes or no to elaborately prepared plans, just so their bosses can’t be sued. One expression that simply doesn’t translate from English in these days of power without responsibility is “Ooh, I’m sure it’ll be fine”.

And, unfortunately, these people at the bottom of the food chain have no intellect at all. Reasoning with them is like reasoning with a tree. I think this is because people in the sticks have stopped marrying their cousins and are now mating with vegetables.
[/] They certainly aren’t eating them. You see them growing in fields, but all you ever find on a menu is cheese, cheese, cheese, or cheese with cheese. Except for a steak and cheese sandwich I bought in Mississippi. This was made, according to the label, from “imitation cheese”. [/] Nope, I don’t know what that is either but I do know that out of the main population centres, the potato people are getting fatter and dimmer by the minute.

Today the average petrol pump attendant is capable, just, of turning on a pump when you prepay. But if you pay for two pumps to be turned on to fill two cars, you can, if you stare carefully, see wisps of smoke coming from her fat, useless, war losing, acne-scarred, gormless turnip face. [/] And the awful thing is that you don’t want the petrol anyway, because it’ll simply get you to somewhere else, which will be worse. A point I shall prove next week when we have a look at what happened in Alabama. And why the poor of New Orleans will sue if the donation you make isn’t as big as they’d hoped for. [My ellipses and emphasis]

New York Times Excuses Bomb At L-Dot

Lucianne.com News Forum posters are not entirely pleased with the explanations of DEAN BAQUET, editor, The Los Angeles Times, and BILL KELLER, executive editor, The New York Times regarding the publication of Terror War secrets stolen by turned-in-place traitors from the people of the United States.

(It is highly improper to publish secrets in any case. Even a child knows that a secret is something that is told to one person at a time.)

Note that new heights of invective are being attained. Particularly by the neologistic phrase, "despicable islamopignazi lover".

An unimpeachable, usually reliable, source whose identity and credentials must remain secret, has disclosed that both the New York Times owner and the executive editor, have been awarded, in secret ceremonies, top medals for valor, loyalty, and contributions to the cause from both the Taliban and Al Queda.

From a Lucianne.com article thread, When Do We Publish a Secret?:

When Do We Publish a Secret? [/] New York Times, by Dean Baquet and Bill Keller

Original Article [/] Posted By:HogPilot, 7/1/2006 7:45:13 AM

SINCE Sept. 11, 2001, newspaper editors have faced excruciating choices in covering the government's efforts to protect the country from terrorist agents. Each of us has, on a number of occasions, withheld information because we were convinced that publishing it could put lives at risk.--snip--Make no mistake, journalists have a large and personal stake in the country's security.

Comments:

When? Whenever they think it will hurt GWB politically of course...

Reply 1 - Posted by: Opsimath, 7/1/2006 7:55:34 AM

Right...the drive by media unloads its IEDs then stands around fascinated, watching how much attention it has generated not concerned about the irreparable damage that results. May the NYTimes and others like them fall into an economic abyss from which they will never recover for the ill they have done to U.S.

Reply 2 - Posted by: lonetown, 7/1/2006 7:58:48 AM

Another steaming, smelly crock!

Reply 3 - Posted by: vrb8m, 7/1/2006 7:58:57 AM

'journalists have a large and personal stake in the country's security'...

And you've made that abundantly clear, you despicable islamopignazi lover.

Reply 4 - Posted by: OMyMy, 7/1/2006 8:00:31 AM

"journalists have a large and personal stake in the country's security."

So natually we print detailed classified national security info whenever we can.
Yeah Keller, thanks for caring.

Reply 5 - Posted by: Halfgenius, 7/1/2006 8:06:36 AM

For NYT's claim of being so right in their decision to publish state secrets they sho' do be a-hummin' a lot of forgive me tunes. Yup, and if I made a decision based on what I thought was just and right I'd certainly not waste a lot of time and ink trying to put polish and lipstick on it. Nope, the boycott goes on and so does the NYT's sojourn to the dead fish dumpster, where the odor from these kind of screeds won't be noticed. The only thing good that the NYT's can print now is the last edition! […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Apologia Pro Ann Coulter

(With apologies to Cardinal Newman, author of "Apologia Pro Vita Sua".)

From a post on another thread:

{{___There was a time in my memory when there was a measure of civility and respect in our nation's politics }}

Return with me now to the days of yesteryear when the supporters of one candidate reminded the voters of the rumor that his opponent was secretly supporting an illegitimate child by chanting loudly as they marched in torch-lit parades throughout this favored land:

Ma, Ma. Where's my pa?

Where's my pa, Ma?

Where's my pa?

The opposition fought torch-lit fire with torch-let fire and reminded the voters of the documented lies, fraud and corruption of the other candidate:

Blaine! Blaine! James G. Blaine!

Continental liar from the state of Maine.

"Burn this letter"!

The fraud revealed in the letter was rather normal, but the instruction in the postscript to burn the letter was a new twist that caught the public imagination.

So the man thought to have an illegitimate child was elected President of the United States. And in torch-lit parades throughout this favored land, his victorious supporters shouted the opposition chant with a new twist:

Ma, Ma. Where's my pa?

Gone to the White House!!!

Ha! Ha! Ha!

I am not a student of the subject, but undoubtedly there was a period of pseudo-civility that is now departed. The high hypocrisy of the Victorian age, the rise of literacy, the rise of newspapers and then radio which communicated in a more rational manner than sound bites are obvious suspects.
We do not like to be reminded of our slavery to our inventions. We would rather believe that it is our cultural high (or low) moral purpose that accomplishes either good or evil through our works.

{{___ but if it remains it's very hard to see. Nowadays political debate is marked by denigration, contempt and hatred of the opposition. }}

Theological debates before the Reformation featured vituperation of the opposition. Jerome famously declared that Pelagias had a head full of Scotch pudding. It is a way of making the heart felt nature of one's convictions obvious.

The test in debate is the rationality of the approach to the issues, including the aptness of the insults.

{{___ They do little to enhance the character of this country. }}

But, of course, lack of public disagreement about the doings of government effects the character of a nation in the negative way.

{{___ Indeed, I'm convinced that some see the destruction of the other party more meritorious than the security of the nation. }}

Depends the party being destroyed. The advancement of those who are obviously out to elevate the state above all other forms of authority and moral value is unlikely to make the nation more secure in any sense.

{{___ Ann Coulters style of writing and speaking is heavy on sarcasm and ridicule. }}

Sometimes that is the most effective way to bring the truth to public attention. Gilbert and Sullivan, George Bernard Shaw, etc., attacked the pretensions of the British Empire. The errors of the crypto-Marxist godlessly-religious left are much more serious and dangerous.

{{___ On the other side of the fence Howard Dean is more than her match. }}

Are you serious? This is like comparing the king of the Yahoos with the king of the satirists who invented him. Ann Coulter has similar fun playing with the enthusiastic brainlessness of the great liberalarian herd.

{{___ The end result is that our politics are plan nasty and debate on the issues get lost in the muck. }}

The issues get lost for those who (semi-consciously usually) are afraid to face them. Ann Coulters books are available for those who wish to understand her views.

Has there been anyone on the left who has written a worthwhile book since Marx and Engles?

But, of course, history as well as common sense has proven them wrong, nothing is left except sound bites promoting unreasoning prejudice against America, her President, her armed forces, Israel, …, and Ann Coulter.

Making Up Law Without Restraint

Whatever happened to the doctrine of judicial restraint?

Some are suggesting that the "al Queda Five", the Supreme Court majority, that held Guantanamo detainee military tribunals to unconstitutional, should be hung from the top of the Capitol dome.

This is a bit extreme. It would be hanging them higher that Haman (see Esther 6-7). They are probably not as rotten as Haman.

But it is of note that Justice Clarence Thomas for the first time in his long years of service, read part of his dissent from the bench.

It is clear that, in his view, the majority was without a fig leaf of reasonable support from either law or precedent.

And to many observers a new level of judicial lawlessness has been attained.

The following quotes are transcribed from a pdf file at the Supreme Court site, providing the opinions of the justices in the Military Tribunal case.

Scalia, joined by Thomas and Alito in dissent:

[…] the Detainee Treatment Act […] unambiguously provides that, as of [December 30, 2005], "no court, justice, or judge" shall have jurisdiction to consider the habeas corpus application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. Notwithstanding this plain directive, the Court today concludes that, on what it calls the statutes most natural reading, every "court, justice, or judge" before whom such a habeas application was pending on December 30 has jurisdiction to hear, consider, and render judgment on it. This conclusion is patently erroneous. And even if it were not, the jurisdiction supposedly retained should, in an exercise of sound equitable discretion, not be exercised.

[…] An ancient and unbroken line of authority attests that statutes ousting jurisdiction unambiguously apply to cases pending at their effective date.

Thomas in dissent, joined by Scalia and partially by Alito:

[…] [The Court's] opinion openly flouts our well-established duty to respect the Executive's judgment in matters of military operations and foreign affairs. The Court's evident belief that it is qualified to pass on the "military necessity" to employ a particular form of fource against our enemies is so antithetical to our constitutional structure that it simply cannot go un answered. I respectfully dissent.

Our review of petitiioner's claims arises in the context of the President's wartime exercise of his commander-in-chief authority in conjunction with the complete support of Congress.

[…] The structural advantages of the Executive Branch---namely, the decisiveness, "'activity, secrecy and dispatch'" that flow from the Executive's "'unity'" […] ---led the Founders to conclude that the "President has primary responsibility--along with the necessary power---to protect the national security and to conduct the Nations's foreign relations."

[…] the President hat the authority to "employ the Nation's Armed Forces in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy"

[…] But "Congress cannot anticipate and legislate with regard to every possible action the President may find it necessary to take or every possible situation in which he might act" and "such a failure of Congress … does not, 'especially … in the areas of foreign policy and national security' imply 'congressional disapproval' of action taken by the Executive."

[…] When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization from Congress," his actions are "'supported by the strongest of presumptions and widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion … rests heavily upon any who might attack it.'"
[…] In the present conflict, Congress has authorized the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 … in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
[…] the "capture, detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by 'universal agreement and practice' are 'important incidents of war,'" […] and are therefore "an execise of the 'necessary and appropriate force' Congress has authorized the President to use."
[…] In such circumstances, our duty to defer to the Executive's military and foreign policy judgment is at its zenith; it does not countenance the kind of second guessing the Court repeatedly engages in today.

More Junk Science from U.S. Government

From a Town Hall article, Killing the passive smoking debate:

Killing the passive smoking debate [\] By Michael Fumento [/] Jun 29, 2006

“Secondhand smoke debate ‘over.” That’s the message from the Surgeon General’s office, delivered by a sycophantic media. The claim is that the science has now overwhelmingly proved that smoke from others’ cigarettes can kill you. Actually, “debate over” simply means: “If you have your doubts, shut up!”

But you definitely should have doubts over the new Surgeon General’s report, a massive 727-page door stop. Like many massive reports on controversial issues, it’s probably designed that way so nobody (especially reporters on deadline) will want to or have time to read beyond the executive summary. That includes me; if I had that much time I’d reread War and Peace. Twice. But the report admits it contains no new science so we can evaluate it based on research already available.

First consider the 1993 EPA study that began the passive smoking crusade. It declared such smoke a carcinogen based on a combined analysis (meta-analysis) of 11 mostly tiny studies. The media quickly fell into line, with headlines blaring: “Passive Smoking Kills Thousands” and editorials demanding: “Ban Hazardous Smoking; Report Shows It’s a Killer.”

But the EPA’s report had more holes than a spaghetti strainer. Its greatest weakness was the agency’s refusal to use the gold standard in epidemiology, the 95 percent confidence interval. This simply means there are only five chances in 100 that the conclusion came about just by chance, even if the study itself was done correctly.

Curiously, the EPA decided to use a 90 percent level, effectively doubling the likelihood of getting its result by sheer luck of the draw.

Why would it do such a strange thing? You guessed it. Its results weren't significant at the 95 percent level. Essentially, it moved the goal posts back because the football had fallen short. In scientific terminology this is know as “dishonesty.”

Two much larger meta-analyses have appeared since the EPA’s. One was conducted on behalf of the World Health Organization and covered seven countries over seven years. Published in 1998, it actually showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers, though we can assume that was a fluke. But it also showed no increase for spouses and co-workers of smokers.

The second meta-analysis, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2002, likewise found a statistical significance when 48 studies were combined. Looked at separately, though, only seven showed significant excesses of lung cancer. Thus 41 did not.

Meta-analysis, though, suffer from such problems as different studies having been conducted in different ways – the apples and oranges conundrum. What was really needed was one study involving a huge number of participants over a long period of time using the same evaluation.

We got that in the prestigious British Medical Journal in 2003. Research professor James Enstrom of UCLA and professor Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook presented results of a 39-year study of 35,561 Californians, which dwarfed in size everything that came before. It found no “causal relationship between exposure to [passive smoke] and tobacco-related mortality,” adding, however “a small effect” can’t be ruled out.

The reason active tobacco smoking could be such a terrible killer while passive smoke may cause no deaths lies in the dictum "the dose makes the poison." We are constantly bombarded by carcinogens, but in tiny amounts the body usually easily fends them off.

A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975 – when having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges – the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour. That’s not quite the same as smoking two packs a day, is it?

But none of this has the least impact on the various federal, state, and city agencies and organizations like the American Lung Association for a very good reason. They already know they’re scientifically wrong. The purpose of the passive smoking campaign has never been to protect non-smokers, but rather to cow smokers into giving up the habit.

It’s easy to agree with the ultimate goal, but inventing scientific outcomes and shutting down scientific debate as a means is as intolerable as it was when Nazi Germany “proved” the validity of eugenics.

Michael Fumento is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., the author of BioEvolution.

POLL: Describe Ann Coulter. 20 Choices!

Sources of most choices in article below. Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 99246. Choices also given after article below.

From a New York Observer article, Ann Coulter Ecstatic:

Ann Coulter Ecstatic: [/] Enemies Stoke Sales- [/] 'They're Like My Pets'

By: George Gurley [/] Date: 7/3/2006 [/] Page: 1

June was a very good month for Ann Coulter. Was it a good one for her millions of enemies and the future of the world? Hard to say. [/] On June 6, the day her fifth book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, arrived in bookstores, Ms. Coulter appeared on NBC's The Today Show.

[...] Mr. Lauer read Ms. Coulter's words: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much." [/] As Ms. Coulter tried to explain "the left's doctrine of liberal infallibility," Mr. Lauer hammered away, until she interjected: "Look, you're getting testy with me!"

[...] By Sunday, June 25, Ms. Coulter's book was No. 1 on the New York Times nonfiction best-seller list. [/] And that was thanks largely to Mr. Lauer's interview, and the ensuing liberal firestorm. Ms. Coulter made the cover of the Daily News, the New York Post and The National Enquirer. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton-the front-runner for the Democratic 2008 Presidential candidacy-called Ms. Coulter "vicious" and "mean-spirited." (Ms. Coulter fired back: "Before criticizing others for being 'mean' to women, perhaps Hillary should talk to her husband, who was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick and was groping Kathleen Willey at the very moment Willey's husband was committing suicide.") Referring to Ms. Coulter's comments about the widows, NBC News anchor Brian Williams asked, "Have you no shame?" Newspaper headlines seemed to have all been written by the same editor: "Coulter's Cruelty Has No Bounds" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer), "Coulter's Crudeness" (The Boston Globe) and "Pray for Ann Coulter" (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette). After Ms. Coulter sat down with Jay Leno, The New York Times' TV critic Alessandra Stanley called her "the mean girl of the moment" and lamented that Mr. Leno had failed to deliver a "much deserved public swat."

Even conservatives got in on the spanking. Bill O'Reilly called her "over the top." Andrew Sullivan ran eight Coulter items on his blog, calling her "a drag-queen-fascist-impersonator."

Other pundits assured readers and viewers that the 44-year-old, New Canaan-bred and Cornell-educated Ms. Coulter doesn't really believe what she says: It's just a marketing ploy. So ignore her! Or, they said, Ms. Coulter was just a cunning satirist. Meghan Daum, in the Los Angeles Times, praised Ms. Coulter's "subtly arch commentary" and asserted: "The woman isn't a pariah, she's a comic genius, an anthropologist with an edge, the adopted love child of Oscar Wilde and Gore Vidal."

Meanwhile, the legions of Ann Coulter haters were breathing sighs of relief: Because of the widow comments, she would surely, at last, be forced to slink away. "Is This the End for Ann Coulter?" a Salon article asked, fingers crossed.

It had been almost two years since I'd seen Ms. Coulter, and though I'd been getting nostalgic for our interviews, I wasn't so sure if it was still in my interest to turn on that tape recorder. I'd had enough of being called a "moron" and "Ann Coulter's handmaiden" by prissy left-wing blogger Eric Alterman. I wasn't sure if I wanted to be invited over to Al Franken's Riverside Drive apartment again for another two-hour reprogramming session. Was another Coulter interview worth the price?

I met Ann for lunch [...] "I put a book out-and liberals were hysterical!" she said, cackling away. "Much like the last four books." [/] How did she think her Today show appearance had gone? [/] "That was great. I could've kissed Matt Lauer after that interview," she said. [...] So I was kind of nervous. If they just said, 'Tell me what your book is about,' I would babble incoherently. But an argument that I can do my sleep! That's easy for me to do."

I mentioned the things she'd written about the four widows-such as "How do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy." Did she think her comments would set off such an explosion? [/] "No, but we can keep this party going all summer," she said. "Anyway, it's clearly been completely misportrayed. But, you know, the media misportrays it, people become curious about what it really is, and they buy the book and the message gets out."

So why can't liberals stop attacking her? [/] "Actually, they can't help themselves," she said. "They're like my pets."

What do liberals want? [/] "It's just so horrible to contemplate-that's why I'm laughing. Apparently the total destruction of the United States. But they get to keep their houses in Amagansett."

[...] How did it feel to be known as the "mean girl of the moment"? [/] "When did that enter the public debate, that someone is 'mean'?" she said. "We're having an argument, I'm winning-and they sit back and cry and say, 'Oh, you're mean.' When did that happen?"

"I think the public perception of my book is slightly different," she said. "I mean, this was the establishment's attack; it wasn't normal people. Everywhere I go, people are treating me like a returning war hero. Every place. It's stunning, the people coming out of the woodwork. On e-mail, other 9/11 widows have been tracking me down, because they're really seething with anger at these harpies for claiming to speak for all widows."

[...] Some critics don't think Ms. Coulter believes the things she says, I told her. [/] "Yes, liberals would like to think that-as the entire country turns my way," she said. "Let them comfort themselves with that little fantasy. It's not only 'Are you a satirist?', but 'Did you really mean that? Was that a joke? Are you saying that to get a reaction? Is that hyperbole?'

[...] Why is it, I asked, that liberals tend to get away with over-the-top remarks, like when Cindy Sheehan called President Bush "the biggest terrorist in the world"? [/] "Because they send out victims as spokespeople!" she said. "Not any more, I might add! I think I ended that little trick. Oh, they'll still do it, but everyone's going to be sitting back in their living room rolling their eyes now."

Do you think that if Ms. Sheehan's son Casey could see her now, he might wish she- [/] "Wish that she'd shut up? Pipe down? Yes. I write about him in the book," she said. "He is an amazing American hero-that was the story that was being lost in all of this. As she becomes Dennis Rodman and just makes a spectacle of herself, he was a great American patriot. For one thing, he had already re-enlisted. He didn't have to go; he died on a mission he was volunteering for to help save his buddies-he was incredibly heroic. And I think it's too bad that most people don't know that."

[...] "Yes, well, all three networks [had power]," she said. "That's why liberals are going crazy now. They're becoming like the Sunni insurgency without the physical courage."

Do you think we have more to fear from Democrats than Iraqi insurgents? [/] "Oh yes," she said. "Fifth columnists at home. Our boys can handle these savages. But every time there is some question about a mission, when you have Democratic Congressmen accusing our boys of being cold-blooded killers, and then we bust up a terror plot in Miami, and Ron Klink is saying it's because Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction! [...] It's a huge problem-liberals are like New York cabdrivers who never see the red light coming. Other people slow down as they see the yellow. New York cab drivers are going 60 miles an hour-ahhhhhhhh! That's the Democrats with an imminent threat: 'No, it's not imminent, it's not imminent-oh, there's a missile headed for Chicago!' Now they'll say it's imminent. Well, thanks! Thanks for that. Thank you. At what point would Democrats say it's imminent? When they're threatening to build weapons of mass destruction? When they're lunatics denying the Holocaust? When they're doing a passable imitation of Bea Arthur leading a country and claiming to have nuclear missiles that can land on American soil? At what point is it imminent?"

What about those who complain about how the U.S. has treated our war prisoners? [/] "Well, I made it clear on my Web page last night," she said. "I posted a little link with pictures of what they do to our guys, and then some Arab with underwear on his head. I linked to this wonderful Web page-he has all of the burnt bodies hanging from trees, from bridges, he has right before Al-Zarqawi slices off Nick Berg's head. And then you have an Arab standing there with underwear on his head. So I think a little visual comparison is helpful."

At what point would you want to pull out of Iraq? [/] "Once we've completed the mission-and the mission's going perfectly well. When you think about the one war liberals belatedly supported, because we were fighting to defend Mother Russia-World War II-you just can't imagine, 'O.K., at what point that a number of soldiers have died do we pull-?' No, we leave when we're done."

What do you see as Bill Clinton's legacy? [/] "That he never denied raping Juanita Broaddrick. And Hillary Clinton has the audacity to accuse me of being mean to women. The one tip I'll give you about Hillary Clinton's future-because I read The New York Times like a Kremlinologist reading Pravda-and I think they're turning against her, the way they turned against Howard Dean. I think The New York Times is going to stop Hillary from being the candidate. We'll see, but that article a few weeks ago on the front page about the family-and this past weekend, they had a very nasty Hillary cartoon. I think the clergy of the liberal religion, i.e., the editorial board of The New York Times, has decided that Hillary can't win, and they're going to find an electable candidate. Exactly like they threw Howard Dean off the boat last time. He was sailing to victory, and The New York Times turned against them with a big magazine piece making fun of, you know, his idiot supporters. It was hilarious. But they wouldn't have done that if they wanted the Dean train to keep going. They ended Dean, and liberals are good followers and they do what The New York Times tells them. We don't have anything like that, by the way, on the right. You can't get us to be followers."

John Kerry? [/] "Oh, he's so pathetic. I'm so happy to hear he's running again," she said. "He and Gore I consider very comedic. With Kerry, no matter what the photo is-he's always trying to look like Mr. Cool, wind surfing or relaxing or golfing, whatever. No matter what pose he's in, no matter what he's wearing, he is always dorkus erectus."

Let's say you were the Emperor of United States. [/] "Oh, I like that!" [/] What would you do your first 100 days? [/] "Deport all liberals." [/] Where would you send them? [/] "It doesn't really matter. Just get them out. And then I wouldn't need to do anything else, because it's really a great country. Oh, it would be so magnificent. It would be like New York during the Republican National Convention. We do have fun playing with liberals, but they can get a little irksome."

Is it fun being a Christian in New York? [/] "Yes! And it's growing and growing." [/] I mentioned that I went to see Tim Keller give a sermon at the Church of the Redeemer, at her suggestion. [/] "Isn't he magnificent? Keller is life-transforming."

I confessed I was worried about being called a brown-noser for even interviewing her. [/] "They said the same thing about Jay Leno," she said. "Apparently, unless you call me a rotten slut, you're sucking up to me. Merely being polite and giving an honest interview to Ann Coulter, yes, you must be sucking up."

[...] Could you tell me a story from childhood that might explain how you became Ann Coulter?

"You know I hate talking about myself. It all seems normal and natural to me. I went to a nice high school. Mostly I was boy-crazy, and I just wanted to hang out with my boyfriends. I wasn't in a particular group. I played lacrosse. I liked the lacrosse girls. I was always political, even in high school; it was always just fun to tweak liberals. In college we started the Cornell Review and, of course, we got all the nasty letters: 'racist,' 'fascist,' 'we'll kill you,' blah blah blah. We'd collect all the letters, go out for drinks, and read them aloud and take great joy."

Not everyone who attacks you reads your books, right? [/] "That's right. That's something I would like liberals to answer-if I am so outrageous, why will they never quote me? Why do they always twist it into me always saying something I didn't say?

[...] But did she hear about the vulgar comment Mr. Penn made in the article about his Ann Coulter doll, and how he liked to burn its private parts with a cigarette? [/] Well, I was not surprised to find out that Sean Penn plays with dolls. I did think they'd be larger and inflatable."

[...]"Right, but he also viciously attacked you for quoting him accurately," she said. "That's the difference between conservatives and liberals. I'm ticked off when people don't quote me accurately. They're ticked off when people do quote them accurately." [..] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Poll Question: Describe Ann Coulter. 20 Choices! Let your opinion count! | Poll choices:

1. Vicious / 2. Mean spirited / 3. Shameless / 4. Unbounded cruelty / 5. Crude / 6. A drag-queen-fascist-impersonator / 7. Mean girl of the moment / 8. Over the top / 9. Does not believe what she says. / 10. Says whatever sells books. / 11. Cunning satirist. / 12. Comic genius / 13. Anthropologist with an edge / 14. Adopted love child of Gore Vidal and Oscar Wilde / 15. Disrespects liberals unfairly / 16. Accurate social observer and scholar / 17. Defender of the Constitution and common sense / 18. Honest and joyous / 19. Sincere patriot / 20. New sort of war hero / 21. No comment. / 22. No opinion. / 23. This poll is worthless. / 24. This poll is of negative value. / 25. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 99246

Episcopal Break-Up Accelerates

In the wake of a quasi-chaotic national convention, which further left behind scripture, tradition, morality, common sense, and Roberts Rules of Order, adding also to its defects, in-your-face gratuitous insults of the parent Anglican Communion, particularly its titular head, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the third world traditionally minded Anglican Communion majority. (See Delphi Adult Christian Forum thread Plain Truth About Episcopal Convention and conservative Episcopal site, virtueonline.org.)

Also yesterday, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh standing committee voted to join the Diocese of Fort Worth in rejecting the leadership of Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori. They will ask Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to provide them with a more conservative leader to oversee a new province that will be separate from the Episcopal Church.

From a Washington Times article, Virginia churches plan diocese exit. More below:

Virginia churches plan diocese exit [/] By Julia Duin [/] THE WASHINGTON TIMES [/] Published June 29, 2006

Two of Northern Virginia's largest and most historic Episcopal churches -- Truro and the Falls Church -- informed Virginia Bishop Peter J. Lee yesterday that they plan to leave the diocese and that as many as two dozen other parishes may follow suit. [/] And the Rev. Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Church, was elected a bishop yesterday by the Anglican province of Nigeria with the mandate to oversee a cluster of U.S. parishes that minister to expatriate Nigerians.

Mr. Minns was driving north on Interstate 95 from Richmond when he got the news on his cell phone from Anglican Archbishop Peter J. Akinola. The archbishop then put him on a speaker phone to address a gathering of Anglicans in Abuja, the country's capital. [/] "I said I was honored by their willingness to place their trust in me," said Mr. Minns, 63, who earlier this year had announced plans to retire. [/] Instead he will oversee the Convocation for Anglicans in North America, which includes more than 20 Anglican churches that cater to Nigerian immigrants in the U.S. but could be enlarged to include Episcopal congregations fleeing the 2.2-million-member denomination.

"We have deliberately held back from this action," Archbishop Akinola said in a statement, in the hope that the Episcopal Church would turn back from its 2003 consecration of Canon V. Gene Robinson as the world's first openly homosexual bishop. But the actions of last week's Episcopal General Convention "make it clear that far from turning back, they are even more committed to pursuing their unbiblical revisionist agenda."

Diocese of Virginia officials were surprised by the news. [/] "The fact of Martyn's election raises a host of issues that will be addressed in due course," spokesman Patrick Getlein said. [/] Truro and the Falls Church have a combined $27 million in assets. Situated on some of Northern Virginia's most valuable real estate, both churches are having 40-day "discernment" periods of prayer, fasting and debate, starting in September and ending just before Thanksgiving, before announcing a final decision.

Officially, the 40-day period has "no predetermined outcome," said the Rev. John W. Yates, rector of the Falls Church, but it's clear that "the growing crisis and dysfunction in the Episcopal Church" is pushing the orthodox toward the exit doors. [/] "It's certainly a step no church -- especially one with a history we've had -- takes without the greatest humility," he said in an interview at the parish where George Washington once worshipped. "But so many Episcopalians in the pews are so irate over what's happened, and it's harder and harder to call on people to wait."

The Falls Church and Truro Church presented their plan in Fairfax on Saturday to a meeting of officials representing 20 to 30 Episcopal churches around Virginia. Thirteen to 14 churches already have agreed to have their own 40-day period, he said. [/] Rectors of two other large Northern Virginia parishes also told The Washington Times yesterday, on condition of anonymity, that they, too, may be leaving. One is involved in secret negotiations with the diocese over property issues; another says his vestry, or governing board, approved the 40-day idea Tuesday night, but his parish needs to vote on it Sunday.

Before he received the phone call from Nigeria, Mr. Minns met Bishop Lee early yesterday to inform him of the 40-day plan. [/] "He's still saddened by the whole development," Mr. Minns said. "But he understood what we're doing." [/] In two previous interviews with The Times, Bishop Lee has said he will sue any church that tries to leave the 90,000-member diocese, the country's largest. However, two mission congregations who left the diocese several months ago have not landed in court.

Episcopal canon law mandates that departing churches turn over all their assets to the diocese, and Mr. Yates is part of a six-person team of negotiators trying to figure out how conservatives can depart without bankrupting themselves or the diocese through lawsuits.

[…] Also yesterday, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh standing committee voted to join the Diocese of Fort Worth in rejecting the leadership of Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori. They will ask Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to provide them with a more conservative leader to oversee a new province that will be separate from the Episcopal Church. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Treason at the New York Times?

From a Human Events Online article, When Will NYT Reveal One of al Qaeda's Secret Programs?:

When Will NYT Reveal One of al Qaeda's Secret Programs? [/] by Ann Coulter [/] Posted Jun 28, 2006

When is the New York Times going to get around to uncovering an al Qaeda secret program? [/] In the latest of a long list of formerly top-secret government anti-terrorism operations that have been revealed by the Times, last week the paper printed the details of a government program tracking terrorists' financial transactions that has already led to the capture of major terrorists and their handmaidens in the United States.

In response, the Bush Administration is sounding very cross -- and doing nothing. Bush wouldn't want to get the press mad at him! Yeah, let's keep the media on our good side like they are now. Otherwise, they might do something crazy -- like leak a classified government program monitoring terrorist financing.

National Review has boldly called for the revocation of the Times' White House press pass! If the Times starts publishing troop movements, National Review will go whole hog and demand that the paper's water cooler privileges be revoked. Then there's always the "nuclear option": disinviting Maureen Dowd from the next White House Correspondents' Dinner.

[…] We've got a lot of liberals who hate the country and are itching to aid the enemy, so what are you going to do? Indict the entire editorial board of the New York Times? (Actually, that wouldn't be a bad place to start, now that I ask.)

Maybe treason ended during the Vietnam War when Jane Fonda sat laughing and clapping on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American pilots. She came home and resumed her work as a big movie star without the slightest fear of facing any sort of legal sanction.

Fast forward to today, when New York Times publisher "Pinch" Sulzberger has just been named al Qaeda's "Employee of the Month" for the 12th straight month.

Before the Vietnam War, this country took treason seriously. [/] But now we're told newspapers have a right to commit treason because of "freedom of the press." Liberals invoke "freedom of the press" like some talismanic formulation that requires us all to fall prostrate in religious ecstasy. On liberals' theory of the 1st Amendment, the safest place for Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan or Pakistan; it's in the New York Times building.

Freedom of the press means the government generally cannot place a prior restraint on speech before publication. [/] But freedom of the press does not mean the government cannot prosecute reporters and editors for treason -- or for any other crime. The 1st Amendment does not mean Times editor Bill Keller could kidnap a child and issue his ransom demands from the New York Times editorial page. He could not order a contract killing on the op-ed page. Nor can he take out a contract killing on Americans with a Page 1 story on a secret government program being used to track terrorists who are trying to kill Americans.

What if, instead of passing information from the government's secret nuclear program at Los Alamos directly to Soviet agents, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had printed those same secrets in a newsletter? Would they have skated away scot-free instead of being tried for espionage and sent to the death chamber?

Ezra Pound, Mildred Gillars ("Axis Sally") and Iva Toguri D'Aquino ("Tokyo Rose") were all charged with treason for radio broadcasts intended to demoralize the troops during World War II. Their broadcasts were sort of like Janeane Garofalo and Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio -- except Tokyo Rose was actually witty, and Axis Sally is said to have used a fact-checker.

Tokyo Rose was convicted of treason for a single remark she made on air: "Orphans of the Pacific, you really are orphans now. How will you get home now that your ships are sunk?" For that statement alone, D'Aquino spent six years in prison and was fined $10,000 (more than $80,000 in today's dollars).

Axis Sally was convicted of treason for broadcasts from Germany and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Pound avoided a treason trial for his radio broadcasts by getting himself committed to an insane asylum instead (which I take it is Randi Rhodes' "Plan B" in the event that she ever acquires enough listeners to be charged with treason).

There was no evidence that in any of these cases the treasonable broadcasts ever put a single American life in danger. The law on treason doesn't require it.

The federal statute on treason, 18 USC 2381, provides in relevant part: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States ... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000."

Thanks to the New York Times, the easiest job in the world right now is: "Head of Counterintelligence -- al Qaeda." You just have to read the New York Times over morning coffee, and you're done by 10 a.m.

The greatest threat to the war on terrorism isn't the Islamic insurgency -- our military can handle the savages. It's traitorous liberals trying to lose the war at home. And the greatest threat at home isn't traitorous liberals -- it's patriotic Americans, also known as "Republicans," tut-tutting the quaint idea that we should take treason seriously. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Actually, in my opinion, the people at the New York Times are inherently incapable of committing treason. It would be very difficult to convince a reasonable jury that, beyond a reasonable doubt, these folks had ever "adhered" to an enemy of the United States. They are obviously too wishy-washy and fluffy to have ever adhered to anything.

"Juno and The Paycock"

Such is the fate of plays which deal seriously with serious subjects. "Life is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel." The playwrights felt tragedies, but the audience insisted upon comedies. O' Casey calls his plays tragedies, but they are played and accepted as comedies. - Malone on new playwright, 1926, N.Y, Theatre Magazine

THE two longer plays are tragedies of disillusionment; they were played and accepted as comedies of errors. [...] Juno and the Paycock is modern tragedy at its best, almost at its greatest. [...] Juno and the Paycock has its superficial qualities verging upon the melodramatic, but it is lifted and ennobled by the character of Juno. Juno is the greatest, the universal mother, as great as the greatest mother in drama, even though her sphere of influence be limited to two rooms in a tenement house in a Dublin slum. The tragic significance of Mrs. Alving in Ghosts is small when compared with the tragic significance of Juno. Her son dead "for his country"; her daughter betrayed by a worthless liar and deserted by a coward; her husband a boasting, drunken, lying wastrel, she rises superior to her slum surroundings and prepares to begin her life struggle anew. - ibid

Nevertheless Juno is a great play, in the first rank of its kind, and if O' Casey's genius be great enough and strong enough to equal it, or to surpass it, in the future the praise may be justified. - ibid.

__________________________________

Bound by the traditions of men which artificially separate comedy and tragedy, the critic, like the Greeks, fails to recognize the tragi-comic mixture which is the hallmark of experienced human life and is recognized as such by the common sense that men are endowed with. Tragedy and comedy are perceptions of human inconsistency. In children, inconsistency is comic. In grown-ups, it is tragic. As viewed by the wise, it is both.

The greatness of Juno as a mother is enhanced, not diminished, by her fervent prayer, after the death of her son to the "mother of God", pleading that the killing be stopped.

Luke 2:34-35 KJV And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, […] (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) […]

Two Reporters, One Secrets Leak Article?

'Why does it take two reporters to write this "article"?'

Bush Condemns Report on Bank Records

Watch for the TV clip. You'll never see him madder

Above from Lucianne.com "Must Reads of the day". Read L dot comment thread below to discover answer to:

'Why does it take two reporters to write this "article"?'

(Source article at The New York Times, article link, Bush Condemns Report on Bank Records)

Bush Condemns Report on Bank Records [/] The New York Times, by ANNE E. KORNBLUT and JOHN O'NEIL

[From] Original Article [/] Posted By:Thorn, 6/26/2006 1:50:06 PM

WASHINGTON, June 26 — President Bush today condemned as "disgraceful" the disclosure last week of a secret program that seeks to investigate and block terrorists by tracing financial records through a banking consortium in Brussels.

Comments: And that's putting it mildly.

Reply 1 - Posted by: paboo, 6/26/2006 1:55:09 PM

This, and similar, security breaches demand prosecution. Otherwise, we will continue to suffer more damage to our war effort. It is a war, and our nation's survival is at stake. If we loose this war, we'll never win another.

Reply 2 - Posted by: GoPack, 6/26/2006 1:55:38 PM

Why, in leftoid thinking, is leaking a secret like Valerie Plame's identity (which was of no consequence to anything) a crime, but publishing a secret like how we track terrorists, not? My head hurts.

Reply 3 - Posted by: Cavallodifiero, 6/26/2006 1:56:18 PM

While he has is condemning pen in his hand why doesn't he write Mexico's name on the pad and for good measure start evicting illegal invaders from Mexico on a regular basis. Not 2000 here and 2000 there thinking that people will shut up and go away.

Reply 4 - Posted by: ZurichMike, 6/26/2006 2:04:29 PM

Why does it take two reporters to write this "article"?

Reply 5 - Posted by: Thorn, 6/26/2006 2:07:53 PM

One to write it and the other to email it to Bin Laden.

It is only fair and compassionate to give deranged victims of severe oppression, presently cut off from normal communication by insensitive Bush policies of unknown legality, some compensating compassionate communication in the name of fairness and niceness and of complete and comprehensive cultural and personal equality.

No Liberal Is a True Deadhead!

My theory is that the "Grateful Dead" were very much in tune with nominal Christian beliefs.

The godless liberal religion, "liberalarianism", has nothing in common with any sort of theistic believer, even those having merely human and merely natural intellectual belief and affectionate trust in the traditions of Christendom.

The dead are supposedly grateful to have left this world.

This is not a scriptural belief.

The dead are in Hades, like the rich man in the parable. They are thirsty now, and have the Great White Throne and the lake of fire, the second death, in their future. Opportunity for repentance is forever gone. The dead are definitely not grateful.

Deceased meta-nominal Christians, like the patriarchs, are not dead and grateful, but living and grateful. (Only the body is dead, awaiting resurrection.)

[… H]ave ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. - Jesus, Matthew 22:31-32 KJV

From a jambands.com article, An Interview with Ann Coulter:

"Deadheads Are What Liberals Claim to Be But Aren't": [/] An Interview with Ann Coulter [/] [by] Taylor Hill [/] 2006-06-23

[..] I discovered a secret that I will reveal despite the damage to her reputation that it may cause: Ann is really cool and really funny. […]

What followed was the most surreal interview I have ever done in my life. It involves smearing oneself with purple Crisco, Kanye (Ann's a fan), slews of Reagan and Bush appointees leaving the Justice Department to go to Dead shows, lamentation for the neglected "Pride of Cucamonga," getting inside info on the Monica Lewinsky scandal by being a Deadhead, and saying goodbye to Jerry in Golden Gate Park. Some of her answers WILL %%%% people off, but there's no doubting her tie-dyed credentials – even if the dye is much more red than blue. Her latest book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, was published earlier this month.

[… Ann Coulter:] Oddly enough, I like the music. No one believes that I never took drugs at Dead shows (except for the massive clouds of passive marijuana smoke) but I went because I really liked the music. There are various groups I get enthusiastic about for awhile, but of all the music I've listened to over the years, the Grateful Dead is the one band I never grow tired of. Apparently, the same is true of me for ski-lift operators.

Moreover, I really like Deadheads and the whole Dead concert scene: the tailgating, the tie-dye uniforms, the camaraderie – it was like NASCAR for potheads. You always felt like you were with family at a Dead show – a rather odd, psychedelic family that sometimes lived in a VW bus and sold frightening looking “veggie burritos.” But whatever their myriad interests, clothing choices, and interest in illicit drugs, true Deadheads are what liberals claim to be but aren't: unique, free-thinking, open, kind, and interested in different ideas. Also, excellent dancers! Watching a Deadhead dance is truly something to behold.

[…] The one time I missed not being able to go to Dead shows more than any other since Jerry died was during the Clinton impeachment. There was so much viciousness - killed cats, punctured tires, threats, investigations and slander against those of us favoring impeachment. (Anthony Pellicano, you'll recall – the Hollywood private investigator now accused of criminal conspiracy, attempted murder, and making criminal threats – was working for the Clintons during the Monica Lewinsky investigation.) I don't really care what people say about me – I'm a Christian so there's nothing anyone can ever do to me – but I kept thinking: “Boy, would I like to go to a Dead show and dance with happy, friendly deadheads for just one night!”

[…] By the way, you did not ask me what my favorite bumper sticker or button is . . . and I know the answers to those questions! Bumper sticker: “Dead For Life”; button: “Jews For Jerry.”

[…] AC: Apart from Al Gore, Al Franken is the most un-Deadhead like person I know of who purports to be a Deadhead.

[…] The Deadheads I just met casually and not through conservative politics were almost always right-thinking, whatever they called themselves. Deadheads believe in freedom – not a government telling people how much water they can have in their toilets or where they can smoke or whether they should be allowed to own a gun. (Remember the photos of Jerry testifying before some Congressional committee while chain smoking? Yeah, he'd really bond with Henry Waxman.)

[…] Also there was a big Deadhead Christian group that handed out terrific pamphlets at Dead shows. Admittedly, many of them found God staring into a puddle while high on LSD, but whatever the path, they were very serious Christians – they made Jerry Falwell sound like a secularist.

Either Bobby or Jerry was asked by a Rolling Stone interviewer to denounce all the Young Reaganites attending their concerts in the 80's, and whichever one it was not only refused to attack the young Republicans, but said he liked some of those “rightist” ideas. Consider that when the Dead decided to do something to save the Rain Forest, they didn't harangue poverty-stricken Third Worlders to give up washing machines and electricity. They did it the free market way: buying up parts of the Rain Forest, parcel by parcel.

And they provided the Lithuanian basketball team – recently liberated from the Soviet yoke – with totally cool uniforms so they could play in the 1992 Olympics.

After Jerry died, U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) gave an incredibly touching tribute to Jerry Garcia and the good work the Dead's Rex Foundation had done promoting the arts privately – in contradistinction to millionaire actresses standing up in $50,000 gowns at the Oscars and demanding that hardworking waitresses and truck drivers be forced to support the arts through government taxation.

[…] When I worked at the Justice Department during law school, I'd be leaving with a whole slew of Reagan or Bush political appointees to see the Dead at RFK. Finally, I believe the great New York subway vigilante Bernie Goetz was a Deadhead. […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

POLL: "Redeploy" U.S. Forces Now In Iraq? - III

See article in three posts on this thread and Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 99048 (Choices also given after each of three article section posts).

U.S. can't 'redeploy' its way out of Iraq

The biggest kid on the block has responsibilities:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. - Paul (Romans 13:3-4 KJV)

------------Beginning--Section III--of III--------------

Historical Note: The "redeploy" strategy was attempted on the large international corporation level in the 1980s. Even the word "redeploy" was used. Employees relocated as part of corporate "redeployment" were referred to as "redeploys".

The disaster that followed led the big time investment community to force an outside chief executive on the corporation for the first time in its history.

The aim of the strategy in that case was to return to a fondly remembered past of local branch office massive support of business customers who were using the cutting edge products of the mid twentieth century.

Somehow, the top executives did not realize that the latest generation of those same cutting edge products had facilitated effective and efficient customer support worldwide from a single location. (It is now becoming apparent that the ideal single location is in India.)

My own explanation, based on observation of internal corporate telecasts, was that those responsible top executives had the look of men who occasionally used adult beverages.

Although the contemplated national "redeployment" is in the opposite direction, toward the center rather than away from the center, --

The direction in time is the same: toward a fondly remembered past.

When will people learn that one can turn back the clock, but not reality. "Time Marches On" as the Henry Luce empire used to tell us in its movie feature.

Full disclosure I worked for the "un-redeployed" corporation as a computer architect, and, two decades later, for the "redeployed" corporation as a top level problem solver for an artificial intelligence software product of the knowledge base variety, helping support two hundred customer installations implemented in nine different languages in a dozen or two countries.

------------End--Section III--of III--------------

Poll Question: "Redeploy" U.S. Forces Now In Iraq? | Poll choices:

1. Yes. Only rabid right wing attack dogs think otherwise. [/] 2. Yes. Iraq for the Iraqis. [/] 3. Yes. Our soldiers have suffered enough. [/] 4. Yes. The Iraqis have suffered enough. [/] 5. Yes. Our international reputation has suffered enough. [/] 6. Yes. More oppression will only drive the victims to greater atrocities. [/] 7. Yes. Americans have the real needs for more government help. [/] 8. Yes, Let niceness reign in both foreign and domestic policies. [/] 9. Yes. [/] 10. Possibly. Should be investigated. [/] 11. Possibly. But bigger government more important. [/] 12. No. But stop attacking those made psychotic by oppression. [/] 13. No. [/] 14. No. Support Iraq's elected government. [/] 15. No. Keep our promises and commitments. [/] 16. No. Support law and order directed toward real freedom. [/] 17. No. The biggest kid on the block has responsibilities. [/] 18. No. Use big stick on world's thugs whenever needed. [/] 19. No comment. [/] 20. No opinion. [/] 21. This poll is worthless. [/] 22. This poll is of negative value. [/] 23. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 99048

POLL: "Redeploy" U.S. Forces Now In Iraq? - II

See article in three posts on this thread and Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 99048 (Choices also given after each of three article section posts).

U.S. can't 'redeploy' its way out of Iraq

The biggest kid on the block has responsibilities:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. - Paul (Romans 13:3-4 KJV)

------------Beginning--Section II--of III--------------

From a Chicago Sun Times Mark Steyn column, U.S. can't 'redeploy' its way out of Iraq:

U.S. can't 'redeploy' its way out of Iraq [/] June 25, 2006 [/] BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

[...]

If you were a 5-year-old boy standing in the London streets in 1897 for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee parade and marveling as the hussars and lancers of the mightiest empire the world had ever known passed before your eyes, it would have seemed inconceivable that you'd be celebrating your 80th birthday in a decrepit ramshackle broken-down strike-bound basket case of a state. Permanence is the illusion of every age. And, if you're interested in a "dignified retirement," you might want to give some thought to the shape of the world the day after tomorrow.

Today, lots of experts crank out analyses positing China as the unstoppable hegemon of the 21st century. But the real threat is not the strengths of your enemies but their weaknesses. China is a weak power: Its population will get old before it gets rich. Russia is a weak power: If Africa has health crises, the Middle East has Islamists and North Korea has nukes, then Russia's got the lot: a dying population whose men have a lower life expectancy than Bangladeshis with a Muslim separatist movement sitting on top of the biggest pile of nukes on the planet. Europe is a weak power, remorselessly evolving month by month into Eurabia.

Islam is a weak power: In the words of Dr. Mahathir Mohammed, the former prime minister of Malaysia, one of the least worst Muslim nations in the world, "We produce practically nothing on our own, we can do almost nothing for ourselves, we cannot even manage our wealth." But in Iran they're working full-speed on nukes that will be able to hit every European city.

North Korea is a weak power: Its population is starving but it's about to "test" the latest variation on its aptly named No Dong missile. I mean "test" in the sense that I test my new shotgun by firing it through your kitchen window. They're going to launch it and see where it comes down -- maybe Tokyo, maybe San Diego; maybe they'll aim for Los Angeles but it'll fall in Vancouver. Hey, that's why we call it a "test," right?

The danger we face is not a Chinese superpower or an Islamist superpower: If it's a new boss, you learn the new rules and adjust as best you can. But the greater likelihood is of a world with no superpower at all in which unipolar geopolitics gives way to nonpolar geopolitics, a world without order in which pipsqueak thug states that can't feed their own people globalize their pathologies. There would be more stories like that one the other day about the three decapitated policemen whose heads were found in the Tijuana River. But Pelosi would carry on talking about college tuition as the world sinks into economic decline, arbitrary bombings and kidnappings, and the occasional nuking.

Kerry gets all huffy if he thinks you're questioning his patriotism, so let's be charitable and assume the Defeaticrats are simply missing the point: For the rest of the world, what's at issue in the Iraq war is not the future of Iraq but the future of America. Can the world's leading nation still lead or is Kerry's Vietnam Syndrome "seared" (as he'd say) into its bones? Luxembourg can be Luxembourg. America doesn't have that option. In a nonpolar world, there's nowhere to redeploy to. [/] (c)Mark Steyn 2006 [My ellipses and emphasis]

------------End--Section II--of III--------------

Poll Question: "Redeploy" U.S. Forces Now In Iraq? | Poll choices:

1. Yes. Only rabid right wing attack dogs think otherwise. [/] 2. Yes. Iraq for the Iraqis. [/] 3. Yes. Our soldiers have suffered enough. [/] 4. Yes. The Iraqis have suffered enough. [/] 5. Yes. Our international reputation has suffered enough. [/] 6. Yes. More oppression will only drive the victims to greater atrocities. [/] 7. Yes. Americans have the real needs for more government help. [/] 8. Yes, Let niceness reign in both foreign and domestic policies. [/] 9. Yes. [/] 10. Possibly. Should be investigated. [/] 11. Possibly. But bigger government more important. [/] 12. No. But stop attacking those made psychotic by oppression. [/] 13. No. [/] 14. No. Support Iraq's elected government. [/] 15. No. Keep our promises and commitments. [/] 16. No. Support law and order directed toward real freedom. [/] 17. No. The biggest kid on the block has responsibilities. [/] 18. No. Use big stick on world's thugs whenever needed. [/] 19. No comment. [/] 20. No opinion. [/] 21. This poll is worthless. [/] 22. This poll is of negative value. [/] 23. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 99048