Dean's World

Mr. Parker responds to a black male friend who was withholding judgment on whether football star Terrell Owens recently tried to commit suicide with pills, but his friend commented that black American men don't commit suicide: "An attempt to recall any black men in my past who had taken their own lives produced only one recollection. Other than Bernard, a young black kid who lived a few houses down during my teen years -- he hung himself atop the family pool table -- no other personal recollection of African American suicide exists. A notion that white people kill themselves and black people only kill each other could not be further from the truth. As with most other U.S. social diseases, African Americans, especially teens and young adults, have witnessed an increase in suicides. Statistics show that the suicide rate among black men has doubled since 1980. In 2003, 1,955 African Americans completed suicide. Males (1,597) made up 82 percent of those fatalities. Suicide ranks as the third leading cause of death for black men between the ages of 15 and 24. 'It’s been a misperception that black people don’t commit suicide,’ said Harvard Professor of Psychiatry, Dr. Alvin Poussaint. Poussaint did acknowledge that this sudden rise in African American suicides deserves attention by the medical field. 'Suicide was a stigma in the black community. Historically, killing yourself meant that you didn’t go to heaven. A black person taking their own life was taboo,’ he said. Poussaint said that blacks learned to live with depression, embraced music like the Blues and suffering as part of their life circumstance. Basically, we could sing about our lot in life but never shed tears about our position or status. We rarely did then or even now find psychological intervention. 'Blacks are more accustomed to psychiatry now but I think fear still exists about what (therapy) might do,' Poussaint said.....While suicide ramps up in African American communities, Poussaint stated that other forms of what he termed 'slow suicide' exist. 'Alcoholism, drug addiction, high-risk sexual behavior, these are all forms of dying slowly, all instances where life is devalued,’' Poussaint said. Poussaint debunked the notion that Owens had $25 million reasons to not take his own life. 'Money does not buy mental happiness. It might cushion you but money is no absolute protection for depression and suicide,' he said."

My response: I am not yet convinced that T.O. didn't try to commit suicide. And while black Americans certainly do commit suicide, it should be noted that our rate remains significantly below the national average. Compared to other groups, it is typically just not black Americans' style to kill ourselves. This is due to cultural and religious views regarding suicide mentioned in the piece. I also take issue with the cited suicide stats. The suicide rate of black men may have doubled since 1980, but the overall black male population has also grown (perhaps even doubled?) over those 26 years as well.

This is actually not a "stupid video" at all, it's a film of a test of a special type of security wall used around some military installations and embassies in rough parts of the world, and around chemical plants that have the potential to explode causing massive damage. I believe the primary company that makes them is Metalith Exteriors.

Just look at how impressive the physics are in that video. That's quite a few tons of robot-controlled truck, slamming at very high speed into the wall, and look how the wall barely budges. Impressive, no?

Update: According to the bottom of this page, under "features and benefits, these walls require "no footings as they are surface-mounted." (Thanks Peter.)

It's coming.

Stupid.com.

Joe Lieberman was was recently interviewed by Pajamas Media. Her is an introductory snippet:

You can get audio-only and Quicktime versions, and more information, here.

And by the way, you can donate to Joe's re-election campaign right here.

Val Prieto has a tale.

Aziz has answered Al-Qaeda's call.

Let's all wish him luck.

Well it doesn't look like Republicans will manage to retain Mark Foley's seat, does it?

I actually feel somewhat sorry for people like Foley, assuming he really is a pedophile. I don't think people who have those urges are inherently evil, I think there's something badly screwed up in their brain chemistry. They ought to be offered treatments like castration until more effective treatments come along.

Hmm. Check out Longplayer, the thousand-year-long song. It started playing on January 1, 2000 and will finish on December 31, 2999. It can be heard in several locations around the world, including live on the internet.

I listened to about 10 minutes of it. It was more interesting than I expected. Interesting enough that I listened for about 10 minutes while idly doing other things, but not interesting enough to keep me listening for much longer. It does have a sort of timeless sound to it. But it's basically nothing but a half-dozen 20 minute loops of Tibetan singing bowl music and gongs, set to loop continuously but to restart each loop at different intervals so as no particular loop ever repeats exactly the same for a thousand years. Once every possible iteration has been played, the song ends.

Part of me thinks this is kind of cool. Part of me thinks it's just idiotic. I lean toward "cool," in the sense that if someone wanted to build a monument to last a thousand years, that's no less silly really.

6:25pm -- go. :-)

Most excellent.

(Via Bill.)

Mmm, yummy:

This in a story about how The Island Rule also applies to the deep sea.

Politics and computers have always been passions of mine. Therefore it should come as no surprise that I am carefully watching the current scandal that has shaken, and appears to be slowly sinking the Hewlett-Packard corporation.

One of the basic rules of Life is that the cover-up is often worse than the crime itself. Many philandering husbands can attest to this, as could Richard Nixon (pphftp!) if he wasn't dead. The latest round: 10 participants including Kevin Hunsaker, HP's director of ethics and senior counsel, and HP's former general counsel, Ann Baskins, called to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday pleaded the Fifth Amendment. That was 8 more than expected by Congress. (Another one of Life's basic rules: Never surprise a politician in public.)

The result: former Chairwoman Patricia Dunn blamed everybody but herself:

"I am neither a lawyer nor an investigator, and in this matter, I relied on the expertise of people in whom I had full confidence, based upon their positions with the company and my years of experience in working with them. I deeply regret that so many people, including me, were badly let down by this reliance."

Current CEO, Chair and Grand Poobah Mark Hurd took responsibility for everything:

"Eventually, the buck stops with me," said Hurd. "In the end, I am responsible."

The analyst quoted at the bottom of the piece believes that Hurd should resign. I agree.

Is HP doomed? I doubt it. The company will survive. However it is clear that the current board is causing more trouble than it is fixing and therefore should go.

For background on this scandal, visit The Register. For a good play-by-play of testimony, visit this link - also at The Register.

(More here.)

I found this story interesting for two reasons:

1) It's cool what they're increasingly able to do with lasers, and
2) Frickin' X-Ray Lasers!

Beliefnet has the story:

The Florida office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Thursday (Sept. 21) that it will deliver $5,000 in seed money to help repair six churches in the Palestinian Territories that were damaged by Muslims who were infuriated by the pope's speech.

"We're still waiting for a detailed report from the Catholic Near East Welfare Association to find out the full cost of the damage," said CAIR-Tampa Executive Director Ahmed Bedier, announcing the campaign with Catholic officials in St. Petersburg, Fla. "But the response has been received well."

The Rev. Robert Gibbons, vicar general for the Diocese of St. Petersburg, is accepting the donation on behalf of Catholic Near East Welfare Association, a New York church agency that offers humanitarian and pastoral support to churches in the Middle East and around the world.

"I'm very impressed that (CAIR) would make this statement to Christians that Muslims don't condone this violence," Gibbons said. [...] Bedier said "these churches were protected under Islam. We were upset to see them attacked."

Bedier said the idea to collect money for the restoration originated from individuals within the Tampa-area Muslim community who were concerned about increased Muslim-Christian friction. CAIR leaders said the campaign would soon go national.

Emphasis added, though otherwise presented without comment.

I do not hide the fact that I am pro-CAIR and that my assessment of the organization is that while there are several fools at the top at the national level, the state-level branches do essential and good work.

Michelle Malkin, Robert Spencer, and many others in the conservative blogsphere unfairly smear the organization as a whole as being "an Islamist front group" based on a few stupid comments from the national leadership but they cannot and never will be able to point to anything concrete that CAIR has ever done to support terror organizations. Daniel Pipes' bogus lawsuit against CAIR was a complete joke and a good example of abusing the legal system.

UPDATE: TAQQIYA!

Also it's been suggested that I never cite Michelle approvingly. Oh that cuts me to the quick. I have often done so, and usually approvingly, even from back when she was not a "big blogger." Here is a list. Just for example, I was totally on her side in the Maglalang nonsense, and against those so-called "liberals" with their ping pong ball jokes.

Yes I've been argumentative sometimes, but always respectfully. As I tried to be in my latest controversial piece.

I am still thinking about how to respond in full to Michelle Malkin's response to me. This may be my entire response, or I may have more to say later. I haven't decided yet.

I admit to being a bit surprised and a bit disappointed. For instead of directly answering what I thought was a pretty reasonable (if slightly heated at the end) posting, she seems to have decided to delve into my comments section and dredge up some angry things I said to one of my commenters. Which was something I wrote in angry response to a troll who's been hanging out on Dean's World for a while now, regularly leaving horrible indictments of the entire faith of Islam.

Yeah I lost my temper and swore. But my comments should not be taken out of that context. I won't apologize for swearing--I'm a blue collar guy and I do talk like that when I'm angry. Nor will I apologize for defending my Muslim brothers and sisters who hate terrorists, of whom I know many.

And what did I say in that comment that was so offensive? I said that anyone who spits on the religion of many of our brave fighting men and women in the U.S. armed forces, and the faith of Muslims who are right now fighting side by side with them, is a traitor. A "G*d damned traitor" was my exact phrasing. Well if that makes you mad, too bad, because I believe it. You do not spit on the faith of our loyal citizens and allies who fight against terrorists. That's just wrong. Wrong on every level--politically, philosophically, patriotically, whatever.

But none of that was in my original article directed at Michelle. I wrote that in the comments to my article, in response to one guy who'd p*ssed me off several times before.

Still, I simply will not apologize for coming to the defense of our Muslim brethren who are engaged in the fight against terrorism. It makes me very angry when their faith is treated with contempt. I think I have a right to be angry about that. I think every American should be angry about that. You should not spit on the faith of our brave patriotic soldiers and their allies. You just shouldn't.

You should not spit on the faith of Hamid Karzai and Nouri al-Maliki either.

I'll also say I'm peeved with Michelle for accusing me of whoring for attention. Come off it, Michelle. That's totally unfair. I have about 30,000 daily readers, and its readership continues to grow over time. More to the point, when you were just starting out as a new blogger I was very supportive of you even though I often disagreed with you. I've always treated you with respect. Even when my blog had far more readers than yours I was happy to support you. I also still semi-regularly link both Michellemalkin.com and Hot Air, and have never once condemned you. We often disagree but I think you add a vital perspective, especially as a Woman of Color who is a conservative--which is nothing you should be ashamed of, even if sometimes I think your rhetoric is over the top.

I honestly, Michelle, think that I have never disrespected you, but I think you have disrespected me here. I was just looking for dialogue, but you decided to make me look like a fool because I posted an angry comment or two to my original article. (And yeah, my wife agreed with you, and that's fine too, she's a great woman and the mother of my children, but I think they were both were wrong.)

I wanted to start a real dialogue, and I think that this whole bit with quoting something I said deep in the comments to my original article sidelines the very real questions I brought up. So I'll re-iterate those questions here, in condensed form (which maybe I should have done in the first place):

1) Shouldn't we embrace Muslims who unequivocally reject terrorism as our friends and allies?
2) Shouldn't we be proud of the Muslims who wear America's uniform?
3) Shouldn't we admire and respect those Muslims who fight side by side with American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Phillipines, and other places against terrorists?
4) Should we not be careful not to paint Islam in broad brush-strokes when it might alienate Muslim-American patriots, and the allied Muslims who support our efforts to defeat terrorists?
5) Shoot, shouldn't Hot Air have at least one Muslim Republican in their mix? They're out there you know. As a Woman of Color and a Republican, shouldn't you be able to understand that?

I don't think these are unfair or angry questions. I think they are good questions, important questions, that every Conservative (and every Hawk) ought to contemplate carefully. They certainly aren't intended to be attacks or indictments, and never were.

I will re-iterate my respect for Michelle. Yes, we disagree on many things, but I do not believe I have ever been nasty or condescending toward her. I think I have supported her many times even when that made me unpopular. (Even if, apparently, she never noticed.)

I think I'm done for now, although there are other specifics I may need to address later (well over a dozen trackbacks, and countless comments all over the place. Wow, the head spins). But I still think that Ali Eteraz, a Muslim-American who hates terrorists, understood my point much better than most.

Update: In response to Dean's World commenter "clarenancy," who says I have given no specific links against Michelle, I respond by saying that I tried to avoid that. Listing such things would read like an indictment, and I was trying not to do that. I thought I was writing to a friend and comrade-in-arms, not an evil person who needed to be denounced. As I said, it was a call to conscience, not a fight I wanted to pick.

Still, some of Michelle's postings that I think could have been better-phrased include:

The Religion of Peace Firebombs &Fatwas

Hmm. Not the violent nutjobs, but all advocates of the "Religion of Peace?"

Muslims kill Christians in Nigeria

Not Islamic radicals and extremists. Just Muslims.

In I Support the Pope, Michelle says things like, "The Muslims clearly have no response to this, because their religion was spread by the sword, and we can see it is spread so still by the forced conversions of Steve Centani and his camera operator." Not Islamic radicals or extremists. Just Muslims.

Her co-blogger at Hot Air, Bryan, posted this extraordinarily pretentious and condescending article defending the notion that Islam is inherently violent based on the Koran.

Muslims Will Execute Christians, wherein she describes three Christians who were convicted of fomenting violence that killed hundreds of Muslims in Indonesia--and implied that somehow Christians are put to a double-standard. But she did not mention that three Muslims are now on Death Row in Indonesia for the bombing in Bali. Yes, one Islamic radical got off with a light sentence of only a couple of years, but three other Muslims are sentenced to die for their horrible murder of Australian tourists and non-Muslim Indonesians.

On the other hand, Michelle wrote in Criticizing Islam on the Airwaves the following: "For the record, I do not consider all Muslims terrorists and would not call Islam a 'terror organization.'"

Again I do not mean, and never meant, to indict Michelle. I honestly hoped it would be a dialogue between friends and allies, who have supported each other for years. I just wanted to ask the question: shouldn't we do a better job of recognizing and embracing our Muslim friends who hate terrorism and radicalism? Who serve in our armed forces, and/or fight alongside our armed forces in the fight to capture or kill terrorists?

Please also see the last two or three minutes of this video.

Please also see this statement by Prime Minister Maliki:

These men are our allies. But not merely our allies, they are our Muslim allies.

Is it too much to ask you to remember that whenever you can, Michelle?

Seriously Michelle, you shouldn't be mad at me. It was only because I respect you that I brought up these questions in the first place.

Peace and respect to you, my sister.

Update 2: Something I have noticed in the angry responses to my question is the running theme that I somehow "attacked" poor Michelle. Please. Read my original question, without delving into the comments. Was there any attack there? I don't think there was. I think it was an honest call to the conscience of a fellow Hawk, with questions I thought badly needed answering. Anyone who thinks I was beating up on poor Michelle is just being sexist and stupid. If I didn't respect her in the first place I would not have posed the questions as I did. Let's dispense with the "Victim Michelle vs. Brutal Dean" narrative--which Michelle never suggested and neither did I. Such a narrative demeans us both.

Read Anousheh Ansari's blog.

The first Muslim woman in space. Bin Laden and the illegitimate, unelected rulers of Iran must be furious.

Heh. Good.

(Thanks Samuel.)

MutNodjMet has much more to say on the matter at hand.

Read the whole thing, but be sure not to miss this Chicago Tribune piece on Muslims in the U.S. Armed Forces.

And I stand by it: you may not like me swearing, but too bad: if you can't acknowledge and celebrate our fighting men and women who are Muslims too, then you're a G*d-damned traitor. You just are.

I had hoped that my posting would start a worthwhile dialogue. I will respond probably tomorrow. But in the meantime I thought I'd point to this thread for one Muslim's view, and to say that I agree with his interpretation.

The first comment over there by "Mutnojmet" was also very telling. To me anyway:

Islam must be destroyed. If the so-called Easter Bunny Moderate Muslims manage to take back their supposedly hijacked religion, then I will reconsider. maybe.

but we can no longer WAIT for that to happen. in fact, I begin to wonder if our tolerence isn’t part of why and how Muslims are able to ignore the evil abomination that they are.

How can you not shake your head in horror?

(And that was quoting someone else, by the way, not Mutnojmet's actual position.)

Update: Oh, I see a lot is being made out of the fact that this morning I swore at one of my commenters. Just for the record: that particular whackjob commenter has been infesting and trolling the Dean's World comments for about a week, regularly dropping some of the nastiest, most hateful of anti-Islamic tripe. I won't apologize for swearing, nor for severely criticizing the Islamophobic nutjobs like him. I view them as no better than members of the KKK or Neo-Nazis.

(Via The Queen.)

Haaretz reports that the Hamas government is facing street protests against them. Many Palestinians are saying that the Fatah party may have been corrupt thieves, but at least when they were in charge the Palestinians had a better life.

How many times have I written that by being elected to power, Hamas is going to be forced to either moderate or face loss of power because everyday Palestinians grow to hate them?

Dean has been in an ecunemnical mode (to say the least). Well, here's my contribution:

It's a rendition of the well-known (in Jewish circles) version of "Pischu Li" composed by Shlomo Carlebach.

Some have suggested that if the Democrats take power in November, they will move to cut off funding for the war. The basic argument is that Charlie Rangel will take over the House Ways and Means Committee and then turn off the spigot for war appropriations. For example, RedState quotes Rangel via Bloomberg:

[H]e "cannot think of one" of President George W. Bush's first-term tax cuts that merit renewal. He also said no discussion would be possible on overhauling Social Security until Bush dropped a plan to create individual accounts funded by payroll taxes.

"If they want to get that on the agenda, they better take privatization off the table," Rangel, 76, an 18-term New York lawmaker, said in an interview. "Trade will be easy to work out some agreement, and we can probably do some minor things with the tax code."

In other words, Rangel will seek to repeal the Bush tax cuts - increasing funding to the federal government, so that we can actually spend money for the war on terror, not borrow money for the war on terror. Yet how does RedState interpret the quote above?

if the Democrats take back the Congress... they'll defund not just Iraq, but the global war on terror.

This is not just partisan hack talking point rhetoric, but the official position of the White House itself:

Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics "claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."

These are shameful smears of the Democrats' position. Rather than face the actual proposed policies of the Democrats, which are certainly open to debate if considered honestly, the Administration invokes the strawmen that the Democrats want to block money for the war, and want to "appease" terrosist to get them to "leave us alone." That portrayal of the Democrats' position is total nonsense and as the WaPo points out, completely unsupported by any factual basis:

Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. But White House and Republican officials said those are logical interpretations of the most common Democratic position favoring a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Logical interpretation? As Ezra Klein snarks, "I'm looking forward to the next press conference, when Rummy drags out a chalkboard and treats the American people to an ontological primer so we're better equipped to follow future speeches."

Look, the reason Democrats support a timetable for withdrawal is because they argue that our presence in Iraq is actually helping the terrorists more than it hurts them. The recently-released NIE certainly provides evidence to support this view. By withdrawing, the argument goes, we remove the cause celebre for the instability of foreign jihadis flooding Iraq - who have a disproportionate contribution to the worsening security situation there. No less than General Abizaid himself has acknowledged that the number of foreign jihadis in Iraq is increasing with time (contradicting the Administration's claims). And it also is worth noting that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want US troops to leave Iraq as well. And an even greater majority believe that the US won't leave even if asked!

Now I for one am still unsure whether a timetable-driven withdrawal is better or not than keeping most of our forces in the theater and changing their strategy. Even if I favored a timetable I'd still think that we would need a sizable contingent of response forces available. If we sent half the troops home and the other half to Afghanistan it might be better in the long run for winning the war.

Still, the point remains that the argument for a timetable withdrawal is based firmly in Iraqi security concerns and a genuine and sincere desire to win the war. Not let it continue to fail. Interpreting the Democrats' position as defunding and running is not logical, its mendacious. I'll even go so far as to say it falls outside the boundary of spin and firmly into the realm of a lie.

Let's have the debate about the merits of timetable withdrawal or not. RedState and the Administration don't want that debate. Why? Are they so unsure of the merits of their own position that they feel it won't withstand scrutiny?

More here.

I'm publicly calling out Michelle Malkin, someone whom I often disagree with but usually respect. I hope she will think about it and respond thoughtfully and not angrily or flippantly.

The following emblem is carved into the headstone of many brave Americans who died for their country, including some who are buried at Arlington National Cemetary, a place I have visited and been humbled by:

(More here.)

Recently, I noticed that some of Iran's unelected and illegitimate leaders have said that Islam is incompatible with democracy. Gary Metz has more right here.

This very statement--that Islam is incompatible with democracy--is why I fight so hard with many of my friends on the Right: accepting that statement means we have to declare war on the entire Muslim world if we're to hope for human freedom to survive.

To me it would be akin to, in World War II, declaring ourselves at war with "Germanic People," "Latin People," and "Southeast Asians." Not Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy and Tojo's Japan. No, we would have declared that we were at war with anyone of Germanic or Latin descent, and anyone who happened to be short, yellow, and slant-eyed (to put it rudely and crassly).

There are some on the Right who believe this. But I think they're badly hurting our efforts. I think such people on the Right are hurting the war effort and not helping it.

I suppose such anti-Islam statements must add some moral clarity: oh, Muslims are the enemy. So let's just fight the Muslims. But that means you want to fight well over a billion people found in over 100 countries around the globe. Including people in America's armed forces who are serving with honor and distinction right now. Including many countries which have done great work in helping us round up and/or kill terrorists. Including many people who have died under the U.S. flag to defend freedom.

This is exactly what nutjobs like Osama Bin Laden, as well as the Ayatollah Khamenei and Ahmadinutjob in Iran, also believe. They want every Muslim to be arrayed against us. And sadly, some Americans on the Right seem to want that too.

I will note again, as I often have, that during World War II there were Filipinos who were ethnically Japanese and who spoke Japanese, but who allied with us against the Japanese Empire. Fought and in some cases died alongside our boys in the South Pacific. Some of them were even United States citizens, and served invaluable roles as translators and in propaganda efforts (and "propaganda" is not a necessarily a dirty word by the way).

Furthemore the Chinese, as much as they "looked Japanese" to American eyes, were also welcome allies against Tojo's Japan.

I think that many of America's rightists--including, sadly, Michelle Malkin--have done a piss-poor job of making such vital distinctions. Indeed, I would like to publicly challenge Michelle Malkin: you've said you've stopped using terms like "Islamo-fascist" and "Islamic radicals" because they don't make sense. Oh really? Then how is it, Michelle, that you guys at Hot Air and Michellemalkin.com still approvingly highlight statements by America's Iraqi and Afghan allies, like Hamid Karzai and Nouri al-Maliki? They are Muslims. Born and bred Muslims. They're Muslims right now. They will almost certainly die Muslim. So why do you treat them like enemies and liars?

I'm making an open appeal to your conscience, Michelle Malkin, and to the conscience of conservatives everywhere: shouldn't you start making a distinction between Muslims who hate us and want to kill us, and Muslims who believe in freedom, democracy, and religious tolerance?

And yes, I call myself a liberal, although I voted for Bush twice and have been an avowed Hawk since 9/11. I hate terrorists and giggle like a schoolgirl when one of them dies. I'm liberal on many issues but not on this: our enemies need to be hunted down and killed without remorse or pity. If we capture them alive, then we should extract the maximum possible information from them, so as to help round up and capture or kill their fellow terrorists.

It's all too easy to just make "the muslims" the enemy isn't it? But I honestly think that doing so greatly harms the war effort. Indeed, it makes enemies out of people who would otherwise be our friends.

Without trying to shame you, Michelle, I ask: should you ignore these questions? Or does the Conscience of a Conservative still exist? Shouldn't the Muslims who hate the murdering harabist-jihadis not be welcomed into the fight?

And shouldn't Hot Air have a terrorist-hating Muslim co-blogger, by the way?

I note the following statement by A MUSLIM LEADER:

This is our Muslim ally, damn it. Should you not acknowledge him as such??

Overall 94 percent have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda, with 82 percent expressing a very unfavorable view. Of all organizations and individuals assessed in this poll, it received the most negative ratings.

Jonathan Rauch has an uncommonly sensible and thoughtful look at coercive interrogation, and some smart recommendations. (Just ignore the gratuitous swipes at Bush in the opening paragraphs.)

Unrelated to the NIE but powerful:

Doubtless there are those calling Karzai a "puppet" just like they claim about Iraq's democratically elected leaders. Sad isn't it?

Update: On the other hand there'll be those claiming that this is a bunch of bull because after all, Karzai's a Muslim...

The question of 'should we stay or should we go' might be easier to answer if we took a look at the larger picture. What are groups like al Qaeda up to in other parts of the world, and what are we doing to stop them?

What is al Qaeda doing in America? Here's a film of our local Queens-based al Qaeda, legally recruiting mujahideen in New York City.

This group, Al Muhajiroun (or the "Islamic Thinkers Society") has direct connections to al Qaeda, which is why the British government attempted to ban the group and deport its leaders. Unfortunately, the group still exists there under a different name.

Al Muhajiroun is also connected to the "nonviolent" and apparently moderate Islamic Circle of North America which operates out of Jamaica, Queens. According to Daniel Pipes, ICNA's Young Muslim Society is tied to the Islamic Thinkers. The Muslim American Society merged with ICNA in 2002 .

According to the Chicago Times the Muslim American Society is also connected to the "nonviolent" branch of Islamism, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Non-violent Islamists and violent ones, joining hands and singing in harmony. Don't you just want to buy them a Coke?

Our Queens based al Qaeda has many connections, which is one reason why they're able to terrorize neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens.

The Queens chapter of an international jihadist group - founded by the Brooklyn College grad accused of being an al Qaeda sympathizer - is terrorizing people in the extremist's old stomping grounds, residents said yesterday.

"They have a lot of hatred [but] the police said they can't do anything about them," Kana Chauhan, president of the Jackson Heights Merchants Association, said of the radical group Al Muhajiroun.

The organization is tied to suspected terrorist ally Syed "Fahad" Hashmi, a disciple of Syrian cleric Omar Bakri who was banned from speaking on English college campuses.

The Queens-bred Hashmi, who was arrested in London Wednesday on charges he moved funds and military gear to notorious terror camps in Pakistan, founded the local chapter of the extremist group. Each weekend, it sets up its hate-spewing operation on 37th Avenue and 74th Street.

"They're against America, they make trouble," local merchant Amarjit Singh said. "Whatever they say is really nasty."

Islamists have also achieved victories in Somalia and in Thailand. We haven't done much to stop them.

The Islamist-sponsored genocide in the Sudan is continuing without much of an effort from us to stop it. Just like Afghanistan on 9/10/2001 - why should we worry about these groups if they don't have nukes?

Most aggressors wage war because they want to get more money and land. If we ignore Islamist prattle about jihad, terrorism, Muslim rights, humilitation, fatwas, moderation, nukes, violence vs. nonviolence, we'll see that Islamists are all united behind one goal - to dominate us.

We can only win the war by showing them that we are capable of dominating them. Which we are.

Do our actions, in and out of Iraq, demonstrate that?

I honestly felt that both Presidents gave amazingly good answers right here. I suggest watching that video all the way through.

Quoted:

Yes, if they're bold, persistent and open-minded, say the three women of the Faith Club: Ranya Idliby, a Muslim; Suzanne Oliver, a Christian; and Priscilla Warner, a Jew.

This New York City trio is out to share with a fractious world their way of fostering interreligious understanding soul to soul.

A memoir of their experiences, The Faith Club (Simon & Schuster), arrives in stores Monday, on Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement, and during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

And:

Over time they met, wrote letters, e-mailed or called each other so often they came to hear one another's voices in their heads.

"I knew," Idliby says, "if I couldn't present myself as a Muslim in this group, there was no hope for me outside it." She's angry that the media focus on "the most fundamentalist side of Islam" instead of the full spectrum of ways to believe in and practice the faith. She wants to shout out, "How dare you! Don't tell me that is Islam. ... Nowhere in the Quran does it say, 'Kill and you will be rewarded.' "

Through the Faith Club, Idliby says she has found a way to speak out about "plurality, diversity and flexibility among Muslim believers," just as there is among Christians and Jews.

Oliver remembers how their conversations pushed her to "find what is vital in my own Christianity. ... I never read the Bible on my own until this project."

In deep conversation over the meaning of suffering, salvation and sacrifice, Oliver has come to think of Jesus' crucifixion "not of what God has done for me. It's what God has done for everybody, God's empathy for our suffering. It's that death is not the end."

Oliver finds herself speaking up in church and Sunday school and wherever she goes, offering "a voice of liberal Christianity, a voice for people like me who are reluctant to speak up when fundamentalists seem to get all the media attention." Speaking up is essential because "without our just and moral actions, God isn't present."

Warner was stunned to learn from Idliby that a Muslim's five prayers a day each begins with praying for the whole Abrahamic family — for Christians and for Jews.

"Once you dip your toe into conversations like this, you have to jump in all the way," Warner says.

Read the rest right here. And buy the book here.

(Via Who Else?.)

A spokeswoman for Dallas-based 7-Eleven said its 20-year contract with Citgo Petroleum Corp. ends next week. About 2,100 of 7-Eleven's 5,300 U.S. stores sell gasoline.
...
7-Eleven spokesman Margaret Chabris said that, "Regardless of politics, we sympathize with many Americans' concern over derogatory comments about our country and its leadership recently made by Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez."

Whether it was treason or not to leak it, the NIE is out and represents the authentic concensus of the intelligence community. Therefore I think it warrants debate. If you believe that the leak was treason or driven by bush hatred, that's fine, but Dean's previous post is the better venue for those meta issuea. My aim here in this thread is to take on the NIE executive summary on the merits. The full NIE is listed below the fold, so let's take a look.

(Thanks to Tim at Balloon Juice for the manual transcription from PDF. Transcription follows, and also cross-posted at Nation-Building.)

I have placed "Christians and the Law of Moshe" into the Best Discussions archive.

So, the much-vaunted "National Intelligence Estimate" that supposedly declared that the Iraq war was making terrorism worse turns out to be far less impressive than expected.

Now perhaps it needn't have been classified to begin with, but, sorry Bush haters, that's not unusual. A lot of things are classified simply on a "better safe than sorry" basis, or so the parties involved can speak their minds without being accused of having a partisan agenda. That's been true for decades, and is nothing new to this administration.

What's damning here is that whoever did leak it only chose to leak a highly Dowdified little part, and the part they leaked was meant to have the maximum possible political damage. In other words, instead of recognizing that they work FOR the elected government, some petty unelected bureaucrat took it upon him or herself to try to DAMAGE the elected government.

You can read the declassified PDF version right here.

Whoever leaked this needs to be found and fired if not prosecuted.

Via Glenn, who has more.

Here's two of my favorite guitarists. And I suppose most of my fans who liked the old music I've linked may think I've gone astray. Yet to date I have not linked anything less than about 30 years old. But here are two of my very favorite tracks of all time:

More right here.

More right here.

I find both tracks wonderful.

I recently got word that my Aunt Beverly Cruea is in the hospital with some problems with both her liver and heart in Virginia.

I called her just now and let her know how much I love her and how much I'm thinking about her. She was tired but very glad to hear from me. But she was very tired and needed to sleep. So I let her know I loved her and told her she'd better not die without talking to me about it first.

I think of her almost like my older sister than my aunt. Just like I think of my Uncle Eddie almost like the older brother I always wished I had. They're both under the age of 60. And I'm only 40.

I grew up in a very dysfunctional family. But if you pray for people, please pray for my Aunt Beverly. I don't know what I'd do without her.

Every time you are tempted to say "lie" or "spin" in response to a political statement you don't like, you should say "wrong" or "mistaken" instead. Even if it doesn't feel right at first, you should try to stick to that.

Not only will you achieve greater clarity when you speak, you will also hurt far fewer feelings when you do so. You'll also add greater clarity to your arguments.

Dawn Eden's blog reports that "The ACLU this week put the brakes on its lawsuit to stop Ohio from offering "Choose Life" license plates" evidently because the group realized that the same Sixth Circuit that refused to support a similar challenge in Tennessee last June would hear the case in Ohio.

I don't think the ACLU's support of abortion is particularly "partisan." It's consistent with its ideology, and although that ideology is clearly split along party lines, there is no hypocrisy involved for the ACLU to take left-wing positions: That's what it is.

The complaint about ACLU hypocrisy based on partisanship goes along similar lines, however. The ACLU has little use for the First Amendment when the putative expression involved extreme anti-abortion speech, or even mere demonstrations against abortion. In a more partisan vein, recent complaints have focused on their wilful blindness regarding the fairly obvious conflict of interest on the part of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who wrote the far-out screed condemning King George III in response to the ACLU's attempt to end the NSA wiretapping program.

So I was somewhat happy to see Instapundit write, "A SAVE THE ACLU CAMPAIGN from supporters who feel the organization has become excessively politicized." He links here, to Jonathan Adler at Volokh, but not to the the site of the new organization itself. I clicked through and was pretty disappointed and I think that Glenn Reynolds, who's blogging from the road, hasn't taken the time to take a good look at this site. SavetheACLU.org is pretty vague. It doesn't criticize the ACLU on these grounds at all. In fact, while I thought perhaps the idea was to move the ACLU toward the center while retaining its civil liberties focus, the website seems to be an attempt to move it further to the left. The only policy (as opposed to personnel) specifics I see complained about are dissatisfaction with the ACLU's "acquiescence" to the Patriot Act and the CFC "blacklist."

There have been some good strides on the part of the self-appointed referees of law, policy, right and wrong recently. In the last few weeks both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have broken from polite consensus and harshly criticized Hezbollah for war crimes, something I did not think I would see. In fact, the acquiesence of the ACLU to the certain policies and legislation that are designed to enhance national security seems like a reasonable move to reorient itself towards something bipartisan, a place most Americans would recognize as a middle ground, though. But for some, there is only one rule: No enemies to the left. Why Jonathan Adler and Glenn Reynolds think this position is a "non-partisan" one is a mystery to me, and I can certainly be missing something, or one or both of them could have hiccupped here. More importantly, this could be another "battle for the soul" of a liberal instution we should watch.

UPDATE: Glenn has updated and clarified his post.

Back in 2003 I discovered a wonderful blogger. It happened when something horrible happened to him, and I heard about it through other bloggers. That horrible tale is recounted right here. I remember how he was actually attacked for that horrible experience, with people accusing him of lying about it. It was a big lesson for me, especially about some 2nd Amendment advocates (and I was then and still am a 2nd Amendment advocate by the way--self-defense is a Human Right).

Solomon was always one of my favorites. He went by "S-Train" then, but I like thinking of him as just Solomon. I didn't comment much on his site, probably because we were often at odds politically and I just don't like to pick fights (most of the time anyway). But he was always worth reading.

He stopped blogging a while ago, and I hear he doesn't plan on getting back into the game. But his archives disappeared, and that was sad. So I'm glad to say his archives are now restored. So at least they're there for posterity.

If you read through them, you'll find a very American tale, about a very American man. Someone I'd be proud to call "my brother." (And I do use that term for people whom I respect, but not casually.) Now that the archives are restored, he has posted an update saying he's not sure how often, if ever, he'll update his restored blog. So I'll give him a piece of unsolicited advice:

It is a mistake to think that blogging is about regular updates and conflicts with others to see who is most popular. This would be akin to declaring Bruce Lee to be the greatest Martial Artist of all time simply because, well, he was the most famous. No, that's not how it works. Not really.

The real Zen of blogging, good blogging, is that you write from the heart, from the soul, and you put it out there knowing that someone somewhere will read it. The magic is that they might read it today, or tomorrow, or next year, or next decade. But it's out there, and it's available.

If I ever give up blogging--either by choice or because circumstances force it--I hope the Dean's World archives stay up. Indeed, I've been at it almost 5 years now, and I still get occasional emails from someone who's just read something I wrote years ago, because they found it through search engines or just idly browsing. And sometimes those emails are rude, but more often they are kind, and anyway are often interesting. Occasionally they tell me I've inspired them somehow, which is incredibly rewarding.

The immediately obvious game in blogging is "who's most popular today?" or "who just gave who the best smackdown?" Which is about like Martial Arts competitions: "Who's got the most trophies?" But is that the real measure of a Martial Artist? No it is not. Neither is that the real measure of a blogger.

Keep your archives up, Solomon. If you update your blog once a week, once a month, once a year, once a decade, what does it matter? You put it out there, and it should stay out there.

And that goes for all of you other bloggers who foolishly thought that if you aren't in the Top 10 today you should hang it up. For that is only true if being popular was your whole reason for writing in the first place. And if that's all you ever wanted, then you were a fool to begin with.

One of my myriad hobbies is organic gardening. Composting is an important component of organic gardening, and I have had a compost station on the corner of my property for years. I regularly accept the lawn clippings and leaves from my neighbor, and during the Fall cover my small vegetable garden with his shredded leaves, then till them into the soil the following Spring.

The result? Soil the color and consistency of fudge. It's scent is a deep, rich earthy smell that you simply cannot buy from a bag nor add using chemical fertilizers. It's full of critters, and everything that I plant into it usually grows bigger than I expect or can manage.

The State of Delaware has decided to make composting mandatory. As of Jan 1, 2007 our largest landfill will no longer accept grass clippings.

In essence the Democrats - who run this state - have decided that they are going to make everyone an organic gardener.

I just got off the phone with my state representative, Greg Lavelle - who happens to be a Republican. He personally returned my call and told me that a bill he sponsored that reversed the new regulation made it through the Delaware House, only to die in the Senate - thanks to the Governor Ruth Ann Minner's opposition. Minner is a Democrat, but is famous as being able to lick the hindquarters of a banking CEO better than any pro-business Republican.

Our local newspaper, the Delaware NewsJournal which is about as fair and balanced as a Hesbollah press release, is supportive of the regulation.

Hockessin Woods resident Michael Kamps... said most residents will develop their own mulching and composting strategies.

"My guess is that people will either use a mulching mower or take their grass clippings and branches and things and put them in their back yard. A lot of the houses here back up to woods," Kamps said.

Two points: 1. Hockessin is one of the wealthiest areas of the state if not the country. It is quite bucolic, with rolling hills dotted by multi-million dollar McMansions. Most of these are attended to by private landscaping services.

2. What are the people who aren't wealthy enough to live next to woods supposed to do with their leaves and grass clippings?

The article doesn't say, although it carefully points out that the five state representatives fighting the regulation are all Republican.

The legislators, all Republicans, raised questions about cost, illegal dumping, back-yard composting issues and opportunities for private collectors.

Is this a newspaper article or a press release written by the proponents of the ban? It's hard to tell.

Pasquale S. Canzano, chief operating officer for DSWA, said the agency plans to provide more details about yard waste options. He said residents should consider use of mulching mowers as one quick fix.

"There are a number of choices. The easiest one, if you have property and the wherewithal, is backyard composting," Canzano said.

The DSWA (Del. Solid Waste Authority) only included the regulation in order to get a controversial expansion of the Cherry Island waste facility approved. The DSWA stands to benefit handsomely from the increased business as it can then compete with disposal sites in Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Did the author of the piece include this information? Nope.

Nor does he address the basic question: What if you don't have "property or the wherewithal"?

Composting is an aerobic process. However if you're not careful, by making a pile too big or too dense, you can encourage anaerobic bacteria to flourish - which can make the pile stink. In addition, you can't compost anything thicker than your pinky. Larger pieces of wood won't break down fast, and encourage the presence of termites.

Termites on your property aren't a good thing whether or not you are an organic gardener.

Even organic gardeners are going to have trouble. I grow English Roses, and am in a constant fight against powdery mildew and "black spot" throughout the growing season. One of the rules of organic gardening is that you never compost diseased vegetation. Therefore I usually throw my rose clippings into the trash instead of the compost pile.

Come January 1, 2007 we will witness the criminalization of another group of people: those who don't "have the property or wherewithal" or CASH to pay the professionals to take away their lawn waste. People will be forced to illegally dump or try to disguise their waste in their garbage.

The Democrats cannot resist a social engineering experiment - even one as half-assed and poorly thought out as this one. I'll remember that in 5 weeks when I vote.

Dean and I were talking the other day about Christianity. Long story short he believes the Roman Catholic Church has got the faith the most correct. Being Protestant I disagree. However, I cannot give Protestantism a complete pass. The Christian church as a whole has become blinded to Torah.

Could you ever confuse an observant Christian for a Torah observant Jew? You should. We’re supposed to be one faith. Someone screwed up. Without Torah observance one cannot please G-d. It’s that simple.

The traditional Christian response is to quote Paul in some context to explain away Torah observance. It’s “no longer needed.” The Law has been “nailed to the cross.” Has it? Tell that to a faithful Jew and see what he thinks. The Mosaic Covenant was eternal. It makes no sense for it to have been swept away by Yeshua’s sacrifice.

I also hear that Jews and Gentile converts are held to differing standards of conduct. Why? Are Gentiles incapable of keeping Torah? Why? The Tanakh has a number of examples of Gentiles converting to Judaism. If these people converted that means they observed Torah. Why wouldn’t Gentiles who turn their heart to Yeshua do the same? You think Jewish believers in Yeshua would have tolerated Gentiles not keeping Torah? Hardly.

It also helps to remember Roman policy on new religions. Conquered people of the Roman Empire were permitted to worship their original gods. However, new religions were illegal. While the Jewish religious leaders of the day believed that the message of Yeshua was heretical the Roman authorities didn’t act against Christians right away. Rome allowed Christians to spread their message for some time before coming down hard on them. Why is this? Couldn’t the Roman authorities see that Christianity and Judaism were as different then as they are today? Or was the religion practiced by the Apostles and their followers different than the religion we call Christianity today?

I’ve come to believe that this is the case. While traditional Christianity, be it Protestant, Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, is correct in the essentials it misses the “Jewishness” of the faith. I also believe that G-d allowed this watering down to occur so that the faith could spread the world over but a time would come when things would change. Christians would bring Yeshua to Jews and Jews would bring Torah to Christians so that we arrive at the place we began nearly 2000 years ago: Jews and Gentiles both worshipping Yeshua and keeping Torah.