I sent this letter to my U.S. Congressman and Michigan's two U.S. Senators.

The Honorable Thaddeus G. McCotter
U.S. House of Representatives
415 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2211

Representative McCotter:

I am writing to state my opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. I strongly oppose this measure on the grounds that it is unAmerican, bigoted and reeks of tyranny. By supporting this amendment, you are taking away the rights of States and, by default, its people to decide for themselves on the issue of Gay marriage.

You are making it impossible for a group of people to attain rights that should be inalienable. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, only, if you are heterosexual? What gives you the right to make homosexuals second class citizens? How dare you??

If you feel the need to "protect marriage" for the ignorant masses, why not make it harder to get married? Why not make divorce more of an obstacle? If the point of this amendment is to strengthen the family, why do you feel the need to invalidate so many? What's next making blond hair illegal? Making it illegal to eat meat? Making it illegal to attend church? How about interracial or interfaith marriage, that gonna be illegal someday soon?

I am a married woman, a mother, a registered Republican and a delegate. I am politically active in my community. I do not feel that this amendment protects me and my marriage. This amendment is, however, a threat to my freedom, the freedom of all in our society and the freedom of future generations. This amendment that so heavily reeks of tyrrany, if allowed to pass, is a great threat because it allows the U.S. Congress to act as a dictator. This amendment is nothing more than legalized bigotry.

I am willing to put my vote where my mouth is. I voted for you Congressman McCotter. I am a big supporter of yours. Well, I was until you signed on as a Co-Sponsor of this fascist piece of tripe. I will actively campaign against all who vote for the passage of this amendment.

Don't forget that we are a Democratic Republic and this amendment spits on the idea of State's Rights and the faces of our Founders.

Sincerely,
Rosemary Esmay

I encourage you to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, even if you oppose Gay Marriage. We cannot allow the Federal Govenment to usurp our freedom and our right to decide these matters for ourselves, state by state and voter by voter.

You never know what may be the next thing on their menu- it could be YOU.


Write to your own critter at U.S. Congress it is a soothing experience.

***UPDATE***

Text of the FMA:
H.J. Res. 56 as a proposed constitutional amendment, which will remove the definition of marriage from the reach of all legislatures and courts permanently.

This amendment simply states:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups"

Q: What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with a Unitarian Universalist?

There's More...

One of the ways in which Christians are routinely smeared by secularists of various stripes is to sneeringly refer to The Crusades as an example of Christian aggression. The assumption is always that Christianity showed its "true face" in the bloody and horrible Crusades, which are often even portrayed as vicious aggression toward otherwise-peaceful Muslims in the Holy Land. This view illustrates two things:

1) The horrible level our nation's education in history has sunk to, and

2) the widespread Christian-bashing bias that began infecting our universities starting in the early to mid-20th Century.

Indeed, the latter problem has gotten so bad, even many devout Christians have internalized such misinformation about the Crusades as if it were axiomatically true. It isn't.

The truth, for anyone who's really studied the historical record, is more like this:

1) The Crusades were not particularly bloody or violent by the standards of warfare in that era. Indeed, they were a good bit less violent and cruel than countless wars of the ancient world.

2) The Crusades were almost entirely defensive on the part of Christians, who faced centuries of onslaught by Muslim conquerors. Conquerors who were often known to force conversion to Islam by the sword.

3) With rare exception, the Crusades almost all ended in victory for Muslims. The defeats for Christianity were often humiliating, and the few victories were almost all short-lived. Indeed, the Crusades were such losing affairs for Christians that near the end they looked like the last desperate gasp of a dying civilization--and a dying faith.

In short, by the standards of their era, the Crusades were not particularly awful, were mostly defensive, and mostly ended in defeat for Christendom. The view of the Crusades as having been a case of bloody minded, greedy, barbaric Christians wantonly slaughtering peaceful Muslims and Jews is almost entirely a creature of the popular imagination. It is not supported by the vast majority of scholars who've actually studied the Crusades.

Wandering over to Donald Sensing's site, I found a reference to a terrific article that covers much of this ground in more detail. Sensing himself has some further info on the Crusades that you might want to read afterward. Still more interesting info, that gets into even greater nitty-gritty, can be found here.

All good reading for a Sunday, I'd say.

Senator Clinton appears to have gotten a cool reception from soldiers in Baghdad. Or so at least one soldier who was there reports.

Weblogger Howard Owens is upset by this, and the Instapundit says he has a point. For the record, I think they're both wrong, for one simple reason: the report isn't that the troops booed her, razzed her, or treated her disrespectfully. Apparently, the worst you can say is that they were unenthusiastic, often stood silently, and sometimes didn't stick around to hear her speak.

That's not "wrong." No one has a right to expect enthusiasm. Basic courtesy, yes, but that's about it. Even for Senators, or Presidents, you cannot demand that people to put on a show of feelings they don't have.

The real question: why would they be unenthused? My suggestion is that the Senator's problem is twofold. First, her husband's administration was never very popular among people in the military. Yes, some did like the Clintons, but talk to anyone who served in the 1990s, and they'll verify that mistrust of the executive branch was quite widespread when the Clintons were in charge. Fairly or unfairly, that attitude was quite common.

More serious, however, would be the general level of frustration many people feel toward the Democratic Party right now--a frustration which I believe will be most profoundly felt by those on the ground in Iraq these days.

To be clear, many Democrats have been quite reasonable when it comes to the Iraq conflict. But many have behaved simply abominably, and I think that some of that's going to inevitably rub off on a figure like Hillary, a lot moreso than most other Democrats.

It's been transparently obvious that the press coverage of Iraq this past year has been irresponsibly negative, focusing obsessively on every failure, setback, and casualty, and saying very little else. This despite the fact that, by historical measures, the occupation has had some truly astounding successes, and despite the overwhelmingly apparent gratitude and friendliness of so many Iraqis toward our people on the ground. The people over there know this, because they see it every day, and have an incredible amount to feel proud of that routinely goes unacknowledged in the press.

Worse, however, has been the sadly obvious partisan use of that badly slanted news coverage. Some Bush-hating Democrats have leapt on all that bad press, in an almost gleeful fashion, to bash the (quite well-liked) Commander In Chief and his administration. While they may claim they "support the troops" or even "support the war effort," there's no way you can (1) insult well-liked leaders, (2) call people "liars," (3) suggest that the mission should never have been undertaken, (4) harp on press coverage as proof of failure, (5) stand on friendly terms with people who angrily say that our troops shouldn't even be there, and (6) not be resented by many of those on the ground in Iraq.

To be clear, it is not really fair to tar Senator Clinton with that entire brush. She has, in fact, been quite reasonable on the Iraq war. If she were just another Senator, I'd even say she's behaved in an exemplary fashion. Her tone and her rhetoric should be emulated by more Democrats, most especially those running for President. If most of them were as reasonable as she has been when it comes to the war effort, I doubt that resentment of the Democratic Party would be as high as it is these days. I know I certainly wouldn't be as disgusted with them as I am right now, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that.

Unfortunately, I think your average person sees Hillary Clinton as the backroom leader of the Democratic Party. They also see her doing absolutely nothing to upbraid Democratic Presidential candidates who, for the most part, have been using the inevitable casualties and setbacks in the war effort for their own partisan ends. Every casualty proof of failure and incompetence, every success ignored or portrayed as insufficient. That's how the most partisan Democrats have been behaving for most of this last year, and most of the Democratic Presidential candidates have either done this directly, or tacitly given it approval by not objecting to it. With no one (except obscure figures like Zell Miller) within Democratic ranks calling people out for this attrocious behavior, it makes Democrats look terrible. Your average moderate Democrat might be able to escape being lumped in with the worst elements like that, but Senator Clinton is largely seen as one of her party's main ringleaders. This makes her powerful, but it also makes her look more guilty by association than your average Senator or Congressman.

Rightly or wrongly, it just does.

There's one way Senator Clinton could make herself more popular among moderates, and (I think) among those who are working now within the Sandbox: She could blast idiots like Howard Dean with both barrels for their vile behavior. She could strongly emphasize her wholehearted support for the Iraq effort, and disassociate herself the irresponsible elements in her own party who call people liars and so transparently try to use every setback in Iraq proof of incompetence and failure.

Not that she's obligated to do that. I'm just saying it would be a great act of statesmanship that would gain her the respect of a lot of people, including, I suspect, a lot of people in uniform who are serving over in Iraq. It would be a breathtakingly brave and, frankly, beautiful move. I can't think of anything that would make her look more Presidential, either.

I don't think it'll happen. But I can dream, can't I?

* Update * The Discount Blogger doesn't believe registered Democrats will support such moderate centrism. I have to disagree. I remember well how Democrats not long ago nominated a moderate Governor who was aggressively in favor of expanding free trade, advocated reforming welfare to reduce dependency, backed a Constitutional amendment to return prayer to the public schools, pledged moderate tax cuts and reduction in the size of government, pledged a balanced budget, and who praised some Republican Presidents for their leadership in the Cold War. He also backed a ban on partial-birth abortions.

In fact, not only did Bill Clinton win the nomination, but he also went on to win the Presidency. He didn't keep all of those promises, but did keep a surprising number of them. He also went on to defy the United Nations on several occasions in order to engage in unilateral combat operations. Too bad his most irrational critics (and, oddly enough, his most irrational defenders) can't admit the truth about all that.

Anyway, the presumption that moderate centrists cannot win the Democratic nomination is a mistake. I'd hate to write the party off. There's too much at stake for our nation to let that happen.

No, seriously, I never did. On the other hand, I don't hold it against people who did like it.

What annoys me a good bit more are the people who sneer at the Lord of the Rings and, especially, who sneer at its fans.

I mean, some of my best friends are LOTR fans. Mind you, I wouldn't want my sister to marry one of them....

(That's a joke, people.)

I'm not a big Matt Drudge fan, but it's pretty cool that he has the private notes of a pool reporter who was part of the Baghdad trip. Kind of a neat historical document, that.

You know, I'm not very good at these caption contests, but Kevin's having one that you might want to try your hand at. A couple of the entries so far aren't too bad.

I am most pleased that we have been granted our own country by the Commissar. The land is dubbed "Esmayia." My plans continue to unfold. Next I need only have the Commissar liqui.... er, retired to a comfortable dacha, and then the next step forward in the great revolution may be taken.

They say that the two things you should never discuss are religion and politics, because no matter what you say or do, someone will wind up offended.

They say a lot of things, don't they?

But do you know what I say?

There's More...

One of the more shallow memes of the current war goes like this:

"Isn't it shameful that President Bush hasn't attended the funerals of very many of the service men who have fallen in this war?"

Anyone who thinks very hard about this knows this is an incredibly shallow criticism. Otherwise, the great Generals and Presidents of history, such as Roosevelt, Eisenhower, MacAurther, Patton, Lincoln, and Grant would have never done anything with their time except attend funerals.

Still, if you need to know what history shows, then ask a veteran. As Gulf War veteran John Cole notes, no President has ever regularly attended military funerals.

That's right. Franklin Roosevelt didn't. Harry Truman didn't. Dwight Eisenhower didn't. John F. Kennedy didn't. Lyndon Johnson didn't. Richard Nixon didn't. Ford and Carter didn't. Reagan attended more than most Presidents ever did, but still usually didn't. Bush the Elder usually didn't. Clinton did a couple of times, but mostly didn't.

What if we go all the way back to Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, or George Washington? Turns out that they didn't either.

Why? Because if they did, they would do almost nothing else.

The President of the United States is the leader of hundreds of millions of people. Part of his job is to command hundreds of thousands of people in the military. The next time you vote for a President, I hope you think very hard about that, because that's one of the most important things any President ever does.

But one thing he generally doesn't do is attend the funeral of every fallen service man. Mind you, a good one wishes he could attend every such funeral. A good one feels it like a knife in his gut every time a soldier falls. But he can't be there every time a soldier falls. He just can't.

If you don't understand that, then, to be blunt, you lack maturity

TV's Henry just hit his second full year of weblogging. Is that cool or what?

There's More...

The Italian government has arrested some thugs who were apparently recruiting people to carry out suicide bombings in Iraq.

There are people who still sneer when you try to tell them that much of the violence in Iraq is being imported by Jihadists. I say they have blinders on.

The latest Carnival of the Vanities is being hosted by Setting The World To Rights. You might want to check it out.

I seem to be one of the few utterly non-theistic, non-religious people I know who has absolutely no fear or loathing of Christianity. Unlike many, I also have absolutely none of the fear of the "mixing of politics and faith" that seems to scare the bejeezus out of some intellectuals. Indeed, as I think I've said many times before, I believe such sentiments bespeak a not-so-subtly-hidden anti-Christian bias in much of America today--a bias that some Christians have internalized, and that's come about mostly due to lack of reasonable education about religion in most of our schools and universities here in the U.S.

Indeed, I think it not only defensible, but actually self-evident that religion has had a very positive influence throughout human history, one that greatly outweighs its negatives. I think the positive influence of both Judaism and Christianity on the West are even more obvious. I think it's cheap and shallow to concentrate on the negatives of faith, and not give equally serious contemplation to the positives. Especially when those positives are so profound and lasting--and the record of atheism, agnosticism, etc. so mixed and murky.

This doesn't come from a theistic viewpoint either. My actual views on religion, its origins, its driving forces, etc. would strike most people as deeply cynical if not outright offensive, even though I mean to be neither.

So it was with all this in mind that I read Reverend Brill's recent commentary on Democrats and religion. I think his advice to Democrats is mostly spot-on. I also think the current crop of Democrats are, sadly, unlikely to take his advice.

That said, I think I'd also point out to Rev. Brill that the fear of imposition of religion appears to me to be an obsession with only a minority of people in the U.S. It's easy to get caught up in that fear when everyone you know seems to share it, but I think a lot of people are as unafraid of such a bogeyman as I am. Americans, in my view, always get the big issues right sooner or later. We've never been a theocracy, and are farther from one today than we ever have been--indeed, some of us think we've gone so far in the opposite direction it's getting downright psychotic.

I'll also point out that, as Rev. Brill rightly notes, both of our last two Democratic Presidents were very open and forthright about expressing their faith quite jubilantly and proudly in public. What I'll also point out is that Bill Clinton, in 1992, openly advocated an amendment to return voluntary prayer to the public schools. He, of course, won, and never recanted that view. Yet strangely, the raging fear of imposition of a theocracy was never a serious factor in his Presidency.

Some would view this with cynicism, but I'd merely note that it probably has to do with the fact that fear of an impending theocracy is an obsession of a small minority.

During the period from about 1950 to about 1990, there was a class of political creature known as the "Cold Warrior." The Cold Warrior was to be found in either political party, whether it was Jack Kennedy, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson among Democrats, or Robert Taft, Richard Nixon, or Barry Goldwater among Republicans. The Cold Warriors were often sneered at, dismissed, and even reviled, but usually held steady to their convictions.

Today, there are those of us who view the confrontation of radical Islamic extremism as the great issue of this generation. So here's my question:

The Cold Warriors had their name. What is our name?

A few days ago, I criticized this movie without even seeing it. From what I'm seeing of the reviews, however, perhaps I was hasty in my judgement. It appears to have been much worse than I thought.

I'm happy to see that the Watcher's Council has once again made some excellent choices and picked some good winners. I particularly liked "Revolution - Beyond Instalanche." Nice choice.

(From the White House web site.)

November 27, 2003

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE TROOPS
Baghdad, Iraq

Thank you. I was just looking for a warm meal somewhere. (Laughter and applause.) Thank you for inviting me to dinner. (Applause.) General Sanchez, thank you, sir, for your kind invitation and your strong leadership. Ambassador Bremer, thank you for your steadfast belief in freedom and peace. I want to thank the members of the Governing Council who are here, pleased you are joining us on our nation's great holiday, it's a chance to give thanks to the Almighty for the many blessings we receive.

I'm particularly proud to be with the 1st Armored Division, the 2nd ACR, the 82nd Airborne. (Applause.) I can't think of a finer group of folks to have Thanksgiving dinner with than you all. We're proud of you. Today, Americans are gathering with their loved ones to give thanks for the many blessings in our lives. And this year we are especially thankful for the courage and the sacrifice of those who defend us, the men and women of the United States military. (Applause.)

I bring a message on behalf of America: we thank you for your service, we're proud of you, and America stands solidly behind you. (Applause.) Together, you and I have taken an oath to defend our country. You're honoring that oath. The United States military is doing a fantastic job. (Applause.) You are defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don't have to face them in our own country. You're defeating Saddam's henchmen, so that the people of Iraq can live in peace and freedom.

By helping the Iraqi people become free, you're helping change a troubled and violent part of the world. By helping to build a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East, you are defending the American people from danger and we are grateful. (Applause.)

You're engaged in a difficult mission. Those who attack our coalition forces and kill innocent Iraqis are testing our will. They hope we will run. We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat a brutal dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins. (Applause.)

We will prevail. We will win because our cause is just. We will win because we will stay on the offensive. And we will win because you're part of the finest military ever assembled. (Applause.) And we will prevail because the Iraqis want their freedom. (Applause.)

Every day you see firsthand the commitment to sacrifice that the Iraqi people are making to secure their own freedom. I have a message for the Iraqi people: you have an opportunity to seize the moment and rebuild your great country, based on human dignity and freedom. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone forever. (Applause.)

The United States and our coalition will help you, help you build a peaceful country so that your children can have a bright future. We'll help you find and bring to justice the people who terrorized you for years and are still killing innocent Iraqis. We will stay until the job is done. (Applause.) I'm confident we will succeed, because you, the Iraqi people, will show the world that you're not only courageous, but that you can govern yourself wisely and justly.

On this Thanksgiving, our nation remembers the men and women of our military, your friends and comrades who paid the ultimate price for our security and freedom. We ask for God's blessings on their families, their loved ones and their friends, and we pray for your safety and your strength, as you continue to defend America and to spread freedom.

Each one of you has answered a great call, participating in an historic moment in world history. You live by a code of honor, of service to your nation, with the safety and the security of your fellow citizens. Our military is full of the finest people on the face of the earth. I'm proud to be your Commander-in-Chief. I bring greetings from America. May God bless you all. (Applause.)

END

By the way, although it naturally does not draw as much attention, it really is quite cool that Senator Clinton spent Thanksgiving in Afghanistan. The troops there are too often forgotten. In fact, I have heard many times that we have "abandoned" Afghanistan, and it drives me insane every time I hear it. When I try to correct people, sometimes they don't even believe me.

Our people over there are doing a wonderful thing, and doing it very well. I'm glad they aren't forgotten. I also think it's particularly brave for Senator Clinton to go there, since she would be a much bigger target for terrorists than any other Senator. Her status as a former First Lady would make her the juiciest target in the whole country. She has to know that. Good on her.

President Bush made a surprise Thanksgiving visit to American troops in Baghdad today, flying secretly to violence-scarred Iraq to thank U.S. forces for serving there. It was the first trip ever by an American president to Iraq -- a mission tense with concern about his safety.

"You are defending the American people from danger and we are grateful," Bush told some 600 soldiers who were stunned and delighted by his appearance.

The president's plane -- its lights darkened and windows closed to minimize chances of making it a target -- landed under a crescent moon at Baghdad International Airport.

(Click here for the rest of the story.)

From yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

Hollywood war stories like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Black Hawk Down" promulgate the notion that contemporary soldiers fight not for cause and country but simply for the survival of themselves and their buddies. But most American soldiers are quite conscious of the titanic clash of moral universes that lies behind today's U.S. venture into the Middle East. They are not only aware of the historical importance of this fight, but proud of their role in it, and broadly motivated by high principles extending far beyond self preservation.

Gregory Kolodciejczky was a New York City fireman. When the Twin Towers went down, 14 men from his stationhouse were killed, and he decided to help make sure the events of that day would never be replayed in his country. At age 32 he chucked everything and started a new career as a paratrooper. He believes that by fighting in Iraq he is honoring the memory of his dead friends, and helping protect Americans from future acts of terror. I know numerous soldiers who put aside well-paying jobs, family life, graduate school and comfortable careers after concluding, in the wake of Sept. 11, that their country needed their military service.

Families of some of the soldiers I've reported on have shared their letters home with me, and many of these reflect the rectitude of those men and women. Lt. John Gibson of the 82nd's 325th Regiment wrote his parents on his birthday this summer that "we are homesick and want to see our families and loved ones, but not at the expense of an incomplete mission. I know that a completely free and democratic Iraq may not be in place by the time that I leave, but it will be significantly under way before I am redeployed. I see things here, on a daily basis, that hurt the human heart. I see poverty, crime, terrorism, murder, and stupidity. However, I see hope in the eyes of many Iraqis, hope for a chance to govern themselves. I think they are on the cusp of a new adventure, a chance for an entire country to start over again."

Pvt. Melville Johnson of the 82nd Airborne reflected on his time in combat this way: "I feel Iraq has real potential for the future--with the help of the U.S. military, humanitarian agencies, and the installation of a just, fair, and compassionate government. I feel tremendously for the American families that lost a loved one. I also feel for the families of the enemy. At night, before I rest, I think of the enemy we killed. I remember the way their bodies lay in unnatural states, positions God never intended them to take. I hope these images will soon fade. But would I willingly, happily, and completely fight this war again? Yes, I would do it all over again with just as much, or more, determination."

The patriot Thomas Paine once said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, so that my children may have peace." This is a creed many soldiers adhere to quite literally. To a man, the deployed GIs I know tell me they don't want any waffling or hesitation about finishing the job in Iraq. They say it is much less important that the Iraqi war be over soon than that it be successful, and they know that will take time.

Amid the sour soap opera of Jessica Lynch, Americans should remember that there are many U.S. soldiers who displayed real self-sacrificial heroism in the Iraq War. Just among the 82nd Airborne there are men like Medic Alan Babin, who left a covered position and exposed himself on the battlefield to come to the aid of another soldier. He was shot in the abdomen and is now fighting his way back from the loss of numerous organs, several full-body arrests and 20 operations.

When you talk to our wounded soldiers they say, astonishingly, that they don't regret the fight. Almost universally, they say they are anxious to return to their units as soon as possible. Most American warriors subscribe to the words of John Stuart Mill: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

It's easy for critics on both the left and right to convince themselves that the U.S. is a decadent society, that our young people have gone soft, that we will never have another generation like the men who climbed the cliffs at Normandy. That judgment, I'm here to report, is utterly wrong. We've got soldiers in uniform today whom Americans can trust with any responsibility, any difficulty, any mortal challenge.

Thank you.

I find myself feeling a teensy bit sorry for confessed spy Gao Zhan.

I have very little doubt that the Chinese government, which had imprisoned her, let her come back to the US under the condition that she would conduct espionage activities on their behalf. The Chinese government is known to do a good bit of this sort of thing with Chinese-descended people in the US. They snuggle up to them, charm them, imply that Amerika is a racist country that doesn't really respect them, ply them with flattery and money and other helpful assistance. That's how they hook 'em in.

I imagine the Chinese spymasters' jobs must be doubly easy when dealing with someone who they've already got in their own horrific prisons. Frankly, if I had my choice between Chinese prison and American prison, well.... what would you choose?

So in a sense, I can see how it happened to her. I would also think that a smart strategy for the U.S. government would be to let it be known more widely in the Chinese-American community the kind of head games that the Chinese government plays with people such as themselves. They should also also let it be known just how much contempt the Chinese government really holds Chinese-Americans in.

It wouldn't hurt if the FBI and others let it be known that the Feds will be very kind and helpful, and will offer protection to, any American who is loyal enough come forward if the Chinese government has approached them. Because this does happen, and it's in America's interests to nip that kind of crap in the bud, and encourage Chinese-Americans to realize that they are valued and respected citizens who can trust their own government here in America.

It's tempting to feel sorry for this woman, to think she probably didn't realize all that. Maybe she was just afraid, and did what she thought she had to to escape China's nightmarish prisons. It's also, frankly, doubly tempting to feel sorry for her because of her sex. After all, she's female, and we always feel more sorry for someone who's a giiiiiirrrrllll.

All that said? Were she to spend the rest of her life in jail, I'd feel not the least bit of regret. It's where she belongs.

Someone recently accused me of being excessively mean to Ann Coulter. After all, I made fun of her for being an excessively skinny, bulemic-looking creep. Some even suggested that I was a hypocrite, because people would be mad at me if I made fun of a fat person for being fat.

Well, on the second point, I frankly find this ridiculous. We live in a culture which regularly pillories people, especially women, who are so much as 20 pounds overweight as slobs, undisciplined babies, and self-indulgent losers. The next time some college frat boy posts a sign saying, "No skinny chicks!" I'll apologize. Ditto that the week goes by when every issue of Cosmo, Glamour, Elle, and Playboy all feature covers with women who all weigh a minimum of 160 pounds and every issue of Reader's Digest and Woman's Day and Oprah contain front-page articles on, "How to gain 25 pounds in 6 weeks--and feel sexier for the holidays!"

That said, I'll admit, I was a little mean to Ann for saying she was too skinny. Mind you, she is. I think she should seek medical help, and would look a thousand times better if she'd only gain 20 pounds. I also admit, the photo I used of her earlier was not really, necessarily, the best photo I could have picked of her.

So I found another picture of her. One that I think is much more fairly representative of the kind of person she is:

There's More...

So. Some guy's been arrested for threatening spammers. I can't decide who I feel sorry for, although I do feel they guy's pain.

Trackbacks exist for the purpose of noting something fairly simple and straightforward: someone has referenced something you wrote.

Thus, when you send a trackback ping to another weblog, the assumption is that you are directly referencing that message. In other words, it's meant as a way of trading links. You link to something I said, and I provide the trackback so my readers can go see what you said about what I wrote. It's supposed to promote synergy between weblogs.

Lately, several people have been sending tracback pings to things written here on Dean's World, but without actually linking to the articles. I usually let it go, but a number of webloggers have been doing this lately.

Just a note on etiquette folks: if you send a trackback ping, it's considered polite to include a link in your message which notes something like that. Even if it's just something simple like, "This article was inspired by something written on Dean's World."

No big deal, not angry with anyone, just letting people know that it's considered impolite to send a trackback ping if a link isn't included with it.

Let me start off by saying that I am going to swear. If bad language offends you don't read it.

I put up a post on Sunday that was alarmist. I was trying to make a point about our freedom.

I also made a comment suggesting that the Supreme Court should not be in the habit of legislating - no matter how FUCKED UP the law is unless it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Sodomy laws, smoking bans and blood alcohol laws are fucked for countless reasons. None of them are unconstitutional. Save your scorn. Just because I don't think they are unconstitutional doesn't mean I agree with them. It also doesn't mean I don't want them GONE. I do.

There are plenty of STUPID FUCKING LAWS. Whose fault are they? Ours.

We let them happen. How? By voting in moneygrubbing blowholes that promise us a better, safer and happier life.

The whole point of my post was that WE need to stand up here and stop this crap.

I don't want anyone telling me I can't smoke what I want, fuck who I want and drink a 12 pack of beer after I'm done.

Fuck that.

We are the people. Not the 9 dinks that make up the Supreme Court. Not 100 assholes in the Senate that don't give a crap about us, unless we jerk them off with enough cash.

We need to stand up and scream "HEY, STOP THIS SHIT"

Stop telling us just how free we are with one side of you mouth, then from the other, legislate which way we should wipe our ass after you've fucked us.

ENOUGH.

Well no, she's not really Muslim Barbie, but she is the equivalent of one. To my surprise, I find that she's the creation of a firm in a town very near to me, too.

I suppose some will go spastic and start making all sorts of snide remarks about Islam and Burkas and whatnot. But just for the record? As one of those squishy humanist types who respects any religious faith that is tolerant of others, I think it's pretty damned cool. I wish the company luck with it.

(Via Haydur.)

Armed Liberal has recently complained that he finds increasingly that, as he reads left-leaning publications, weblogs, and other media, which he spends a lot of time doing, he finds pockets where he has difficulting quite understanding what they're saying. The words he can make out, and there's nothing particularly complex there, but the train of logic is so alien he has trouble wrapping his mind around it.

I've had the same experience. It's been going on longer for me than him I think, but the upshot is the same: you look at a string of statements someone has put together, and practically every sentence is based on an assumption you would like to challenge. Furthermore, you have no desire to challenge it because you want to be argumentative, but simply because it's based on assumptions you no longer share. Or assumptions that you never shared, but that used to seem unimportant, but now seem very important.

I get this a lot when I look at the left side of the blogosphere these days. I also see "humor" that isn't funny. Not that I don't "get" them. But it's like watching a rerun of Good Times and seeing Jimmy Walker clap his hands and say, "Dy-no-mite!" We get that we're supposed to laugh. We even get why we're supposed to laugh. But we don't, because it's not particularly clever or funny.

There's More...

I was fascinated by this Dave Neiwert piece on how nasty conservatives are. On several levels. But mostly because I consider myself a liberal, but I am no longer a man of the Left. I have come to believe that most of the people we call "liberals" don't deserve to be called liberals, for I have concluded that most of them are closed-minded, mean-spirited, reactionary people who care little for facts, have very few ideas, and focus everything on winning arguments without seeking truth, and preventing progressive ideas (like school choice and Social Security choice) from coming to fruition.

As far as the war goes, I regularly despair of anyone on the Left giving thoughtful, reasoned arguments against the war in Iraq. I've seen it only a few times, a few places. That said, I also confess to having some fairly conservative attitudes: once the war's on, I do think it's time to stop carping and sniping, and time to get behind the effort to win as quickly and effectively as possible, because the debate over whether to proceed ended once Congress gave the President authority to act. And because most people, even angry bellowers like Howard Dean, acknowledge that we cannot simply pull out of Iraq now.

I also keep waiting for thoughtful, decent people on the Left to repudiate the assertion that Bush "lied" about things that a reasonable person might conclude may simply have been wrong--and might turn out not be wrong after all. Calling someone a "liar" is like a nuclear weapon: once launched, it's hard to pull back. "Liar" doesn't mean wrong or misjudged or even inconsistent. It means a direct, willful, intentional, and (in this case) carefully planned and executed effort to deceive. Such a claim should never be made lightly, and every effort should be made to acknowledge that the accusation may be false.

There's More...

The End is Near!!!

Chip Implant Gets Cash Under Your Skin.

from Revelations 13:16-18

Also it (the Beast) causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six.

(Submitted by Paul Fallon.)

You really should read this letter from a service man.

We really cannot do anything more horrific to these people than pulling out now.

We just learned that the economy appears to have grown at 8.2% last quarter, its best showing since 1984. Yet inflation remains quite low. Consumer confidence is still shaky but steadily improving. Most analysts agree that job growth should continue its slow but steady improvement, and unemployment its slow and steady decline.

It appears that the economy is doing a good job of recovering from the massive body blows it took in the period from 1999 to 2001: the dot-com bubble burst, the multibillion dollar cost of fixing systems to make them Y2K compliant, the corporate mismanagement which finally came to light in 2001, and of course, the biggest blow of all: 9/11, which cost billions in property damage but, far more important, had devastating effects on several key industries, crippled free trade, and shook American confidence to the bone.

Now it appears that only concerns about the war are holding people back. Well, that, and natural pessimism.

Steve Antler's prediction of 4 million net new jobs in the coming year is looking better all the time, by the way.

The Senate has just passed a Medicare expansion bill that will include a prescription drug benefit, expanded medical savings accounts, and an option for Medicare recipients to choose some private plans for coverage rather having to stick with the Medicare system itself. The White House worked hard for its passage, and the bill now just basically awaits the President's signature.

I notice that a lot of fiscal conservatives are giving President Bush grief for backing an expansion of Medicare that includes prescription drug coverage. Stephen Green calls it "buying votes," for example.

I note that when President Bush came into office, he had a short list of pretty ambitious ideas.

1) He promised to sign a partial-birth abortion ban.
2) He promised to expand Federal education spending, but to institute testing standards and to expand school choice options.
3) He promised to increase military spending.
4) He promised to expand the child tax credit to help the poor, and to institute across the board rate reductions for all income tax payers.
5) He promised to move Social Security toward individual investment accounts.
6) He promised to expand Medicare to include a prescription drug benefit, but also to give seniors the option to pick and choose among various private plans that might suit their needs better than the traditional Medicare system.
7) He promised expansion of medical savings accounts.
8) He promised some form of Tort reform.

It wasn't a long list. Have you noticed how many of those promises he's kept to date?

"You did what you said you'd do, you bastard!" I get why Democrats would say something like that, but I don't get why Republicans would.

Anyone who's read Dean's World for any length of time knows that I have long despised Ann Coulter. She occasionally gets off a good line or a funny zinger, but so what? So do shallow, vicious harpies like Maureen Dowd and Molly Ivins. This means I'm supposed to like her?

Michele notes yet another illustration of Coulter's loathsome behavior. Not that I needed much convincing, but somehow this termagant, Coulter, manages to offend me even when dissing the utterly loathsome Howard Dean. It's like watching Jesse Jackson kick Rush Limbaugh in the crotch. Who exactly am I supposed to cheer for?

What's double-funny to me? Some of Coulter's defenders try to claim that "sexism" lies behind the criticisms of her. Puh-leeze. As if it's not okay to criticize a female-type person if she happens to be "cute?" You get an automatic pass just because you have a pair of boobs and a charming smile? Don't be mean to her, she's a giiiiiiiirrrlll!!!!

Although, now that I say that, I find myself wondering: does she actually have boobs? Are we sure those aren't just lumps of coal she's stuck into a training bra?

This brings up another point about Coulter I'll never get: who the hell thinks this anorexic crone is in the least bit "hot" or "sexy?" Every time I look at her, I think, "Jesus, lady, will you please eat something?!"

Bleck.

Once again, the difficult and joyous time of Ramadan is behind us, and the celebration of Eid-ul-fitr is upon is.

Blessings to our Muslim brothers and sisters. Let us all hope that the horrible time of war that has been upon us now is ended soon, that our children might grow to love and respect one another.

Let us all remember and honor the memory of Abraham, also known as Ibrahim. Look upon the world today and ask yourself one simple question:

Can any man truly be the father of nations, if not Abraham?

Eid Mubaruk Ho!

Dean has implied that I am a nerd because I like Star Trek. I say Star Trek is cool and he's the nerd cuz he LOVES Star Wars. I submit the below as evidence that Dean is the true nerd:

Star Wars Nerd Fest


I put it to you: Who's the true nerd? Me or Nerd Boy (aka Dean)?

Update DID NONE OF YOU PEOPLE CLICK THE LINK?????
THOSE PEOPLE ARE FREAKS AND NERDS!!!!!!

CLICK THE LINK, CLICK IT!!!

You should not read this if you are easily disturbed.

Recently, I was sitting in our family easy chair, my feet on the ottoman. Our family dog, a white German Shepherd named Buttons, was sitting near my feet.

Suddenly, I felt a rumbling.

There's More...

Just half a teaspoon of cinnamon a day significantly reduces blood sugar levels in diabetics, a new study has found. The effect, which can be produced even by soaking a cinnamon stick your tea, could also benefit millions of non-diabetics who have blood sugar problem but are unaware of it.

See NewScientist.com news service for more details.

(Via Gerund.)

His campaign staff thinks well of Ted Rall, and cites him approvingly. In reading this, a tiny smidge of hope in me crumbled a bit more, and I felt a little dizzy. All I could think was this:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world

I had thought that Howard Dean was merely the Pat Buchanan of his party: the shrieking, rage-filled opportunist willing to exploit the most angry and irrational aspects of the electorate in his own quest for power. With this, I realized that I might have underestimated him.

If the Dean people do not repudiate Ted Rall in fairly short order, I'll go beyond my earlier (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) claims that I'd never vote for Howard Dean, and go even further: if Dean is the Democratic nominee, I will likely become a registered Republican for the rest of my natural life.

"No big loss," I'm sure some will say. The ones who believe politics is an eternal "children of light vs. the children of darkness" struggle will say so, surely.

Dean needs to come out and repudiate this. He really does.

The latest Atlantic Monthly has an impressive profile of John Abizaid, the commander of all military operations in the Middle East (aka "Centcom"). He sure seems like the guy for the job. He doesn't look like what you expect an Arab to look like, but that's mostly Western prejudice: there are red-headed and blond-headed Arabs, often with pale skin, green or blue eyes, even freckles. His Centcom profile is also interesting.

(Atlantic Monthly article via Stephen Green.)

Orson Scott Card writes:

A century ago, there were bombings and assassinations all over Europe and America. Followers of a radical, utopian ideology (and the wackos who used that ideology as an excuse for murder) murdered a Tsar of Russia, a President of the United States, a President of France, a Premier of Spain, an Empress of Austria, a King of Italy, and various lesser officials.

They also, occasionally, attacked random innocent civilians. The man who killed one person and injured twenty others with a bomb he placed in the Café Terminus in Paris said he chose that site because there came "all those who are satisfied with the established order, all the accomplices and employees of Property and the State, ... all that mass of good little bourgeois who make 300 to 500 francs a month, who are more reactionary than their masters, who hate the poor and range themselves on the side of the strong." (Quoted in Barbara W. Tuchman, The Proud Tower, p. 93.)

For more on who these fanatics were, and more, just click here and read the whole thing.

This stuff matters. Especially his last line: "But we're Americans. We neither study history nor learn from it."

Behold the latest contribution to the world of music and art from the great nation of Japan: Yatta!

You'll have to wait for it to load, then click one of the "Yatta" choices over on the right.

G-R-EE-N-L!!!!!

Come on, admit it. You can't stop watching it, can you?

(Thanks to Geoffrey Allen, whose web site is so sick, disgusting, perverse, loathsome, and evil that no one should read it, ever.)