"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 --  Thomas Jefferson
Google IT Mail IT PermaLinkThe Elephant in the Room04:39:58 PM
Category : Fourth Estate, Fifth Column

This Terrorists-in-Toronto business just proves that terrorism is a multicultural problem.

Via Jim Geraghty, who thinks the West has lost its interest on the War on Terror...

All over the blogosphere this weekend, bloggers mocked the press accounts suggesting the suspects covered a ‘broad strata’ of Canadian society. The names of the suspects that have been released: Fahim Ahmad, Zakaria Amara, Asad Ansari, Shareef Abdelhaleen, Qayyum Abdul Jamal, Mohammed Dirie, Yasim Abdi Mohamed, Amin Mohamed Durrani, Steven Vikash Chand alias Abdul Shakur, Ahmad Mustafa Ghany and Saad Khalid.

Well, that’s some diversity there. It’s a regular Benetton ad!




Via Tim Blair...

CSI TORONTO

The Toronto Star reports:

In investigators’ offices, an intricate graph plotting the links between the 17 men and teens charged with being members of a homegrown terrorist cell covers at least one wall. And still, says a source, it is difficult to find a common denominator.

We now cross live to the set of CSI Toronto, where filming is underway:

Sgt. Warren Bollard: (staring in bewilderment at an intricate graph) I just can’t find any common denominator! It seems as though these 17 men and teens have absolutely no point of commonality at all!

Staff Superintendent Pauline Tumble: I agree, Sarge. It’s a mystery unlike any other we’ve ever known in this peaceful multicultural paradise, to which millions of Americans emigrated following the Bush election thefts of 2000 and 2004.

(The pair continue staring at the intricate graph. Cleaner Gilles de Funt enters.)

de Funt: (sweeping) Dere names kinda all look de same.

Sgt. Warren Bollard: Shut up, ignoramus! Attend to your broom work in silence!

Staff Superintendent Pauline Tumble: Wait, Sarge! The stupid floorsweep may be on to something. Look at those names: Fahim Ahmad; Zakaria Amara; Asad Ansari; Shareef Abdelhaleen; Qayyum Abdul Jamal; Mohammed Dirie; Yasim Abdi Mohamed; Jahmaal James; Amin Mohamed Durrani; Abdul Shakur; Ahmad Mustafa Ghany; Saad Khalid. Do you see the pattern?

Sgt. Warren Bollard: (adjusts glasses, peers yet more intently at the intricate graph) Yes ... yes, I think I do see something. Something that rather leaps out at one, once one strips away all the distractions surrounding this confounding and inexplicable case!

de Funt: (still sweeping) Dey is all ...

Sgt. Warren Bollard: They’re all male!

Staff Superintendent Pauline Tumble: My God! You’re right!

Sgt. Warren Bollard: And look! Fahim Ahmad ... Zakaria Amara ... Asad Ansari ... Shareef Abdelhaleen ... Qayyum Abdul Jamal ... Mohammed Dirie ... Yasim Abdi Mohamed ... Jahmaal James ... Amin Mohamed Durrani ... Abdul Shakur ... Ahmad Mustafa Ghany ... Saad Khalid. Staff Superintendent Pauline Tumble, are you seeing what I’m seeing?

Staff Superintendent Pauline Tumble: Yes! They’re all Canadian residents!

de Funt: Dat intricat gaf, dat’s where all the clues is, oh for sure. (leaving) Idiots.

Sgt. Warren Bollard: (lost in thought, deciphering new clues from the intricate graph) Good Lord! Four of their first names begin with A! Arrest all male Canadian residents named Allan and Adam and ... and ... and ... Albert!

Staff Superintendent Pauline Tumble: Sarge, you’ve solved this mystery single-handed. Love me.

Sgt. Warren Bollard: Okay.




(0)

Google IT Mail IT PermaLinkRepublican Revolution...faltering08:36:24 PM
Category : None

The Task at Hand
By Andrew Cline
Published 6/2/2006 12:07:10 AM

Republicans in Washington have run their party's ship onto the rocks and it is sinking rapidly. Conservatives, who should have mutinied long ago, have to assert control now or they will be forced to abandon ship. They cannot let Republicans sink the conservative ideology along with the party's political fortunes.

Americans have lost confidence in Republican governance. A May Washington Post-ABC News poll says it all: 56 percent of the public would rather see Democrats in charge of Congress. It took Democrats half a century to prove that their approach didn't work. Bush and the GOP Congress lost the trust of the American people in just five years (12 if you count from the 1994 Republican "revolution"). That's very quick work.

Americans see the Republican Party's leadership as untrustworthy, which is a reputation it has earned. The challenge for conservatives is to convince American voters that Republican and conservative are not synonyms. Conservatives have to remind the country that the principles Republicans claimed to uphold but abandoned once in office still offer the best approach to governing the country.

Conservatives need an aggressive campaign to hold Republicans accountable for their apostasy and remind America that conservatism's Jeffersonian principles remain an untried and viable alternative to the programs the two main parties are offering.

"The freedom and happiness of man... [are] the sole objects of all legitimate government," Jefferson said. What Republicans have pushed for the past five years is not Jeffersonian conservatism. It is a neoconservatism that has married big-government activism to an ostensibly conservative political agenda. That is not what America needs, nor is it what America voted for when it sent Republicans to Washington in the first place.

When Americans handed Republicans the reins of government, they thought they were getting a conservative regime, one that would be honest, frugal and competent. Instead, they got a big government regime that has been dishonest, profligate and incompetent.


HERE ARE A FEW EXAMPLES of the Republicans' betrayal of those who voted for them:

* Republicans promised never to waste taxpayer dollars, to return control of numerous programs to the states, and never to let domestic politics dictate military decision-making. They did the opposite. Non-defense discretionary spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush as it did under President Clinton. According to research by Heritage Foundation analyst Brian Riedl, under President Bush and the GOP Congress education spending has risen 62 percent, Medicare 54 percent, highways and mass transit 30 percent, community and regional development 137 percent. And, of course, all of that was done with borrowed money.

* Republican tax cuts flooded the treasury with ready cash, and Republicans used that to buy loyalty -- exactly what the people booted Democrats from office for doing. They tried to buy seniors with Medicare Part D, farmers with agriculture subsidies, parents with No Child Left Behind, and small pockets of voters everywhere with local pork barrel projects. They used the U.S. Treasury as a political slush fund, just as they had attacked the Democrats for doing.

* After promising to shrink the federal bureaucracy, Republicans vastly increased the federal role in education, enormously expanded Medicare, and created an entirely new and gigantic federal bureaucracy, which, when needed, functioned exactly as conservatives have always said huge federal bureaucracies will function: poorly.

* After accusing President Clinton of using the military for political gain, Republicans burdened the Pentagon and Homeland Security with numerous unnecessary pork barrel projects and, worst of all, let domestic political concerns prevent them from effectively prosecuting a war. Is there any non-political justification for the President's refusal to commit more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan? Militarily, it makes zero sense to send so few troops to secure so much land. But politically, the more troops sent overseas, the more flag-draped coffins sent home. Bush has put domestic political concerns above national security, which Republicans said they would never do.

On point after point after point, Republicans promised conservative governance and instead delivered something else entirely. Only on taxes have they been true to their word. For those lies, Republicans deserve the ire of the American people. Conservatism, however, does not.


IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT CONSERVATIVES remind Americans that the Republican agenda of the Bush years has not been a conservative one. That is a big challenge. The media continue to refer to most Republicans, including Bush, as "conservative." A May 31 AP story is a good example of the myth that the Republican Party is a conservative party. "In a party dominated by conservatives, the last of the Northeast GOP moderates face several daunting election-year trends..." begins the story's second paragraph.

A party dominated by conservatives? Not at all true. But that is the perception, and conservatives must break it. Though it is too late to challenge apostate Republican incumbents in many state primaries, there are some things conservatives can do. First and foremost, they can vent their anger.

They can write letters to the editor (politicians and their aides read these closely), and mail, e-mail, and call their representatives and senators. They can call their local radio talk shows and even copy the Club For Growth's excellent practice of targeting non-conservatives with issue ads in the local media (issue ads, thankfully, are still legal at the moment). They have to let Republican incumbents know in no uncertain terms that if they do not fall in line immediately they will have no support in November.

President Bush's amnesty for illegal aliens appears dead thanks to vocal opposition back home. Americans let their elected representatives know that they would not stand for such foolishness, and Congress got the message.

Conservatives have to do that on every other issue. It is not enough for pundits to write columns and National Review to pen scathing editorials. Grass-roots conservatives who used to make up the GOP's most loyal base have to speak up, now. They have to tell Republicans what they want, not just complain to each other about the jerks who promised to govern conservatively and then didn't.

At the same time, they have to make clear to non-conservatives that they do not stand behind the GOP's recent governance. If Democrats do retake Congress, or even make significant gains, they will proclaim it a victory against conservatism. It would be no such thing. It would be a victory against lying, corruption, incompetence, and a blatant disrespect for the intelligence of the American voter. Conservatives have to separate their own message of responsible, frugal governance from what the Republicans have implemented, and they have to do it now.


THE AVERAGE AMERICAN VOTER must understand that there is another alternative method of governing -- one that he supported only a dozen years ago. It might be too late to salvage the Republican wreckage before November, but as long as the public knows that conservative ideas still represent a promising and viable alternative to the current mess that the Republicans have made in Washington, there is hope for 2008. If the public becomes convinced that conservatism is synonymous with the policies of the past five years, the conservative movement could sink along with the GOP's majority. And that truly would spell bad news for everyone for years to come.

A common refrain on America's college campuses is that no one really knows that communism doesn't work because true communism has never been tried. Of course, communism's true believers will never accept that pogroms, famine and massive state repression lie at the very foundation of the ideology. The question for America is whether it believes that huge budget deficits, clumsy foreign policy and political corruption form the foundation of conservatism.

Conservatives need to show America what those goateed professors with portraits of Trotsky on their walls cannot show: that their program for the country should not be condemned because in truth it has never been tried, and if America wants good, responsible, frugal governance, real conservatism is the only option.


Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader.

(0)

Google IT Mail IT PermaLinkDerbyshire's Metrocons04:26:28 PM
Category : None

Article by John Derbyshire

National Review Online
May 8th, 2003

Confessions of a Metropolitan Conservative

Ah, authenticity! You can’t buy it, you can’t fake it, and you can’t help but wish you had it.

This all started with a lady across from me at a dinner party, a lady visiting from Virginia. We had established in some opening exchanges that she was a keen reader of my web columns. But how was it, she wanted to know, that I had not thrown in my five cents worth on the Rick Santorum business? Well, I said, I did actually pass some remarks of a general kind about it in my April diary. Pshaw, said the lady, but I hadn’t declared myself. Where did I stand? What did I think about sodomy laws?

Well, I said, on the matter before the Supreme Court, I agree that there is no constitutional right to sodomy, incest or adultery, even between consenting adults. And as a conservative, I am temperamentally hostile to the idea that there are fundamental rights hidden in the Constitution that have somehow escaped the notice of scholars and jurists for 200 years until a rich, noisy lobby came along to agitate for them. And I would be very surprised to learn, if it could be learned, that the Founding Fathers had intended such a right, given that practically everyone back then believed homosexual sex to be a revolting crime against nature. And furthermore...

Yes, yes, said the lady, but where did I stand on sodomy laws? For or against?

I said I didn’t see why the people of Texas shouldn’t have sodomy laws if that is what they want. And having already said that I didn’t see a right to sodomy in the Constitution, I didn’t see how such a law could be unconstitutional...

The lady was losing patience. Would I kindly give her a straight answer? If I lived in a state that put matters to referendum via a ballot initiative, and if there was a referendum to put a law against sodomy on the books, which way would I vote?

I said I would vote against, because I don’t see much point having laws on the books if you aren’t prepared to send people to jail for breaking them; and sending homosexuals to jail seems to me to be a really, really silly idea.

“Ah,” she said, in the tone of someone who has just had her worst expectations confirmed, “that’s typical of you National Review types! Milk and water conservatives! You talk a good game, but when it comes down to it, you’re just another bunch of metropolitan liberals!”

I was thinking about this all the next day. The lady had a point, of course. I seriously doubt there is anyone at National Review who would vote for a sodomy law. None of those NR writers who have declared on the matter have come out in support of such laws. That is not the same thing as saying that a state should not be permitted to have such laws, if the people of that state want them. We are mostly Tenth Amendment, strict-construction types here at NR, and I’m guessing that my position on the constitutional point is widely shared. We don’t want to lock up homosexuals, though.

Now, 43 percent of respondents to a Gallup poll last May said that homosexual relations between consenting adults should not be legal. So the uncomfortable question arises: if we NR-niks are to the left of 43 percent of Americans on this issue, just what kind of conservatives are we?

It’s the same with Creationism. I touched on this topic in a column a few days ago, where I called Creationism “pseudoscience.” A poll conducted last March showed that 48 percent of Americans believe in Creationism, vs. only 28 percent in evolution. It happens that a couple of years ago, someone on a private e-list I belong to asked me if there were any Creationists at NR. I said I thought there was one. I had forgotten that NR had eavesdropping rights on this particular e-list. Kathy Lopez, who eagle eye never misses a thing, e-mailed me to ask who it was I had in mind. I told her. She checked. Nope, he wasn’t a Creationist. To the best of my knowledge, therefore, there were no Creationists at NR, and to the best of my knowledge there are none now.

This means that on at least two points of importance to conservatives, we are to the left of vast numbers of Americans, over forty percent in each case. So again I ask: what kind of conservatives are we? “Milk and water conservatives,” according to my dinner companion.

Race-conscious Chinese people use the word “banana” to refer to a fellow-countryman who has “gone Anglo.” Such a person is yellow outside but white inside — a banana, see? Well, perhaps we milk and water conservatives are similarly inauthentic — red outside but blue inside. (I’ve been trying to think of some common object to use as a metaphor here. Is there anything that is red outside but blue inside? The best that the combined brains of the Derbyshire family could come up with is: a lovesick Apache.)

To get it back from the institutional to the personal: look at me. I have not the slightest doubt that I am a conservative by thought, feeling and instinct, yet on a lot of the issues that define American conservatism, I barely move the needle from the zero mark on the dial. I have guns but only fire them down at the range once a month, for the satisfaction of it, and to develop confidence in handling them. I have never hunted with guns. I am only feebly religious — feebly episcopalian, in fact, which is feebleness squared! Homosexuality? I don’t like it, and have got myself in a lot of trouble for saying so rather bluntly, but I wouldn’t criminalize it. Abortion? Pretty much the same. Creationism? Sorry, I think it’s pseudoscience. I’m fine with evolution.

So — what kind of conservative am I? Taking a cue from my dinner-table accuser, I think the answer is: I’m a metropolitan conservative. Of all the ways humanity can be divided into two distinct subspecies, one of the oldest and most persistent is the metropolitan-provincial divide. The contrast between the busy sophistication of the metropolis and the relaxed simplicity of the provinces goes way back in human history, at least as far back as Greek comedy. The metropolitans have by no means had the best of it; the city slicker can be just as much a figure of fun and ridicule as the provincial bumpkin, and is just as likely to be suckered — a Rawdon Crawley for every Charles Bovary. Intelligent provincials can be as confident, even as snobbish, as the metropolitans who look down on them. My own sister, a witty, worldly and well-read inhabitant of a small English town, describes herself with much pride as “a provincial lady.”

The great British art historian Sir Kenneth Clark wrote a fine essay about the interplay between the two worlds:

“Since a metropolis is the source of style, whether in fashion, or furniture, or the major arts, the concept of style tends to become too important, and at a certain point the balance of ends and means is upset. Just as provincial art fails from its lack of style, metropolitan art fails from its excess, and there appears the familiar symptoms of over-refinement and academicism.”

(The essay is called “Provincialism,” and can be found in Sir Kenneth’s book Moments of Vision.) Something similar has happened in religion, church leaders being won over by the cleverness of metropolitan thinking, the theology becoming more rarified and abstract, the metropolitan clergy more cynical and corrupt, until at last a cleansing simplicity from the provinces arrives to renew and purify the faith. In this context, it’s also worth remembering that the greatest event in human history happened in a remote and backward province of the Roman Empire.

I think that there is more involved than just accidents of location. Most of us, in temperament and outlook, are either metropolitan or provincial, either blue or red. I myself was raised in a small provincial town, but I have spent most of my adult life in big cities or their shadows, and have a mostly metropolitan cast of mind. I dislike modern American liberalism very much, and believe it to be poisonous and destructive; yet I am at ease in a roomful of New York liberals in a way that, to be truthful about it, I am not in a gathering of red-state evangelicals. Setting aside our actual opinions about this, that or the other, I am aware that in the first gathering I am among people with whom I have, at some level, a shared outlook; and in the second gathering, not. I suppose I would have been more at ease among the wits and boulevardiers of first-century Rome than with the dusty Hellenized provincial intellectuals of Judea.

I’d even go further into this dangerous territory — and I emphasize I am speaking strictly for myself here, not for anyone else at NR. We conservatives like to scoff at lefties for their “noble savage” fixation — the way they go all misty-eyed and paternalistic at the thought of the poor helpless victims of capitalism, racism, colonialism, etc. etc. Well, I think I can see some similar strain of condescension in my own outlook. What the heroic worker was to an old-line Marxist, what the suffering Negro was to civil rights marchers, what the unfulfilled housewife is to Hillary Clinton, the Vietnamese peasant to Jane Fonda, the Palestinian rioter to Edward Said, so the red-state conservative with his Bible, his hunting rifle and his sodomy laws is to me. He is authentic, in a way I am not.

There doesn’t seem to be much point in apologizing for this condescension, and I am not much given to apologizing anyway. It’s worth noting, though, as a fixed component of, I think, the entire outlook of metropolitan conservatives. I don’t think it is any cause for rancor or antagonism. The metropolitan conservative and his provincial cousin both have their part to play in keeping what Sir Kenneth called “the balance of ends and means.” Sitting in New York cooking up argumentative commentaries is as useful, in its own way, as running a Christian home-schooling group in Knoxville.

Probably not as critical to the future of conservatism, though. Looking across the pond at the country of my birth, where there are no powerful conservative lobbies — no Second Amendment warriors, no Christian Conservatives, no Right to Life chapters — I see what happens when conservatism becomes a merely metropolitan cult: conservative politics becomes marginalized and impotent. That’s not going to happen here; and it won’t be me and my big city pals that prevent it, it’ll be the legions of real, authentic conservatives out there in the provinces. God bless them all for keeping America strong, free, and true to her founding principles. If the price to be paid is a sodomy law here, a high-school Creationism class there, well, far as I am concerned, that’s a small price indeed. People who don’t like those things can always head for the metropolis, after all.


(0)

Google IT Mail IT PermaLinkDummy up, Scooter04:19:05 PM
Category : Fourth Estate, Fifth Column

Dummy up, Scooter
Accident my eye. Or rather, Harry Whittington's eye.

If you believe it was just an accident that Vice President Dick Cheney shot his hunting companion last weekend, you obviously have never seen "The Godfather" movies.

Just as surely as a fish wrapped in a bulletproof vest means "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes," that shotgun blast to Whittington's face was meant to convey that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby had better bite his tongue and forget about testifying against Cheney, his former boss, in the Valerie Plame spy case.

What'll it be, Scooter: a case of amnesia or lead poisoning?

The woman who owns the ranch on which the shooting occurred said Whittington shot a bird, went to retrieve it and then snuck up on Cheney.

The vice president, she said, was shooting at a covey of quail when he hit the tall, orange-vest-wearing lawyer. Oy.

Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, recently told a grand jury that leaking Plame's identity as a spy was authorized by his superiors who were angered by Plame's husband's public criticism of the war in Iraq.

That revelation had many questioning how low this administration would go to quash dissent.

Now we know.

A vice president who'll shoot an ally to get across his message of omerta -- that's mobspeak for "hush up" -- may be considered a national disgrace by some.

Not by me. I embrace the prospect of a lead-slingin' veep. Think of the impact Cheney's shot heard 'round the world will have on America's diplomatic efforts. When obstinate countries declare their unwillingness to negotiate with Secretary of State Condi Rice, all we have to do is roll out Deadeye Dick.

The prospect of having to sit across the table from Cheney, in orange vest, Elmer Fudd hat and a chaw of Red Man in his cheek, will, for instance, make Iran give up its plans to develop plutonium.

Shooting a hunting companion in the face, intentionally or not, is not Dickie Boy's worst gun-related transgression. Remember a few years ago when he went hunting at an exclusive resort in Pennsylvania and reportedly shot 70 ducks and pheasant?

That was "hunting" in the way that raising fish in a barrel and then tossing in a baited line is fishing. Conservationists objected because the birds, raised in pens, didn't know that, after a lifetime of being cared for and fed, they must suddenly flee for their lives.

Imagine a couple of the domesticated pheasants lounging around Pennsylvania's Rolling Rock club, awaiting dinner.

Phred: I say, old bean. This is the life. They keep us caged up and just bring us three squares a day. No flying south for us.

Philip: I'll say. It doesn't get any better than this. They were a little tardy with the food yesterday, but here they come now. Good. I'm hungry ... POW!

Phred: Hey! What the ... are they shooting at us? Well, I'll just walk right over there and give that baldheaded one with the glasses a piece of my -- Ugggghhhhhh. He got me.

Not very sporting, eh?

Cheney's fascination with hunting is puzzling because when he had a chance to take up arms for his country during the Vietnam War, he sought every deferment under the sun.

Of course, ducks and quail don't detonate roadside bombs.

Call Barry at 836-2811 or send e-mail to him at barrys@newsobserver.com.
(0)

Google IT Mail IT PermaLinkCheney's Coverup09:08:58 AM
Category : Monkeys with Accordians

Cheney's Coverup
The Vice President shoots a man. Questions must be asked.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

The press corps is outraged that the White House waited 20 hours or so to disclose that Vice President Dick Cheney had shot a hunting companion, and we can see why. Don't these Bush people understand that the coverup is worse than the crime?

In the name of media solidarity, and in the interest of restraining the Imperial Presidency, we have put together the following coverup timeline with crucial questions that deserve to be answered:

5:30 p.m., Saturday (all times Central Standard Time). Mr. Cheney sprays Harry Whittington with birdshot, and the Secret Service immediately informs local police. Who is Harry Whittington and whom does he lobby for? Does he know Scooter Libby?

6:30 p.m. White House Chief of Staff Andy Card informs President Bush that there's been a hunting accident involving the Vice President's party. Did Mr. Bush ask follow-up questions? Was he intellectually curious?

7 p.m. Karl Rove tells Mr. Bush that it is Mr. Cheney who did the shooting. Why was this detail withheld for a full 30 minutes from the President? Who else did Mr. Rove talk to about this in the interim? Was Valerie Plame ever mentioned?

5 a.m., Sunday. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan learns that Mr. Cheney is the shooter. He also fails to alert the media. Did he rush to write talking points or fall back to sleep?

11 a.m. Katharine Armstrong, owner of the ranch where the shooting took place, blows the story sky-high by giving the news to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. According to Ms. Armstrong, Mr. Cheney told her to do what she thought made sense. Has Ms. Armstrong ever worked for Halliburton?

1:30 p.m. The Texas paper posts the story on its Web site, after calling the Veep's office for confirmation. Everyone involved confirms more or less everything, or so the official line goes. Their agreement is very suspicious.

11:27 a.m., Monday. Mr. McClellan finally holds a press conference and gets grilled. One reporter actually asks (and we're not making this one up), "Would this be much more serious if the man had died?"

For the record, Mr. McClellan replied, "Of course it would." We hope the 78-year-old Mr. Whittington recovers promptly after his heart attack yesterday. As for the Beltway press corps, it has once again earned the esteem in which it is held by the American public.


(0)

Powered By :
Inside Canopus
By Committee
In the Hopper
Monthly Archive
Contact Information
Lotus Domino ND6 Blog Admin OpenNTF BlogSphere
Fellow Travellers
Galleria