The Malcontent

The Dean of the Clueless Corps

DNC Chairman Howard Dean sauntered into the friendly confines of "The Daily Show" last night.  The audience dutifully applauded references to President Bush's low standing in the polls, as well as Dean's predictions of Democratic takeover of the House and/or Senate.

But then host Jon Stewart had the temerity to ask just exactly how the Democrats were going to manage not to blow the opportunity before them.

Dean's plan: Let's put, say, four people in every state who will knock on as many as 5 to 6 million doors over the next few years.

"So the Dems are now as powerful as the Jehovah's Witnesses," Stewart said.

No, no, no!  See, this is where the plan gets brilliant.  If they're not home, then you hang this nifty little door-hanger on the doorknob!

But Stewart was having none of it.  When he pressed Dean for an actual message, it was essentially, "We'll be less grafty than the other guy."

Then Dean actually angled the Democrats to the left of President Bush's centrist immigration policy.

Stewart neatly summed things up for Dean: "You are so not taking back the House and the Senate."

(Incidentally, no reference whatsoever was made to Dean's recent, humongous gaffes regarding gays.)

[Watch video – 7:38, WMV format, high bandwidth]

[Watch video – 7:38, WMV format, low bandwidth]

---

In other "Daily Show" news, Stewart took a cold, hard look at the reports of NSA-related phone shenanigans.

Hot on the heels of Administration denials of surveillance of domestic phone calls came a USA Today story last week stating that the National Security Agency has indeed kept a massive database regarding billions of domestic phone calls.

The government explanation has been that the database analyzes only call patterns, and not the content of all the calls themselves, to spot potential terrorists.

As Stewart points out, it's probably cold comfort to those of us whose call patterns are suspicious for any number of other reasons.

[Watch video – 6:22, WMV format, high bandwidth]

[Watch video – 6:22, WMV format, low bandwidth]

Life After the Taliban

From time to time, I do wonder why American troops should continue putting their lives on the line for a government that would still kill people for making independent choices about their religious affiliation.

Sadly, as I watch the tarpit that is the countries we freed from retrograde, maniacal dictatorships, my response is increasingly becoming: Fuck 'em.

Quote of the Day

"We wouldn't transfer the title to the devil, and we're not going to transfer it to Dubai!"

- Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D - New Jersey)

Because, when trying to convince others (and ourselves) we aren't going just a titch overboard with the racist xenophobia shtick, this is exactly the kind of thing a U.S. Senator should be screaming in front of union types. Paging Daniel Webster.

This guy almost has me siding with CAIR of all things. How dare he.

Wiretapped? Here's a Quarter to Call Someone Who Cares

Bill Maher began a new season of his HBO show "Real Time" on Friday.

His cast of characters included Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), Fred Barnes, former Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor, comedian Eddie Griffin, and everybody's favorite crazy aunt in the attic, Helen Thomas.

The interaction among the panel was mostly lame, although I did prick up my ears when Helen essentially said it was fruitless to try to deny nuclear weapons to Iran, and Griffin furthermore argued that to do so would be racist.  (I know, it doesn't really compute with me either.)

But I thought Maher was at his best when he counseled Americans to simmer down a little about who might or might not be wiretapping them.  Most of us, it seems, are lucky if we're interesting enough that anyone wants to pay attention.

[Watch video – 3:32, WMV format, high bandwidth]

[Watch video – 3:32, WMV format, low bandwidth]

Jesus Osama Christ!

The only thing surprising about this story would be if we found out that the artist were not receiving an NEA grant for his work:

[A] painting by Harlem artist "Tafa" ... depicts an upside down Christ-like figure with a face strongly resembling Osama Bin Laden. [...]

On the phone with me, the artist declined to do an on-camera interview, telling me the work speaks for itself, but adding, the resemblance to Bin Laden was no accident.

By the way, has anyone else been rolling their eyes at the recent storyline on "The L Word" that has Bette heroically protesting the cancellation of an NEA grant for a piece of anti-Bush art as "censorship"?  Should government really be in the business of supporting art in the first place – and, if so, should we be at all surprised when it decides not to support work that gnaws off the hand that feeds it?

Even if I hadn't previously worked in Congress, I still would have guffawed at the scene when the chairman of the Senate committee before which Bette was testifying lit on fire a picture of artwork he found offensive.  And I would have laughed harder still when Bette tore the burning photo from his hands and stomped it out on the floor.  Her moralistic tantrum that followed was just a pure scream:

"You ought to be ashamed of yourself!  You're just the latest reigning vigilantes, self-appointed cultural watchdogs of the moment devoting countless hours and enviable resources to this bogus mission of stifling creative expression in the name of patriotism."

The hell??  Who writes this dreck?

If I am paying you to paint a portrait of me, and you decide instead to paint a picture of me, say, sodomizing a household pet, am I supposed to just grin and bear it?  Artists should have every right to be offensive and provocative – and some of the best artists push the envelope the farthest – but to demand taxpayer money to do so is beyond blinkered pig-ignorance and petulance.

As laughable as Bette's character has become, season three of "The L Word" has devolved into pure tedium for many more reasons.  Are the dykes even still watching this lame excuse for entertainment?

Quote of the Day

"I don't support our troops. ... [B]eing against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition."

— Joel Stein, writing in the Los Angeles Times

Well.  At least he's an honest moonbat.

9/11 Victims for Osama

Nary a cycle goes by on a Pentium processor that someone, somewhere on the blogosphere isn't invoking the vile and bereft-of-creativity "Jews for Hitler" meme against gay Republicans.

I'm not in favor of facile comparisons that are intended to arouse such an emotional response about one's political opponents as to render their actual merit a faint afterthought.  But as long as they insist on dragging this dead filly for another lap around the racetrack, let's try a simile on for size that, in my view, has more currency and applicability:

Gay Democrats are just like "9/11 Victims for Osama."

Why is such a comparison more appropriate, you ask?

First of all, because the "Jews for Hitler" calumny is more ridiculous on its face.  That comparison has to reach back more than six decades to find any relevance.  Let's face it, there are precious few Nazis left today and even fewer of them are in the extermination racket.

And despite liberals' wildest fantasies, whatever "collaboration" they imagine between gays and Republicans isn't remotely comparable with genocide.  Not only is it not in the same ballpark, it's a different league altogether.

Yet the most feverish of the fabulists persevere: "I can imagine far right extremist groups, emboldened by a bigoted and outspoken Republican party, perpetrating acts of terrorism against large gay communities in places like New York, San Francisco, Atlanta and South Beach."

Of course you can "imagine" that.  Because one's imagination is the only place where such claptrap is remotely plausible.

No responsible Republican would ever countenance violence against gays, and he could expect swift excoriation if he did.  Similarly, reasonable Democrats distance themselves when the most radical within their party make the most unhinged of statements.

Except that the irrational fringe has indeed held thrall over the Democrats in the past couple of years, making the comparison between gay Democrats and "9/11 Victims for Osama" more relevant than ever before.

Gay Democrats who are in such a hurry to throw their GOP brethren under the bus had better take a hard look at the party with which they have themselves made league:

Theirs is a party that has little trouble finding the "softer side" of Osama but is utterly confused as to the difference between Americans and Nazis or terrorists and "freedom fighters."  (Hint: Only one of the two shoots at U.S. soldiers.)

It is a party that regularly advocates for unilateral surrender in the War on Terror, that has collectively turned a blind eye to radical Islamic fundamentalism, and that opposes even the most reasonable efforts to keep the bad guys from coming across our borders.

Gay Democrats continue to stuff hay into a strawman called "domestic theocracy" while showing little desire to confront genuine and deadly fundamentalist threats worldwide – the very same forces that, if given the chance, would show their gratitude in the form of a bullet through the head.

They have allied themselves with a party that claims to love people but less charitable toward life, retaining as its most salient litmus test the support of abortion on demand.  How many fewer gay Democrats (and Republicans) do you suppose there will be if one combines that political position with the future discovery of a "gay gene"?

I concede that this is a provocative and simplistic comparison.  But its equivalent – "Jews for Hitler" – is what passes for legitimate political debate among gay Democrats these days.  There can be little reasonable discourse when we are constantly putting our opponents in bed with the most barbarous murderers in history.

Notes on a Run Down Media

Two stories in two days. Which strikes you as far more important than the other? Which do you think made media headlines while the other passed fairly unnoticed?

Story One:

Saddam Hussein loyalists who violently opposed January elections have made an about-face as Thursday's polls near, urging fellow Sunni Arabs to vote and warning al Qaeda militants not to attack.

In a move unthinkable in the bloody run-up to the last election, guerrillas in the western insurgent heartland of Anbar province say they are even prepared to protect voting stations from fighters loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Story Two:

Al-Qaida in Iraq and four other Islamic extremist groups denounced this week's parliamentary elections as a "satanic project" that violated God's law, but they stopped short of an explicit threat Monday to attack polling stations.

If you guessed Story Two made big headlines while Story One was largely ignored, you're merely ordinarily prescient.

For those who believe the idea of an American media cheering for American defeat is hyperbole, I need only point to the above to prove otherwise.

Sully Addendum

Robbie beat me with his link to the Taranto piece "Sullivan vs. Sullivan."  I urge anyone, especially those who think I am making up or imagining the basis for my critique of Andrew Sullivan (or merely flakking for the President), to read it.

When President Bush announced his (again, idiotic) support for the FMA, Sullivan explicitly talked about how he had supported the President ... in the War on Terror.  (Non sequitur says what?)

Yet now Sullivan flatly denies that the FMA has anything to with his total inability to find a single redeeming quality in George W. Bush – a flawed man by all means, but not the cad of Sullivan's fevered imagination.

Taranto's post lends further credence to the connection between Sullivan's break on the Iraq War and President Bush's support of the FMA.  At the least, Sullivan's previous repeated criticism from the right of the President's leadership in the war belies his insistence that he has been consistent voice from the start.

One may honorably oppose the Iraq war or U.S. prosecution of it, and one is even obviously free to change their views on the war if they don't like Bush's stance on gays.  But it is the disingenuousness of the denials that irks the most.  [HT also to GPW]

Beyond Credulity

Reading the news that a South African High Court approved gay marriage today, I was mildly happy in that muted, half-smile way you feel when your neighbor tells you they've just won a new car on Price is Right, and Bob Barker grabbed their ass three times instead of the customary two. Sure, you want Bob Barker to grab your ass, I want Bob Barker to grab my ass, but hey, sometimes other people have all the luck.

Afterwards, I scurried on over to torture.com to read quite possibly the dumbest statement in all human history.

South Africa's post-apartheid Constitution explicitly granted gays and lesbians full rights as citizens. There is no valid citizenship without the right to marry the person you love; and so the global movement toward equality in marriage advances again. Who would have guessed twenty years ago that the land of apartheid would now be ahead of the United States in its support for civil rights and equal protection of laws?

What?

Hold on, I'm not sure you have my inflection here.

WHAT?!

Warning - severe personal apoplexy after the jump.

Reaping What You Sow

Apparently even naked appeasement of terrorism still isn't enough for the terrorists, as these now-captive peace activists can probably attest:

Folks, as much as we may want peace, the bad guys simply do not.  Surrender is not an option.

[HT: Drudge]

Schadenfreude, Thy Name Is Sheehan

Being no mathematician and not understanding what you get when you divide by zero, I'm not even sure you can express in real terms how greatly the press outnumbered the fans at Cindy Sheehan's book signing.

But I do know, as far as royalties go, that zero percent of zero isn't too good.

[HT: Gay Patriot, Queer Conservative]

So Is the Padilla Story "Legless"?

Torture.com Andrew Sullivan apparently has the same talking points on the "presumed innocent" Padilla as Daily Kos, which shouldn't surprise me.  (What does surprise me, however, is that anyone still bothers to defend Sullivan as "conservative.")

And like any good lefty, Sully has been much more gleeful about, and credulous of, the Libby indictment – the only story of the two, by the way, that he says "has legs."

A Moonbat Primer

When is an indictment merely an allegation, and based on "no real evidence" or even remotely dispositive of "how bad" someone is?  When the indictee is an alleged terrorist and aspiring dirty-bomber.

When is an indictment definitive proof of guilt and a cause for celebration?  When the indictee is a Republican.  Merry "Fitzmas," indeed.

Class dismissed.

UPDATE: The howling-mad moonbats aren't as silent on the Padilla indictment as I thought they would be, although they are indeed very quiet.

Nosirree, this post over at Daily Kos tackles the issue head-on.  But while the "indictment=guilt" meme has been predictably abandoned when alleged terrorists are involved, they have somehow used it as a pretext to give the cadaverous "Bush=Hitler" meme another good flogging.

(WELCOME Malkin readers!)

(OTB link)

War At Ten Paces

The Democrats wanted a political war over the real one and the Republicans have obliged.

House Republicans, sensing an opportunity for political advantage, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We will not retreat."

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi had no immediate reaction to the planned vote.

I can only imagine Pelosi's reaction just at the moment. "Wait, we're supposed to vote on things? Posturing in front of cameras, making accusations, and talking a good game to our Leftist base isn't enough?"

Brilliant.

I must cop to a little schadenfreude here. I enjoy watching two political parties grow a pair and go at each other full force. It's healthy. Let the real ideas be debated and voted on rather than allowing politicians to hide their true positions behind media smokescreens. This is the kind of thing the Republic deserves from those in Congress.

If this blows up in the Democrats' face, well, they so asked for it.

Sullivan's on the Rag Again

Yet another wild and ridiculous anti-Bush over-generalization, courtesy of Andrew.  Jonah's on the case ...

[HT: GPW]

National Security Adviser, Yes. Historian, No.

Taranto eviscerates Scowcroft:

The Washington Post reports on a New Yorker interview with Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser in the Ford and Bush père White Houses:

Scowcroft, in his interview, discussed an argument over Iraq he had two years ago with Condoleezza Rice, then-national security adviser and current secretary of state. "She says we're going to democratize Iraq, and I said, 'Condi, you're not going to democratize Iraq,' and she said, 'You know, you're just stuck in the old days,' and she comes back to this thing that we've tolerated an autocratic Middle East for fifty years and so on and so forth," he said. The article stated that with a "barely perceptible note of satisfaction," Scowcroft added: "But we've had fifty years of peace."

Now let's see. Between 1953 and 2003, here are the Mideast wars we can think of off the top of our head: the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, the two Palestinian intifadas against Israel, the Algerian Civil War, the Yemen Civil War and two Sudanese civil wars. That doesn't even count acts of terror against non-Mideastern countries, from the Iranian invasion of the U.S. Embassy to the attacks of 9/11.

What do you call someone who describes this as "50 years of peace"? A "realist."

Devolving Into Parody

  Like an ACLU looking for a NAMBLA fix, some organizations just can't help themselves:

Saddam Hussein's rights have been "violated" in the legal process following his capture, one of his top United States lawyers said on Tuesday on the eve of the deposed Iraqi leader's trial opening on charges of ordering the massacre of 143 countrymen two decades ago.

Ex-US attorney-general Ramsey Clark also cited reports by international human rights groups, like the US-based Human Rights Watch and the Britain-based Amnesty International, which questioned if Saddam will receive a fair trial.

Apparently that whole Darfur kerfluffle sorted itself, as these folk have all this time on their hands.

Always good to hear.

h/t Michelle Malkin

Terrorism Is So Last Year

  Still worried about maniacal jihadi suicide bombers? Stressing that homeland security isn't quite what it ought to be? A little skittish on flights after enduring vigorous "light grope and slap on the ass" searches in airports?

Get over it, you ideological fashionistas. Terrorism is totes over. The ACLU is previewing their fall line, and a racy, revolutionary disdain for common sense is the queen of the runway. Petulant indignation is the new glitter.

Tampa, Florida — If you’ve been to a Bucs game this season, you’ve seen and felt a difference — you get patted down before entering the stadium.

But on Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union and a Bucs season ticket holder are taking the owners of Raymond James Stadium to court.

Put those metal detectors back in the closet. Stow your once hip "increased awareness" under the bed. It's nearly 2006 now. Anyone with any sense of political style wouldn't be caught dead wearing the tired, drabby "Concerned Citizen" label.

It's all about you, baby. Work it, girlfriend. Sue like it's 1999.

Freeh's Bombshell

The loony left's brainless mantra – actually, one of many – is: "When Bill Clinton lied, nobody died."

But at the very least, where the former President is concerned, it seems that the lying happened pretty quickly after the dying.

UPDATE: Get it from the horse's, rather than the Drudge's, mouth.

The Real Culture War

They were being persecuted, while others wrestled over the minutiae of the Lutheran Church. The executor fit the nooses snugly around their necks. We found the intra-faith dynamics of lesbian ministers fascinating. And while the rest of the world shouted in protest, we remained thunderously silent.

In the American culture wars, we wrestle over abortion, gay marriage, Tinky Winky, and whether or not God punished New Orleans for the excellent Southern Decadence festival. Safely ensconced in a society and nation firmly rooted in the values of the Enlightenment and individual freedom, too many of those who claim to speak for us have allowed themselves to wallow in their own pet, partisan causes as a growing darkness menaces the Western world.

Many of us now find ourselves asking, "American GLBT Groups - Where are you?"

Might Let's Walk Tonight, Gothamites

CNN is reporting a heightened state of alert on New York City subways over a "credible security threat."

A briefcase bomb plot?  More here and here and here.

Gays and Iran: Speaking Out

Surprise, surprise.  The Iranian embassy in London wouldn't accept a petition denouncing its government's brutal treatment and executions of young gay men.

Gay Patriot and Outrage are staying abreast of this stomach-churning and heart-rending story.  Where are the Robertsons and the Dobsons to decry Islamofascism now?

UPDATE: Robbie rightly points out that I should have noted the staff fallout at the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission over this issue.

What Price Freedom

Didn't John Kerry say a year ago that the war in Iraq had already cost $200 billion?

Well, it's now a whole year later, and according to even the anti-war left, the actual cost (as of this writing) is now just beginning to approach that level.  (Not that liberals are my sole arbiter of the truth, mind you.)

My question to the left is this: What price to remove a murderous despot (remember him?) and free 30 million people, sparking democratic change in much of the Middle East, would be considered "acceptable"?

"Warmonger" vs. Hatemonger

Cindy Sheehan is at it again.  Fresh from the pokey for protesting without a permit (something that is ridiculously easy to obtain in D.C. but which many intentionally overlook for the PR value of an arrest), she's now trying to make hay out of a meeting with someone who is not even her Senator.  And, of course, the sycophantic media are right along for the ride.

First, Cindy secures a meeting with Sen. John McCain through deception.  Then, even after he had the grace to hear her views, she returned the favor by labeling the Republican-Democrats-love-to-love a "warmonger."

I have never thought it would be a simple matter for John McCain to out-class anyone, but he makes breezy work of Cindy:

"She's entitled to her opinion," McCain said. "We just have fundamental disagreements."

Meanwhile, Cindy's spokeswoman is doing about as well at making purses from sows' ears as Tom Cruise's sister.  Lame explanation for her client's dementia: "She's exhausted."

"Cindy Sheehan: The Sequel" is a turning out a little bit like William Hung's Christmas album.  The first time around, it might have had mild entertainment value.  But now it would be nice if you would just shut the hell up.

Classic Doublespeak

Let me see if I can wrap my brain around this:

A Sept. 11 memorial that is limited to commemorating the events of that terrible, historic day somehow wouldn't "stand the test of time."

Pop Quiz: Do you remember December 7, 1941?  I rest my case.

Meanwhile, Newsday's poll at that same link on the "International Freedom Center" is running about 98 percent against the PC ideologues.  [Hat tip: Robert]

"Thank You"

What was the highlight of my day so far (aside from waking up next to the one I love most), you ask?  Stepping up to Janette Howard, extending my hand, and saying: "As an American citizen, I want to thank you and your husband for what you have done, and for our close relationship with your country."

She thanked me back, and said she would pass my words onto the PM.

Bliss.

(Looking at the family picture, I wonder if she might arrange an introduction to her son, Tim?)

The View From Uptown

I went up to the rooftop and took this picture on this September 11th anniversary. The twin ghosts were there again, reaching up to heaven.  (Shoulda brought the tripod with me, though.)

Then I watched the Flight 93 dramatization on TV.  (It was really, really good.)

Then I went online and gave money to the Flight 93 National Memorial Fund.

Then I hugged my baby extra tight and reminded him how much I love him.

Weekend

I'm off to D.C. for the weekend.  I might blog, I might not.  I have a feeling I'm going to face a "come to Jesus" over the whole issue either way, so to speak.  But that's another topic for another time.

I hope to get back in time on Sunday evening to be in front of a TV.  That day, as I'm sure you are well aware, is the four-year anniversary of 9/11.

At 9 p.m. EDT, Discovery Channel will air "The Flight That Fought Back," a dramatization of one of the seminal events of that day: the hijacking and passenger uprising aboard Flight 93.  The producers claim "unprecedented access" that allowed them to painstakingly recreate the events they portrayed.

I mention it partly because Flight 93 is one of the strongest direct links I have to 9/11, being, as I was, mere feet from the Capitol when the jet would have crashed there, were it not for the passengers.  [Video preview]

But I think that I (and many others) also relate to Flight 93 because, even though it met a tragic end in a Pennsylvania field, it represented a bittersweet act of defiance against terrorists – and terrorism generally – on a day when we felt so helpless and powerless.  (I wish that I could say, in a world of death and destruction, that I didn't still feel that way, just a little.)

Love and hugs, y'all.  Keep the home-blogs burning.

Siegel's "False" Sense of Security

Author Marc Siegel was on "The Daily Show" last night, flogging his book False Alarm: The Truth About the Epidemic of Fear.  I have not yet read the book, but his interview with Jon Stewart was troubling, to say the least.

[Watch video – 10mb, 6:09, WMV format]

The cover photo is indeed taken from a true false alarm: the evacuation of the U.S. Capitol when a plane carrying Kentucky's governor bound for the Reagan funeral wandered into restricted airspace with a broken transponder.  But the cause for the panic was genuine.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Flight 93 was headed for the U.S. Capitol before it was taken down when passengers rose up against their terrorist hijackers.  The Capitol has been evacuated a handful of times since, though one would be hard-pressed to argue that an alarm is "false" when it involves the potential of dying from a plane crashing into you.

It was hard to tell exactly what Siegel's point was, but I'd try to sum it up this way: "We don't really need to worry about terrorism.  Except for nukes.  But we didn't find any nukes in Iraq, so everything is OK."

“We’re worried about the wrong thing,” Siegel said, arguing that we put too much concern into a "truck bomb versus a hurricane."

But what if that "truck bomb" involved a series of coordinated attacks on levees?  The end result would be much the same as Hurricane Katrina.

"We have the whole country afraid of terrorism, which can happen to a few people and scare the whole country,” Siegel says.

Call me silly, but I don't think 5,000 people murdered (and counting) by al-Qaeda qualifies as "a few" under most definitions.

"They’re scaring us silly about everything," Siegel says, throwing “mad cow and West Nile” into the mix.

But Siegel has a pronoun problem.  His "theys" are actually several discrete entities.  For instance, the chief fear-mongers on mad cow disease actually come from the left because they see partisan gain at the expense of the Administration.  They also want us all to eat organically grown food, even though millions more people a year would starve if we actually heeded their advice.  (Incidentally, total number of confirmed cases of mad cow in U.S. cattle: two.  Total number of confirmed human deaths from mad cow in the United States: zero.)

“Our National Guard is over there instead of over here protecting against the disaster,” Siegel said.

More leftist hyperbole.  As James Robbins points out, only about 10 percent of the Army (including Guard and Reserve) is in Iraq, while nearly three-quarters is in the United States.  Isn't it raising a "false alarm" to make such an overblown claim?

JON STEWART: There clearly is a group of people who are organizing a network that is aiming to get large weapons to come over.  Or am I reading that wrong?  [SILENCE] You’re scaring me.

MARC: You’re reading that right, but what I’m saying is that we can’t assume that everything that happens is a risk to all of us.  The terrorists know that the biggest weapon they have is fear.  They don’t have to hurt a lot of us.  They get a few of us, and the rest of us panic.  … That’s the elephant in the room is nuclear weapons.

Finally we've found something that actually scares Marc Siegel: nukes.

They don't have to hurt a lot of us, Marc, but anyone who has been paying even a little bit of attention since, oh, 1998 knows that they want to hurt, or kill, a lot of us.  All of us, actually, or at least those of us who don't subscribe to their perverted religious fanaticism.

JON: Isn’t that what we’re aiming to do, by taking on the terrorists where they live?

MARC: I think that’s a global paranoia.  I think when we went over there, we didn’t find those weapons.

Marc, you just said "nukes" were the elephant in the room, then you called them "paranoia."  Which is it?

So just because we haven't found them in Iraq, do we ignore them elsewhere, like in Iran?  Is it a "false alarm" to be concerned about countries like Iran with deep terrorist ties transferring those weapons to be used against us, or is it a legitimate concern?  You're confusing me, Marc!

Predictably, Siegel's book is earning plaudits from such great nonpartisan pre-Sept. 11 thinkers as Bob Kerrey, Bill Press and David Corn.  (I couldn't find a noteworthy Republican in the bunch.)

Kerrey calls it "a terrific and groundbreaking book," while Corn calls it "masterful and provocative."  (Anything that bashes life-saving pharmaceutical companies is OK by him!)  While Press says, "Relax and put away your duct tape," precisely the kind of thing that explains his status as a former co-host of Crossfire.

Look, Siegel has a point, but only to a point.  If we're going to worry about things, we should probably prioritize between the trivial and the serious.  But if his interview last night was any indication, his book sounds more like part of the left's ongoing campaign to hit the "snooze button" on terrorism than an honest attempt to delineate among the relative risk of things.

Did I mention that Marc Siegel is a medical doctor and not a politician or policymaker?  But at least he has given me a book idea: "The Doctor's Definitive Guide to Open-Heart Surgery."

UPDATE: I conceded at the outset that I hadn't yet read the book, but I thought in fairness that I'd share this brief email I got from Dr. Siegel today.  Maybe he was just trying to speak Jon Stewart's language?:

Try reading it.

It is neither left or right.

I am not minimizing terrorism, what I am doing is pointing out that it often – deliberately – scares beyond the actual damage.

Let me know what you think after you read it.

Sullivan's Mental Vacation, Take Two

I always try to be the first to admit when someone has made a point better than I was capable of, and I have found just such an instance in David Brookstaber.

He wrote an email to Taranto that I believe much more eloquently states the case I was attempting to make about Andrew Sullivan's latest, elitist diatribe against SUV owners.  Brookstaber writes:

I must admit I hate SUVs. I think they are obnoxious and dangerous compared with lower, lighter cars, and I believe relatively few SUV owners use the cargo, towing, and off-road features that would justify their expense. But still, this anti-SUV hysteria misses the mark.

Rank the following groups according to their guilt in keeping us dependent on foreign oil:

• People who choose to drive an SUV that gets 15 miles a gallon instead of a sedan or wagon that gets 25 miles a gallon
• People who choose to live 10 miles from where they work each day instead of five miles.
• People who choose to commute to work in private cars instead of on public transportation.
• People who choose to heat and cool a 5,000-square-foot house when they could maintain a 2,500-square-foot-house with the same number of rooms.
• People who choose to fly overseas for vacations instead of going to a local retreat.
• People who oppose nuclear power plants.

I don't believe the SUV owners are at the top of the list. And my guess is that many of the SUV haters won't countenance somebody questioning their decisions to live where they want, in what they want, or to vacation when and where they want, even though on net those decisions probably consume more oil than an individual decision to drive an SUV.

I would also wager that the anti-SUV crowd has a large intersection with the anti-nuclear-power crowd. which, amusingly, also intersects with the pro-Kyoto treaty crowd. You just can't win with some people.

Bravo.

For the record, I used to own an SUV but now use public transportation almost exclusively.  For the last two years that I owned said SUV, my daily commute to work was about five minutes each way, and I put perhaps 1,000 miles on my vehicle in an average year.  I try to conserve energy at home and in the workplace, and have never lived in more than probably 1,000 square feet as an adult.  I am also an ardent supporter of nuclear power and alternative sources of energy.

But I'll be damned if I will sit in the kind of smug judgment over SUV owners that Sullivan makes his stock in trade.  Comparing them to terrorist enablers is just so blinkered in its stupidity that it scarcely warrants a response, but Sullivan is too widely read and respected (in some quarters) to ignore.  On this issue -- and others -- he is just a bike-riding city slicker who sorely needs some perspective.

Fry, Fred, Fry

That Fred Phelps still walks the Earth is the closest thing we have to proof that God does not exist.

Go Back on Vacation, Andrew

Sullivan hatches another bone-headed, anti-libertarian idea that only a city-dwelling bicycle rider like himself would love:

The polishing of terrorist knobs continues apace at the Dish.

"This Thing Is Exhausting"

That was my husband's reaction to "Inside 9/11," which aired last night on the National Geographic Channel.

The four-hour documentary aired with limited commercial interruption in two two-hour segments, the first of which dealt with the birth of Al Qaeda dating back to the waning days of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the second looking at the events of 9/11 themselves.

I simply cannot endorse this outstanding documentary strongly enough.  If you have not yet seen it, you still have at least one more chance.  NGC will air the first part, "War on America," at 4 a.m. EDT on August 29, and the second part, "Zero Hour," at the same time the next morning.

More thoughts and two video clips after the jump ...

4½ Easy Rules for Being a Good Liberal

1. Every scandal is Watergate.

2. Every war is Vietnam.  (That goes for you too, Hagel!)

3. Every protest worth its salt needs a burned-out hippie.

4. And every election is "rigged."

4a. Except for the ones that you "win."

"Ground Zero Is No Place for Politics"

Count me among those who think that the whole idea behind the "International Freedom Center" is, well, misguided PC crap.

LimeShurbet sent me the link to the "Take Back the Memorial" blog, which I am sure will become my new front-row seat as the IFC is, hopefully, put out to pasture.

Cindy Sheehan Gets SWOTted

Feingold Waves White Flag

This is quite possibly Russ Feingold's second-stupidest move, right behind that whole campaign-finance-reform thing.  Taranto writes:

Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin is calling for a withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year. From a Feingold press release:

". . . It's almost as if talking about completing the mission in Iraq has become 'taboo,' " said Feingold. "It's time for senators and Members of Congress, especially those from my own party, to be less timid while this Administration neglects urgent national security priorities in favor of staying a flawed policy course in Iraq. We need to refocus on fighting and defeating the terrorist network that attacked this country on September 11, 2001, and that means placing our Iraq policy in the context of a global effort, rather than letting it dominate our security strategy and drain vital security resources for an unlimited amount of time."

But here's what Feingold had to say just last week, according to a report in the Daily Globe of Ironwood, Mich.:

"Post 911, the administration published a list of countries where al Qaeda was operating. Iraq wasn't even on it.

"Now, it's the number one training ground for terrorists from around the world. Our nation's security is at stake and it's time for Congress and the administration to level with the American people, and develop a policy worthy of our brave men and women in uniform."

Has Feingold changed his mind since last week? Or does he believe the U.S. military should not be fighting terrorists in their No. 1 training ground?

The Jews Mean Business

How do the Israelis handle the issue of "religious sensitivity" when recalcitrant settlers who share their own religious beliefs hole themselves up inside of synagogues?:

Israeli riot police with helmets and shields broke open the door of a synagogue in this hard-line settlement and fired water cannons at barricaded protesters, who responded by hurling debris and what police said was acid at the troops.

Contrast that with how certain veal in the blogosphere react when, say, a Koran gets tinkled on (even after numerous American troops have been killed precisely because of our institutional respect for mosques.)

But I suppose the cultural difference is found in what the daily threat of being blown up on a bus or in a pizza shop will do to you.

Can We Question Cindy's Patriotism Now?

The usually reliable Taranto had a spot-on piece yesterday about aggrieved mother and anti-war zealot Cindy Sheehan.  He catalogs several of the myriad calumnies and slurs Sheehan has made about the Bush Administration and, even more damning, her country.  (To wit: "This country is not worth dying for.")

So it would appear that Sheehan's earlier-reported intemperate comments were not isolated, nor were they the type of one-off statement made by someone in mourning.  If Cindy Sheehan is to be made a hero of the left for exercising her First Amendment rights, then surely it is fair game to hold her accountable for the manner in which she chooses to exercise them.

But to me, this is equally an issue of outright media bias among the heat-dazed White House press corps in Texas, desperate to stitch a story together out of an August vapor.  Money quote from Taranto:

The journalists will soon move on, and her political allies may do so as well. For them she is a mere instrument. The White House press corps will discard her as soon as they return to Washington where there's real news going on. Serious opponents of the war in Iraq will cast her aside if her foul statements make her an embarrassment. When that happens, we can only hope that someone still cares about Cindy Sheehan -- not as a story or a symbol, but as a human being.

"Patriotism in Action"

A few questions:

I would like to ask Howard Dean and the Democratic leaders (whoever they are these days -- maybe George Soros and Al Franken?) if their party truly believes that it is "patriotism in action" to demand Israel's unilateral capitulation to "Palestine"?  Why do they consistently take the side of soldiers' family members who are against the War on Terror, rather than those who favor it?  Why are they so closely associating themselves with someone who is threatening to dodge their federal tax obligations?

If not, then why is it that the Democrats are so quick these days to ally themselves with out-of-control anti-Semites, merely because they are also anti-Bush?

Elsewhere, GOP Vixen has a good answer to Cindy's salient question: "(Bush) said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is."

LimeShubert does some armchair analysis:"I don’t hear Cindy talking about all the things CASEY will miss out on, she is constantly focused on herself and what SHE is going through."

Ann Althouse says it's dangerous for Drudge (linked above) to focus on one individual and what she might say at any given moment.  (I would respond that that's precisely what the left has done, but from an anti-war/anti-Bush perspective.)

Dem Tunes Likely To Change on Iran

Word that President Bush continues to keep "all options on the table" to deal with Iran's growing nuclear threat is sure to widen into the next great schism in Democratic foreign policy (such as it is).  The far left is reacting predictably, i.e., averse to any military conflict even when confronted with nuke-wielding terrorist lunatics.  (It should also be noted that this is news not because it iterates any change in policy, but because the calendar magnifies the importance of any utterance during August.)

Some highly visited blogs simultaneously downplay Iran's obvious march to nuclear weaponry but bafflingly (if rightly) reach new heights of moral dudgeon when two teenagers are hanged for being gay.

While that is chicken-dove stance of the loony left, it should not be forgotten that more mainstream Democrats and their allies were critical of Bush last year for dealing with Iraq before Iran:

Sen. Barack Obama: "[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?"

Senator John Kerry: The Bush Administration has not "been tough on the [Iran] issue … which is the issue of nuclear weaponry, and again just like I said with North Korea, you have to