Dean's World

The blogosphere is an amazing place, not least of which is that it allows us all, free of charge, to attend free seminars with some of the world's foremost thinkers. Today political scientist Rudy Rummel answers a few of my questions (although you can ask him questions too), then embarks on a tour-de-force examination of an extraordinary fact that most public intellectuals have utterly missed. We have come to wrongly believe that racism, greed, hatred, nationalism, religious extremism, and bigotry cause wars, but they don't. Those are often symptoms, but rarely causes, of war. Rudy explains why.

After reading Neo-neocon's conclusion of her "A Mind Is A Difficult Thing to Change" series, I thought Rudy's piece explained a lot of what she talked about.

The US and India have signed a major defense pact:

Under the NFDR, Washington has offered high-tech cooperation, expanded economic ties, and energy cooperation. It will also step up a strategic dialogue with India to boost missile defense and other security initiatives, launch a "defense procurement and production group," and work to cooperate on military "research, development, testing and evaluation." Given India's broken military procurement system, the know-how transfer will be every bit as valuable as the technology transfer - maybe more so.

And the agreement doesn't stop there...

Joe Katzman at Winds of Change has more

I am a big fan of Reno 911!. I find the show utterly hilarious. Most of the cops I've known would probably also find it utterly hilarious. I find myself wondering at times if the cops in and around Reno like the show, but I suspect that some of them do. For all that it satirizes cops, it satirizes absolutely everybody, and an awful lot of the routines they do on the show very much remind me of stories various cop-friends have told me. (Most cops love telling stories, and most of them have some amazing ones to tell.)

Roger Simon suggests a Pat Buchanan/Russ Feingold ticket for Democrats in '08.

The way they're going, that sounds like it might be just about right.

Got an interesting email the other day:

Hello, Mr. Esmay,

I was reading an old post about Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein. You wrote that both thought altruism was evil. Could you explain why their reasoning behind this?

Thank you!

Kathleen

Hi Kathleen.

You know, comparing Ayn Rand to Robert Heinlein is always fascinating, because the two of them were about the same age and grew up as fiercely independent individualists in an age where such thinking was even more shunned by the intelligentsia than it is today. Yet, while they obviously shared many attitudes in common, in some important ways they could not be more different.

Rand's definition of "altruism" is that it amounts to making self-sacrifice the highest moral good--which she viewed as evil. In her view, "altruism" had nothing to do with kindness, mercy, or human rights. Rather, she viewed it as a philosophy which was self-destructive: the notion that you can only find value in yourself by subjugating yourself to others.

"The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice - which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction - which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good."

She wrote that in Philosophy: Who Needs It.

In short, then, Ayn Rand defined "altruism" as self-destruction. She saw it as a philosophy which taught people that they could only be valuable in sacrifice or slavery to others.

In the case of Robert Heinlein, I don't believe he ever said altruism was evil. If so I'm not aware of it. Even if he did, it would be hazardous to assume he meant it. He was known to family and friends to put forth arguments just for the sheer sport of discussing them. Also, he mostly wrote fiction, and was famous for having the characters in his books debate each other--and unlike Ayn Rand's fiction, where it was always screamingly obvious who she thought was right and who was wrong, it wasn't always clear whose side Heinlein was on. Sometimes he enjoyed simply playing with ideas, putting them in his characters' mouths and letting them chew on them, and then seeing what they would spit out.

Heinlein was also fairly comfortable with contradiction; I'm not sure he said so, but I think it's pretty fair to say that he viewed life as inherently full of contradictions and with very few absolutes. I suspect that Rand would have found that a ghastly notion.

From the few in-depth interviews Heinlein ever granted, and from a few sly things he inserted into his books, I suspect that Heinlein's attitude toward Rand was pretty close to my own: remarkable woman of remarkable intelligence, independence, and willpower who had some good things to say--but ultimately foolish. I believe Heinlein would say that to believe that every human action can be based on rational principles, or that you could ever devise an all-encompassing philosophy that fits every human situation and explains all behavior, or that there is truly an "objective" set of values created by humans that can clearly define morality in almost all circumstances, is the height of absurdity.

Mind you, this notion of "the all-encompassing philosophy which explains everything" is a not-uncommon hubris for philosophers. Karl Marx was almost exactly like Ayn Rand in this regard, and so were/are many other philosophers. It seems to be a madness that inflicts the breed. This may be part of what kept Heinlein sane: he probably would have barfed if you called him a philosopher to his face. Although he obviously was one, he refused to take such labels seriously. I suspect that this refusal may have helped keep him more sane and less arrogant than most philosophers.

Here's where this is most apparent to me: while the two of them obviously agreed on many things, I notice that when you see a Heinlein character saying something that sounds suspiciously like Ayn Rand, you find a warmth, a humor, a humanism, and a pragmatism to it that Rand so often lacked. My guess is that Heinlein's attitude about "altruism" was probably pretty close to what he put in the mouth of one of his most important characters, Lazarus Long:

"Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil."

If tempted by something that feels 'altruistic,' examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it.

Both of those are from Time Enough for Love. That is not his best book in my estimation, but it does contain "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long," which are a real treasure. Both of those quotes are from those "notebooks."

Look here how Heinlein seems to be agreeing with Rand to a considerable degree, but how he ultimately rejects her view on a fundamental level. He views self-deception as the root of all evil, not altruism. His upshot would be, I think, that if you're doing something because it makes you feel noble, or good about yourself, don't lie to yourself about it: you are doing it because it gives you pride, self-worth, self-esteem, causes others to praise you and to give you positive attention, because you enjoy seeing happy faces, or even because it helps you assuage a little guilt. Just admit this. Then if you still want to do it, go right ahead. Just know yourself, and know your motives.

Another favorite quote from the same Heinlein book:

Do not confuse "duty" with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe to yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anything from years of patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect.

Yet anyone who knows much about Heinlein realizes that, without a doubt, he believed that duty and honor and self-sacrifice, while self-chosen, were and are among the human race's highest ideals. Heinlein valued patriotism fiercely, and considered self-sacrifice on its behalf among the highest of moral achievements--and he considered self-sacrifice on behalf of the human race an even higher value than that.

Heinlein was also quite the sexist and believed that men had a duty to die protecting women.

Where Heinlein and Rand probably converged was their fierce belief that only duties chosen voluntarily were really worthwhile, and that only free individuals could really choose those most worthwhile values. Still, Heinlein clearly thought very little of those who rejected such values as duty, honor, patriotism, and self-sacrifice. Which makes it likely that Rand would have considered Heinlein "ultimately an altruist" and thus abhorrent to her view that the individual mattered more than the group in all circumstances and that any system of values which rejected that was oppressive.

This would be my take on it anyway. While it's probably clear here that I'm no Objectivist, I think I've been fair to both thinkers. I expect someone will let me know if not.

WalMart is a sensitive subject around here. I discovered that yesterday when I wrote about the death of John Walton, heir to the WalMart empire. I'm not surprised given the mix of readers we have here at Dean's World: Neo-Cons, Randists, Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, Libertines and other rapscallions. WalMart has become a symbol for free trade and free markets - Laissez Faire capitalism at its best - or worst depending on your point of view.

As I stated in yesterday's post, I don't like WalMart. Unlike many who disparage the store I don't shop there - preferring to use the power of the free market to voice my opinion instead of the megaphone or worse, government intervention.

Over the past three and a half years I have been extremely active in the anti-offshoring movement, including founding the ITPAA which has become the largest repository on the web for information on offshoring, H-1b reform, and related topics. Unlike many who seek a government intervention to remedy the situation, I advocate the opposite: getting the government out of the labor supply business by ending the H-1b and L-1 visa programs. These non-immigrant visa programs give the government a faucet which it can use to flood the labor market with foreign workers to drive down the price of labor. I believe that the market should decide wages, and find the tampering of the labor market as repugnant as others would its meddling in the supply of gold or stocks. The H-1b and L-1 visa programs are the Achilles Heel of offshoring as UC-Davis professor Norm Matloff details here; without these programs, domestic service providers would be able to compete with those that offshore, ending the drain of jobs, resources and sensitive data abroad.

Likewise I believe the solution to WalMart is for consumers to buy products made in the USA or our allies like Japan, Canada, Australia and the UK even if it means spending a little more. I don't buy French products to protest France's anti-American actions, so why shouldn't I avoid supporting a regime in China that occupies Tibet, supports North Korea and threatens Taiwan by boycotting Chinese products?

Well, for one reason that it's hard to avoid buying them sometimes, impossible at others - especially at low cost outlets like WalMart or Target. So I don't shop there unless I really have to - which isn't that often.

If I take the power of the boycott from my anti-Apartheid days and combine it with my belief in the power of markets from my study of economics, the result is ethical consumption. Sometimes it is easy to do; other times it's completely impractical. For example, I would love nothing better than to keep gasoline refined from Saudi oil out of my car's tank, but that is currently impossible. So I try to do the best I can. While the Chinese Politburo is not losing any sleep over my avoidance of Chinese products, I don't lose any either by imagining my money buying a bullet that's used to kill an American serviceman. In the end, if enough of us do the same maybe they will needing fistfuls of ambien to get a good night's sleep - which, by the way, is made in the United States.

It looks like the Rhode Island legislature may have the common sense and decency to approve medical marijuana use, overriding the governor's veto.

Let's hope so. Let the Feds have to contend with a growing number of states thumbing their noses at them--and embracing common sense and decency.

So. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) wants a permanent seat on the UN Security Council for its member nations.

I say that the day that every single member of the OIC is a nation which holds free elections with universal franchise, genuine opposition parties, and free political expression enshrined in its body of law, that is a perfectly fine idea.

Until then: when pigs fly.

(Via LGF.)

So good old Professor Ward Churchill's in the news lately, this time for supposedly advocating fragging officers.

There are problems here, however. First off, it's appearing on on Bill O'Reilly's show, hardly the most credible source, and it's pretty clear if you listen to the tape that it's been edited. Second, even listening to the edited tape, it's clear that he is asking a question--and since we don't know the context, don't see what else he said, we have no idea what to make of this. I might ask a group of anti-war peoplefascist sympathizers the same question just to see what they'd say. It proves nothing.

Mind you, we know from Churchill's previous antics that he's a serial liar an a fascist-loving pig. That's not the point. This looks more like Bill O'Reilly looking for something to get people rile about than anything else. You might as well be trusting Matt Drudge for your information.

You know, this has to be the funniest story of the day.

I agreed with some of Bush's speech last night, and disagreed with others, but this part really gave me trouble:

The terrorists, both foreign and Iraqi, failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies.

The lesson of this experience is clear: The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom

If terrorists can, and do, still murder innocent people at will without being stopped, then our government's current definition of freedom is almost as whifty as the Left's desire for "peace and justice".

Criminals prey on the innocent because they can. Terrorists murder the innocent because they can. The stability and trust that allow freedom to thrive can't exist in a place where people have a reasonable fear of random attacks. The South Bronx during the '70's and '80's was "free". It was also a wasteland. Eliminating the threat of crime brought the South Bronx back. Freedom and the constant threat of random, brutal violence can't simultaneously exist.

If our efforts to spread freedom don't stop the terrorists from killing people, and according to our President they're not, then our government's tactics are flawed and they need to be changed.

If the situation continues, many will probably decide that if something needs to done right, they'll do it themselves.

I'm seeing in the press, once again, the notion that the Bush administration has "shifted its justification for the Iraq operation" to democracy and human rights.

As Instapundit properly noted some time ago--and as everyone who was actually in this country and paying attention at the time knows--bringing democracy and human rights to the Iraqi people was mentioned many, many times by the Bush administration before the invasion. Indeed, if that hadn't been front and center from day one, a whole lot of us would never have supported it in the first place--and a lot of the anti-warfascist sympathizers were arguing back then that the reason was bogus. Now some of the people who three years ago were saying, "the Bush administration is insincere, they don't really mean it" are now, appallingly, saying this is a "new" justification. It's just absurd.

Over at the Punning Pundit, I take a look at public displays of the 10 commandments. In the process of doing so, I try and make the case that there is no "Judeo-Christian" worldview. Intrigued? Take a look and come back here to discuss it. Yes, I am trying to drive up my traffic...

The great liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. 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.

In the 20th century, about 37 million people were killed in wars--but instititionalized violence and intentional starvation by fascist and communist governments killed 175 million. In other words, fascist and communist governments killed almost five times as many people as all the wars combined: and it was mostly their own people they killed.

People who act like war is the worst of all possible things need to be reminded that it is not.

Political scientist Rudy Rummel has more on this topic.

I really am a Microsoft supporter. I think they are, by and large, a provider of quality software-- software which is usually worth paying for. I honestly believe that WinXP is a better operating system than Mac OSX.3 (haven’t tried Tiger yet, want to!). Indeed, before I left for vacation, I got into a bit of an argument with Mr. Weidner, who holds a different opinion*. I should mention that arguments with Mr. Weidner tend to be rather civilized affairs, as he is one of the classiest men I know...

All of which is my way of prefacing this post: please don’t take it as random M$ bashing; I don’t do that sort of thing...

Take a look at This link. Apparently MS has decided to hurt users of Firefox by annoying them. See, there’s a bit of code running on MSN sites which stop Gecko-based browsers (Mozilla, Firefox, a couple others) from using the right-click in any meaningful way. Fortunately, there is a workaround. Installing the Firefox plugin Adblock will keep the bad code on MSN from doing it’s job. It will also stop ads from showing up on most sites, something that I have problems with (ads pay for bandwidth, after all). However, if Microsoft wants to be a bunch of dicks on this issue, it’s nice to know they’ll be hurting themselves...

UPDATE: Microsoft is claiming a Firefox bug is to blame. If that’s true, I hope to see it fixed in either the upcoming FF 1.05 update (within days), or the upcoming FF1.1 update (within weeks)...

*I’ve been planning for months now to make that argument here, complete with pictures. But haven’t had the time...

Aziz Poonawalla, a muslim whose family hails from neighboring India, notes the inspiring story of Mukhtar Mai, the Rosa Parks of Pakistan --and hopefully other parts of the muslim world as well. (For some reason Aziz' article loads weirdly for me, and the text appears about 7 inches below the headline. If that happens to you just scroll down and you'll find the text.)

More on the story here.

Breakthroughs like this are a victory for the human race. I wonder if anybody at The Wingnut Brigade has noticed? This is an important jihad, one we should all embrace and ally ourselves with.

Ah, I see that The Watcher's Council, 7 Deadly Sins, Blogs For Bush, Searchlight Crusade, and The Loudest Cricket have all noticed the same thing: we keep being afraid to call fascists and fascist apologists what they are, and it's hurting our cause.

Not long ago, professor Victor Davis Hanson wrote:

Extremists that otherwise would be properly seen in the fascistic mold were instead given a weird pass for their quite public and abhorrent hatred of non-believers and homosexuals, and Neanderthal views of women. Beheadings, murder of Christians, suicide bombing of children, systematic torture — all this and more paled in comparison to hot and cold temperatures in American jails on Cuba. Suddenly despite our enemies’ long record of murdering and carnage, we were in a war not with fascism of the old stamp, but with those who were historical victims of the United States.

Yes, and part of the problem is that we have made the mistake of not more often calling fascists by their real name. Instead we sometimes call them "liberals" (thus offending and alienating good and decent liberals everywhere), or "the far left," or "anti-American," and it's all too vague and non-specific to mean anything.

Scott Koenig said the other day:

I'm disturbed by the trashing of the word "liberal," which used to mean "believing in or allowing more personal freedom" but which now has come to describe anyone who is to the political "left" of the speaker. Being a person who has had a "liberal" thought from time to time, I wish that folks like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh would find a more precise term to describe people with whom they disagree.

You're absolutely right, Scott. This constant bashing of "liberals" has allowed vile fascist sympathizers and fascist apologists like Michael Moore and the crowd at Daily Kos to pretend that they're liberals who are just victims of the "right-wing attack machine." And chuclkeheads like Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter help them get away with it.

Decent people on the left as well as the right recognize all this; last year, the New York Press' Armond White, an old-school man of the left, rightly called Michael Moore a fascist with a liberal face. He was every bit as correct as Victor Davis Hanson.

Time for more truth in labelling. I'm wondering where the Milbloggers are on this? We need to stop bashing "liberals," and we need to encourage good and decent people in the Democratic Party to purge their ranks of their vile fascist element (and the Republicans too). We need to stop farting around with vague terms like "liberals" or "the far left" or any of that. We need to start calling fascists, fascist sympathizers, and fascist apologists what they are: Fascists.

While I am on record as being far less offended by the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain than most people--I still see no reason to think this decision is any different from similar eminent domain decisions 50, 100, 150, or 200 years ago, except that it's far less extreme than decisions of the past--I would like to believe that this story about possibly bulldozing Justice Souter's home is more than just noise.

The Grand Rounds, the latest in medical blogging, is available at Health Business Blog.

Also, the latest Carnival of the Capitalists is available at Business Blogcasting.

Also, the latest Raging RINO Sightings collection is available.

The Indepundit, a Gulf War II vet, notes why artificial timetables would play into the hands of the fascists.

It will, of course, not persuade the fascist sympathizers and the fascist apologists, nor anyone who is adamant on the view that Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror.

But I really think this speech should help brace anyone who's been wavering on whether what we are doing can succeed, or our commitment. There'll be some snotty comments of course--that's inevitable--but those who listened should realize now how important this battle against fascism in the Middle East is.

* Update * I just left a comment over at John Cole's, and thought it was worth reprinting here:

It was a fine speech, and the aftermath of it will be positive. Not for Bush per se--indeed, it's pointless to wonder about its affect on Bush. He's not running for President. History will judge his legacy once he's gone. There's no more need to get into stupid "this hurts him or helps him" stuff. The question is whether it helps the troops, and the war effort.

Yes, it does both. No, it says nothing he hasn't said before, except for the bit about encouraging young people to enlist and to be proud of that choice if they make it. But nothing new NEEDED to be said: we are committed, this is a just and moral cause, and the price of failure would be horrific.

It was absolutely right to hold it on prime time, and a good time to do it. As many people as possible need to see it. Unlike most of those of us who are plugged into politics in the blogosophere, everyday Americans needed reassuring. Most of them got that.

No, not the BDS-sufferers and the fascist sympathizers. Nothing will change those. But the waverers who needed bucking up got it. This is a good thing.

* Update 2 * John's got the complete transcript, by the way (just scroll down), and Ian's got the entire thing on video.

Of all the bloggers I ever helped get started with their own weblogs--and there are well over a hundred such people--none makes me prouder than my Cuban brother Val Prieto's Babalublog.

Happy blogiversary, Val. You make me proud. All the time.

Viva Cuba libre!

Ever wonder what your house looks like from space? How about the City of San Francisco? There’s a new Google Toy which covers, near as I can tell, every part of planet Earth...

For the US, Canada, and England, it will give data on such things as coffee shops, movie rentals, and gas stations. In the US, it will give Zip Codes, and even congressional districts!

It’s a 10 meg download, and requires a decent Internet connection (data is streamed in rather than cached locally) they recommend a fairly modern computer (say newer than 2 years). It’s not available for Mac or Linux...

Crossdressedposted over at The punning pundit

I hereby make my contribution to keeping Eric Scheie, exemplar of eternally great values, ranked high on the Google search: Eric epitomises classic Western civilization VALUES.

We need more people who cleave to values like those Eric Scheie stands up for so very well.

Building off an op-ed in today's Globe And Mail (Canada) about the upcoming Live 8 events to help alleviate African poverty, Dennis Sanders questions whether debt relief will solve world poverty. The moderate Republican blogger (who is black) worries about corrupt governments that siphon off funds, and argues that capitalism is what will aid poor countries. Dennis writes:

Of course this means the West has to give up its subsidies to farmers so that Africa can compete on the world market. It also means finding ways to help the poor invest and make money that can lift their families out of poverty. I know that this method bothers some folks. They only see the bad effects of capitalism and think that if the government just spends a little more, things will get better. But you need both government and the markets to solve this problem. Government can and should be there to educate the populace, alleviate health problems and establish a strong inf[r]astructure. But it can't produce the wealth needed to lift people out of poverty. For that, you need markets. I think at some point we have to stop seeing the Third World as a charity case and get them on the road to sustainability. I think a mix of capitalism and good government services such as health and education can do that.

Where I disagree with Dennis is his significantly higher faith in government services. Otherwise, amen. When Bob Geldof first announced the Live 8 event - which seeks to pressure the G8 on African poverty - was first announced earlier this month, I took much heat on my blog for slamming the effort by the British musician and his pals an example of “(more) white man‘s burden” that did much more to promote entertainers’ careers than help Africans (and Martin Mbugua Kimani, a Kenyan-born libertarian who lives in Britain, had a similar first impression).

Even though I’ve seen those new “One” commercials - which has now sprinkled some black American celebrity faces in the mix - on television, I remain unconvinced. As you may know, Live 8’s demands are: (1) cancel foreign debt; (2) increase foreign aid by at least $50 billion a year; and (3) end export subsidies which protect Western industries but block out goods by poor countries.

Other than Point #3 - a point that I fervently support - I disagree with this approach. One key question: where is the role of African themselves in helping their continent? Even a collaboration with African groups, who are already working hard to propel the continent forward? Nope. If these do-gooders were serious about improving Africa's condition, in addition to the freer trade plank, they would be pushing for: (1) rule of law; (2) property rights; (3) democratization and increasingly civic societies. They would be pushing for structural and institutional reforms that harness the entrepreneurial spirit that rank-and-file Africans possess, if government wasn‘t always blocking their flow. That is what will propel economic growth on the continent. Instead, these (overwhelmingly white) do-gooders mostly advocate policies that reinforce African dependency and focus as a charity case, whereas a “trade, not aid” focus puts things on a far more equitable plane. They empower politicians, many of whom will pocket the foreign aid in their love of Swiss-bank socialism - a key reason why 'debt relief' is needed in the first place - more than people.

Welcome to the Carnival of the Liberated, a sampler of some of the best posts from Iraqi and Afghani bloggers. This week we've got breakfast food, Saudis, a sharecropper, the new Constitution, and much more.

Afghan Warrior has some details of the operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Truth Teller of A Family from Mosul has a report of what amounts to collective punishment in Buhrez. This would be disturbing if true. I've tracked the source of the story to a single anonymous source reported on antiwar.com in an article by Dahr Jamail. Does anyone have more information about this?

Abu Khaleel of A Glimpse of Iraq has an interesting character study of one of his sharecroppers. The profile includes interesting sidelights on the hazards of polygamy, the management of sharecroppers, and Iraqi politics.

Hassan of An Average Iraqi posts about the Iraqi National Guard. I found this interesting:

One other thing, did you know that the uniforms of the National Guards and Police forces in Iraq are being sold in certain areas of Baghdad, especially Bab Al-Sharjy, which is almost a market of everything, anything can be found there. For example right after the war there, a friend of mine tells that he did see a commercial written by hand on a wall saying (Solve your problems for just 1500 Dinars) which is a little less than a dollar, guess what you will by that, a HAND GRENADE. Anyway I guess I drifted off point, back to the National Guards, anyone can get their uniforms, Imagine the chaos that could create, it has been known for some terrorist groups to mimic national guards units and do whatever they please in their name, which isn't exactly what we can call popular in Baghdad.

I think the best posts of the Iraqi bloggers are the ones that are just about everyday life. Ali of Free Iraqi answers a number of reader questions about just such questions. What does he eat for breakfast? What's a typical home like?

There's a post on Friends of Democracy on the new Constitution and the pitfalls of making Islam the sole source of legislation.

How popular are the Saudis with Iraqis? Not particularly if Hammorabi is at all typical:

The announcement of the killing of Abdalla El-Rashood today is another indication of how big is the involvement of the Saudis in the terrorism all over the world and not only in the US, Iraq, Afghanistan but everywhere.

What is needed is not operations on the tail of the snake but it is suffice to direct quiet few big blows on the head to finish the poisonous snake once and forever. What are happening now are few hits on the tails yet sending friendship to the heads! Head spit oil and it is needed but this is proved wrong and the best way to deal with it is to make the head to put itself away from the source of the oil or it will be pushed away. On the same time this rooted head should and other small heads should not suppress the minorities and either leave or introduce real democracy which have to push them away.

Mohammed of Iraq the Model has a post summarizing the losses of the insurgency over the weekend. He concludes:

I'm positive that Iraqis have no intention of giving up and so do their allies and friends while those who think that our position is weak are actually allowing lies and illusions to control their thinking and were driven away from the larger image by the narrow image provided by the media. The future is ours, there's no doubt about that and we shall win.

Raed Jarrar passes along a report (with photographs) of atrocities against Iraqi civilians by American forces. Warning: even edited these images are graphic. I'd read this report and seen the photographs on the blog of an Iraqi ex-pat a week or so ago. As with the story above this is disturbing if true but we only seem to have a single source and unprovenanced photos with other possible explanations. Whether true or not these stories have significance because they're making the rounds and are no doubt accepted uncritically by many in the Middle East and in the West.

Dr. Hanoudi of The Hanoudi Letter summarizes the Iraqi situation six months after the election. Here's his conclusion:

The Americans are in a real quandary in Iraq, the administration has already paid a very high price in blood and treasure for its policies and is still doing so, but this cannot go on indefinitely there is already a very serious opposition to their adventure in Iraq from inside and outside the United States. On the other hand they just cannot leave in a hurry like the Clinton administration did in Somalia, America has major interests in the area, a hasty departure will make a it a laugh and leave a huge vacuum which will be filled by extremist and fanatic elements and turn the whole area into an inferno. America is in trouble; there is not a very easy solution to it, they need a miracle.

Life goes on in Iraq. Sunshine of Days of My Life posts about the summer wedding parties she's attended.

Dave Schuler posts regularly to his own weblog, The Glittering Eye. The Carnival was originally conceived by Ryan Boots.

I don't like WalMart. I don't shop there. I don't like how they drive smaller retailers out of business and pay their associates dirt. I don't like how they kowtow to the Communist Chinese. In fact I support a group called Walmart Watch that dogs the huge retailer. So I wasn't too broken up over this headline: "Wal-Mart Heir Dies in Plane Crash". At least I wasn't until I read this:

Walton was an Army veteran who served with the Green Berets as a medic during the Vietnam War. He was awarded the Silver Star for saving the lives of several members of his unit while under enemy fire, according to the company.

Regardless of how I feel about the man's family and its business, this guy was a patriot - and the death of any patriot, be he a billionaire or homeless, should be mourned.

It's important.

(Thanks Ed.)

A left-wing friend recently forwarded this Pepe Escobar article to me and dared me to try to answer this set of assertions from it:

It's virtually impossible for US President George W Bush's Iraq to be "on its way to democracy" when real unemployment reaches a staggering 50% (a scarier prospect for most people than car bombs or snipers), 25% of children under five years old are malnourished, 78% of the households in the country (and 92% in Baghdad) have electricity only a few hours a day, only 37% of urban households (and a mere 4% in the countryside) have sewage-disposal systems, only 61% have access to drinking water, 5% of households have been destroyed by bombing or search-and-destroy missions, only one in 10 households in rural areas can be reached by a paved road, and more youngsters than in any previous generation are illiterate. This is the appalling legacy of the occupation - and the US and UN-imposed regime of sanctions in the 1990s.

Look on at this in disbelief: according to this vile idiot Escobar, every bad thing in Iraq is the fault of everybody except the fascist thug Saddam Hussein or the fascist "insurgents" who wish to restore fascist rule.

Never mind that Escobar's statistics lack any meaningful context and completely ignore all the data in the last two years on improved standards of living and improved economic growth and opportunity. Never mind the free elections, free speech, free press rights, rights for women and minorities, and so on that no Iraqi had under Saddam. Ignore the disastrous things Saddam did to ruin his own country and its economy. Ignore all that, and look at what Escobar's really saying: everything bad is there is the fault of the U.S.A. (and throw in the U.N. as an afterthought).

Worst of all is the sly reference to households "destroyed by bombing or search-and-destroy missions"--with the clear implication that any house that hid fascist "insurgents"--or even houses bombed by the insurgents--are also the fault of the U.S.A.

In short: Fascists can do no wrong. Indeed, if they do wrong, it's only because the devil Bush made them do it.

There's no mention of the gassing of the Kurds or the genocide of the marsh Arabs. No mention of the war between Iraq and Iran, or the massive use of WMDs by the regime. No mention of Saddam's brutal mass murders, his torture chambers and rape rooms, his children's prisons, or the endless oppression of his own people. No mention of the disastrous rule he brought the country, or the horrific policies that did so much to destroy its economy.

Nope! In Escobar's world, every bad thing in Iraq is America's fault. Indeed, if we took Escobar seriously, we'd have to assume that if we'd just left Saddam completely alone for the last 20 years, the lives of ordinary Iraqis would be better.

I can think of no better way to describe this pig Escobar than to call him what he is: a FASCIST APOLOGIST

This is why I no longer refer to many people on the left as "liberals." People who consider liberal democracies more of a threat than oppressive thug regimes, who are no longer even reliably anti-fascist, simply don't deserve to be considered "liberal" in any sense of the word.

Here's what this fact brings me to realize: the truth is that for years we've struggled with knowing exactly what to call the enemy in the global war on terror. "Terrorist" isn't always the right word; it invokes cheap moral equivalencies, and makes it too easy to lump people together. "Islamo-fascism" or "Islamist" gets you accused of having a vendetta against all muslims, and just doesn't roll well off the tongue. It's too long, and people often ask what you mean.

But here, just look at this:

FASCISM:

1. 1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Does this not describe perfectly what Osama Bin Laden wishes to impose on the world? It would be a theocratic fascism, but it would obviously be fascism. This definition also perfectly describes the Taliban, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Assad's Syria, and the ruling desires of the likes of Abu Abbas, Al-Zarqawi, and most other international terrorist organizations.

Saddam Hussein's regime was classic fascist--it was modeled directly after Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain. Most of the "insurgents" in Iraq are fascists who benefitted from Saddam's regime. The rest are made up of religious fanatics who would impose a brutal theocratic rule instead.

In other words, the "insurgency" in Iraq is primarily made up of secular fascists and religious fascists.

So why do we keep pussyfooting around by calling them "Ba'athist" (which is just Arabic for "fascist"), islamic extremists, "insurgents," etc.? Let's call them all what they really are: fascists.

Isn't it time we stop calling it a "war on terrorism" and call it what it really is: a war against global fascism?

Furthermore, isn't it time we call the people who defend these fascists, who draw cheap moral equivalences between them and America, what they really are? They are fascist apologists and fascist sympathizers. It's all they really are, or ever have been.

To be clear, I'm not talking about everyday liberals or others who have issues with the Iraq liberation. I'm talking about the folks who put the blame for everything on America's shoulders. Who look at every bad thing America does as proof of America's evil, and every good thing America does as proof of America's evil, and even things the US cannot control as proof of America's evil. I'm talking about pigs like Noam Chomsky, Juan Cole, Pepe Escobar, Robert Fisk, Michael Moore, the creepazoids at Democratic Underground and Indymedia, and others like them. People cringe when you call these people "anti-American" or "pro-terrorist," because those labels aren't always a perfect fit. But the following labels are a perfect fit:

Fascist sympathizers, fascist apologists, and, in some cases, outright fascists themselves.

As a benefit, this would also allow us to--quite properly--include the people on the right who are also fascist apologists and fascist sympathizers, the Llew Rockwellians and the Pat Buchanans. We don't need to call them "the far left" or "the far right" anymore. Fascist apologist, fascist sympathizers, or just plain "fascist" will do.

And please--please please please--STOP CALLING THEM LIBERALS. There are countless good and decent liberals--myself included--who do not deserve to be slandered by being lumped in with these fascist apologists, these fascist sympathizers.

Kinda. Check out my own humble site for a link that will have your techno lust sky high...

I just read in the School Paper that four of my fellow students are being sued for file sharing. What jumped out at me was this quote:

The four students have the ability to object to the charges, but Dwyer said it is unlikely they will, as the RIAA’s accusations were confirmed to be valid.

My question is: where is the presumption in this case? If I buy a CD, and rip it to Mp3, this is a perfectly legal action. If I buy a CD, leave it at home, my Father rips it to his Hard Drive, and sends me the files, this is perfectly legal-- or ought to be. So why is it illegal for me to have Mp3’s laying around? Shouldn’t the presumption be that the person downloading them is doing so legally? After all, unless I am very much mistaken, the reason allowing uploading is a crime is the presumption that people are downloading it who have no legal right to do so. By making uploading qua uploading a crime, we have essentially decided that presumption of innocence no longer applies, at least in this case...

I don’t believe that we really wish to be here...

Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

"I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go."
Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, supporter of the use of Eminent Domain to seize private property for private use.

"L'Etat, c'est moi"
17th century French monarch, Louis X1V (1638-1715), in opposition to those who wanted to maintain a separation of powers with its guarantees for the respect of representative national institutions

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country, I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
New London resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood.

...

Conservatives and Liberals are opposed to the the recent Kelo et al v. City of New London decision by the Supreme Court. Fox News said:

Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court (search) ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

HORTON: ..The question is whether there is a difference between a road and other things that are just as much in a public interest. If a city is dying, as the state of Connecticut has said that New London is an economically-depressed city, it seems to me that it's certainly in the public interest to do something about an economically-depressed city to bring it back and put it on the map.

CARLSON: And that may be right. I guess, Mr. Horton, what I'm looking for is an acknowledgement that real people, individuals, are being hurt in this.

HORTON: Oh.

Let me see if I get this straight.

The Supreme court rules that if a business will be a money making thing for your town or city, the government can LEGALLY force you to move, and give up your home.

I realize that roads, highways and water treatment plants have been in the Eminent domain logs for a long time.

But... Now this? What? Do we live in f**king RUSSIA?

According to the city, that way of life is called "low end ratables", and it needs to be leveled to make way for townhouses.

Personally, I'm in favor of progress and development, and nothing bugs me more than NIMBY types who claim to support better housing, green energy sources, etc., while simultaneously turning around and opposing those things in their own communities.

But progress and development is good when individuals support it. When the state decides that it has the right to make the decisions for, and oppose the will of, the people, the state is acting in direct opposition to the constitution.

The framers of the constitution made it clear that the purpose of the government is to follow the will of the people. That's their job, it's why we pay their salaries. Government employees are, essentially, middlemen. Who do these middlemen think they are, kicking retirees out of their homes for the good of a "state" that consists of individuals who strongly object to this process?

Obviously, there's a glitch in the checks-and-balances system that needs to be fixed. But until it's fixed, what can people in NJ do to stop this? According to the New Jersey Eminent Domain Law Blog:

We’ve had many inquiries today concerning what the property owner can do. The only answer is for the property owner to be vigilant regarding proposed municipal action and to participate in and contest the blight studies when they are presented to the municipal Planning Board. If the property owner sits on their rights and does not do this, they will have a very difficult time filing a Prerogative Writ suit contesting the municipal action.

The law requires an appeal of the municipal action within 45 days of the adoption of the ordinance authorizing blight or "an area in need of redevelopment." This is the first step toward condemning the properties. Many owners come to us well after the municipal action was undertaken. Often, they were not even aware of the municipal action and received no notice of the proposed ordinance.

Absent a viable Prerogative Writ suit on the blight declaration, property owners will be left with what they have in every condemnation case: A contest over what amount of money constitutes just compensation, and payment of relocation assistance to owner/occupants dislocated by the public project.

In her dissent, Justice O'Connor said:

"Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded, i.e. given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public – in the process."

Flashback to February and the oral argument, when Justice O’Connor asked: "Motel 6 and the city thinks, well, if we had a Ritz-Carlton, we would have higher taxes. Now is that okay?"

The simple answer, according to five Supreme Court justices, is yes.

But, we’ll leave the light on for ya.

I'll bet the bathrooms and the heating system are way out of date. Is anyone else thinking 'blighted'? A Ritz-Carlton with an attached upscale mini-mall would be a money machine in this high tourist-density area.

Those judges better get their noses out of their books. Start paying attention to the local municipal actions, guys, read them daily. You never know.

[Link to the New Jersey Eminent Domain Law Blog thanks to Fausta's Bad Hair Blog]

Lots of people have linked this lately, but I will too because it's just such a great story: Chicago Cub Rick Monday saves the flag.

It has been somewhat to my astonishment lately that I have learned there are people still seriously considering an amendment to ban burning the American flag.

When I was younger I didn't think burning a flag was any big deal. It's just a piece of cloth after all; it really gave me no strong reaction. Since 9/11, anyone doing that pretty much gets my instant and quite possibly lifelong contempt. But there are lots of people who have my undying, lifelong contempt: white supremacists, holocaust denialists, Michael Moore apologists, and partisan hacks who slam the American military and then claim they are "only criticizing the administration's policies" all spring immediately to mind.

Oh well. That's life in a free country: you're free to hold whatever and whoever you want in contempt, and others are free to hold you in contempt in return.

Many would see an effort to amend the Constitution to forbid flag desecration as an assault on civil liberties. John Donovan makes that case very well, for example (and by the way, don't miss the great photos he posted--all of them). But believe it or not, while I agree with most of what he says, I don't agree with his thesis that an anti-flag-burning amendment would be an assault on the First Amendment.

As is well-known, one of my war cries has long been, "slippery slope is a logical fallacy." (Which, by the way, it definitely is.) I doube very much that a flag-burning amendment would be a threat to political discourse, because people could still say or publish whatever they wanted, up to and including "I despise the American flag." I also think the effort to pass a Constitutional amendment is so herculean htat the notion that it would quickly be followed by lots more amendments assaulting free expression is just kind of silly.

More to the point, the travesty known as "McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform" has already done ten times more damage to the cause of free speech than any flag-burning amendment--and that wasn't even a Constitutional amendment.

So no, there's no threat there. It's too much work to pass an amendment, and any such amendment would be too narrow to be a real threat.

My objection is more pragmatic: don't cops, judges, and prosecutors have better things to do? Don't our legislatures have higher priorities? Do you really want judges deciding what is or is not desecration of a flag--which is what they'll have to do? With all the complaining we get now about "activist judges," can you imagine the number of "angels dancing on the head of pins" court decisions we'll have to sit through, defining X as descration and Y as not? The number of people lining up just to be test cases would be legion.

Besides, a part of me likes flag-burners. You know what these guys are thinking: "if I show this sign of my ultimate outrage, people will understand just how strongly I feel." Because they're too idiotic to know that all they've really done is alienated the vast majority of people who see them do that.

It's like watching some idiot shoot himself and all his friends in the foot every time it happens.

(Note: I've re-posted this because something weird happened to the original and no one could comment on it.)

I've never been a fan of zombie movies. I remember when they were considered the ultimate gross-out films, although these days those old movies like "Night of the Living Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead" look pretty tame and silly. I've seen a few of these films, mostly by flipping idly through late-night television looking for something to watch. None of them has ever truly impressed me.

That is, until I finally saw Shaun of the Dead. What a delightfully funny film. It's both a parody of the zombie films, and a parody of everyday middle class drudgery.

I'm not going to write a full review (see the link I gave above for tons of those) but I loved how the movie slowly shows you that something's not right, as you see steadily more and more zombie activity in the background while the completely oblivious main characters absolutely fail to notice any of it until there are so many zombies in their midsts that they're practically up to their armpits in them. Beyond that, the dialogue is funny, the characters are sympathetic, and the parody is dead-on.

What a fun movie.

I'm pleased to note that Shay, also known by the nickname "Molotov," of the moderate-conservative Booker Rising weblog, has agreed to join the Dean's World roster of contributors.

I hope you'll all give her a warm welcome. I find her voice fresh and interesting and I think you will too.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior political advisor, has been taking a lot of heat lately (see Joe's most recent roundup for example), heat he mostly deserves. But to me it's all a piece with how nasty our national politics have been since around 2003.

To me it all started the moment people started calling Bush a "liar" on WMDs--because, you know, a President can never simply be wrong or do something you disagree with, he has to be a liar. Honestly, accusing a President of lying to get us into a war for venal personal reasons is pretty much the worst thing you can say about any President. You could hardly say anything more devisive and offensive to his supporters, or to most of us who supported the liberation of Iraq. It instantly polarizes, and instantly destroys all rational or civil discussion.

From that point on it's seemed like the entire country got back to the mudslinging that has typified our politics for some time. Rove's remarks, while crass and stupid, were far less crass and stupid than the numerous comparisons to Hitler and fascism and Nazism we've seen aimed at this administration (see, for example, Victor Davis Hanson's "Assymmetry in the Slurs"), or the absurd attempts to portray the "Downing Street minutes" as saying things they clearly do not say. So to a certain extent I see Rove's remarks as a cheap shot aimed in response to all of that.

My point is not to excuse Rove of course. But he was talking to a partisan group of party activists, and frankly what he said, while asinine, is hardly worse than we've seen elsewhere in recent years coming out of members of both parties.

Joe and others seem to think that all of this bodes poorly for Republicans, but myself I don't think so. Rove's remarks annoyed me--I'm liberal on many issues, and I think of liberalism as a proud and important strain of American thought--but it's telling to me that we have to work so hard to find outrage that we take an obscure speech one of the President's political advisors gave to a small group of partisan Republicans. After all that's come out of fascist propagandists like Michael Moore, all the vicious rhetoric from the MoveOn.org crowd, Rove saying "liberals are wimps" and "liberals can't tell the difference between America and Nazi Germany" (which is all his remarks boil down to) is hardly the worst thing I've heard these last few years--and as Instapundit noted the other day, all this story has done is given people impetus to start reviewing every nasty, stupid, or vile thing people on the left have said these last few years. Captain's Quarter probably has the most bruising response:

"Spare me the faux outrage, e-mailers. Look at the links I've provided and tell me how Rove said anything inaccurate. Howard Dean told radio audiences during the primary campaign that he thought it was possible that George Bush conspired with the Saudis to cover up their involvement in the 9/11 attacks — and you all made him the chairman of your party, so he could continue calling Republicans evil. Ted Kennedy keeps talking about how Bush cooked up the entire war on terror at his Crawford ranch, and no one's asked him to step down. None of you had anything to say when Dick Durbin, the #2 Democrat in the Senate compared Camp X-Ray to Dachau, the gulags, and the Cambodian killing fields. And now Rove's echoing the words of MoveOn, Al Sharpton, Neil Abercrombie, and others to audiences in New York is 'despicable'? Pathetic."

Well I do think Rove's words rude and divisive and unfair, but given the climate of angry spewage we've seen in recent years, his remarks are far from the worst I've seen.

Polls come and polls go. History will tell the tale, but I note that November 2006 is still quite a ways away. I'd like to see our politics less personal, but I've given up hoping for it ever since people I thought I respected actually started making excuses for Fahrenheit 9/11.

Our discussion yesterday on word pronunciation got me to thinking abut this: I love words, and among the words I love are neologisms, i.e. newly invented words. I especially like bombastic ones. Here are a few of my favorites:

Ginormous (melding of "giant" and "enormous")
F*cktard (sorry, have to avoid tripping office censors, but a word meaning "incredibly obnoxious idiot")
Splendiforous (extremely splendid)
Trippy (wonderful in a weird way)
Fantabulous (fantastic and fabulous all at once)
Gazillion (a very big, non-specific number)
Bozon (a subatomic particle of stupidity)

Got any of your own?

The US Government is soon to begin requiring US citizens travelling abroad to show a US passport before being allowed back into the United States: including people visiting Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean.

That's sure gonna put a cramp on cross-border shopping trips.

(Thanks for the heads-up, Jerry.)

Bill thinks Saddam's been watching too much SNL.

Neo-Neocon has a fascinating picture of the enormous castle George W. Bush grew up in.

It's, uh, smaller than mine.

(Hey Neo, send me the rest of the photos and I can post 'em on my blog no problem!)

* Update * Ah, here's the vast palatial resort young George and Laura first lived in.

The Iranian people overwhelmingly boycotted the phony elections in Iran, and the mainstream media is ignoring this.

Appalling.

Literary rivalry: part 1 and part 2.

Iowahawk has unearthed Senator Durbin's journals, as well as discovered some of his recent correspondence.

(Man. "Captain Jesusland Von Patriot?" The guy has the soul of a poet.)

While I'm gone, leave me a note and tell me something interesting.

Rudy notes some trouble I and others were making.

Some 20 or so years ago, when I was still a late teenager, I found myself amongst a group of well-read friends who laughed at me. Why were they amused? I referred to the subject of "coitus," and I pronounced it "COY-tus." Although I have since found that modern dictionaries now accept this pronunciation, the commonly accepted pronunciation at the time, and the preferred one still, is "co-EYE-tus." Coital activities are preferentially referred to as "co-EYE-tal," and your joyful acts of coition are best pronounced as "co-ISH-un."

Some years later I dated a lovely lady--who I rather regret losing track of as a friend, even though I am quite happily married today--who once mispronounced a word in my presence. When that happened, I instinctively corrected her. Then I immediately apologized for being so didactic. To my surprise she said, "Oh no, not at all. When you correct someone's pronunciation you're just giving them a compliment."

"Oh?"

"Sure. If you laugh at them you're being a jerk, but if you correct them all you're doing is offering a minor favor--and noticing that they are well-read."

She was right you know. Almost invariably, if a person uses a word in a sentence, and she mispronounces it, it means that she has 1) read the word at least once, and probably more than once, 2) correctly teased out the meaning from context, and 3) absorbed it well enough that she can properly use it in a sentence.

Given that the English language has hundreds of thousands of words--which is far more than most languages--should it not be considered a sign of erudition if someone occasionally uses a word and doesn't pronounce it right? Indeed, what else could it possibly mean, except that the person is well-read and is familiar with words she has never heard pronounced aloud?

Here are some great English words that I'll bet a lot of people recognize but might not pronounce right:

bivouac
mischievous
assuage
exiguity
plethora
coitus
lissom
scion
verdant
avarice
raucous
insouciant
puerile
winsome
polyglot
umbrage
facile
intransigent
paucity
fatuous
inchoate
chimera

Maybe you recognize half of those words. Hell, maybe you recognize all of them. They're all worth looking up. But can you say with confidence that you are exactly certain how to pronounce every single one of them? I can, but only because I picked them out of my head and looked them up. I'm sure you could come up with a list I might pronounce wrong. And so here's the important question:

If someone you knew said, "That seems like a FACE-ile argument," or said "your opinion seems rather in-CHOTE," or "my friend from Europe is a "pole-EE-gloat," or referred to "my LISS-some" friend, would you assume that whoever uttered those words was stupid? Or just that he had never heard those words pronounced aloud?

(For the record, the proper pronunciation of those words is "FASS-iyle," "in-KO-it," "PALL-ee-glott," and "LIE-some.")

Hmm. I may have to ask my lovely wife to buy me a subscription to this for my birthday....

Ann Althouse has one of the more calm analyses of the hated Kelo v. City of New London case that I've seen.

The more time goes on, the more I'm with her.

So what are you up to?

The latest Carnival of the Recipes is available at Note-It Posts.

Quoted:

I read your blog regularly, but I seldom have any reason to comment, so I’ve never gotten an account.

However, I wanted to let you know that one of my cousins is a technician in the Air Force; and until about 3 years ago he was stationed in the Azores working on ‘systems’ for a small fleet of U2 spy planes stationed there — so they were definitely in use at that time, and I would expect they still are.

I once told him that I was surprised he could even tell us about the U2s, but he said the planes’ existence at the base there was no secret and many of their missions were not classified, to begin with. He said it’s a great platform for aerial photography of all kinds, whether related to espionage, or not. From some of your comments today, I thought you might be interested.

For the record, I found the story of the secret spyplane more amusing than serious. This, on the other hand, sounds about right....

Chuck Simmins stopped updating his "Stingy List," a compilation of private donations by Americans for tsunami aide in the south pacific, when it cracked a billion dollars. The cool thing is, someone at Reuters noticed, and did a story on him.

How cool is that?

One of the more tiresome canards of the Iraq operation is that we had no plans for the post-war reconstruction. This is a flat-out false assertion--one among many made by historical revisionists. I've written about this a few times before, because it's one of the many myths that simply won't die, but at some point you kinda run out of energy, ya know? But anyway, Q & O has the goods on this falsehood.

I mean, this stuff has all been available on the internet for years. Do people not even bother to try to verify their claims before making them? The folks at Q&O ask why the administration hasn't said any of this--but in fact they have, numerous times. Yet how much press attention does it get? The famed "bully pulpit" is meaningless if the President has to constantly restate things he and other administration officials have said many times already.

Another simply false chestnut I get tired of hearing is that "there was no connection between Saddam and terrorism." This is wrong from several different directions at once. It's usually tied to the completely false notion that "a majority of Americans believe Saddam was behind 9/11," which in point of fact no poll has ever shown. There has been a poll or two which has shown that a majority of Americans thought that he might have had something to do with the 9/11 attacks--a perfectly rational position and one that I myself hold. This piece on Saddam's regime's ties to, sponsorship of, and general assistance to terrorist groups shows why that's perfectly rational position to hold. (And thanks to reader Steve for that link.)

This is what has long bothered me about "debating" the Iraq conflict: people keep saying things that are flat-out untrue. How can you even begin to have a dialogue when your opponents simply make stuff up? It is exhausting to constantly debunk the same things over and over again. There are all sorts of rational ways to criticize the administration and to suggest alternative policies. Why won't more people just do that?

The folks at Pundit Review wonder if Americans here at home have the will to win, and blame the administration for not working harder to keep Americans feeling firm in the fight against fascism. Me? I'd say they have a full-time job just batting down the same falsehoods over and over again.

Rebecca MacKinnon confirms that all TypePad blogs are being blocked by the People's Republic of China.

She also clarifies that she is NOT calling for any boycotts, but is calling for greater scrutiny.

Seems reasonable.

It looks to me like the folks at E-Webscapes have a pretty good solution if you're shopping around for your own professional blog.

I of course am pretty happy with Powerblogs, but if I were looking to make a switch I'd think hard about these folks. It looks like they understand bloggers and their needs, which is always a huge plus.

Man, I can't believe it's almost three years since I did that whole "Blogspot Jihad" thing. The world's come a long way since then, eh?

By the way, yes I am giving these folks a boost because they're a sponsor.