You know what bothers me most about this whole thing?

That somebody remembers Krokus.

LOL

"only discernible pack of 10 protestors"

Yeah... like the ARAB STREET

Krokus? I remember. Oh God!

Ya know, I sorta feel sorry for the guy "behind bars". You'd think Geroge Soros could have paid George Lucas a little more money and got a decent special effect for that old guy.

OHMIGAWD! NOT THE ARAB STREET AGAIN?

Hilarious. In the first two photos there are 2 other people in orange outfits. Now a lone wacko in orange with crappy homemade bars is funny, but 3 people taking shifts with crappy homemade bars is really funny. I mean between the 3 of them you'd figure they could make a better set.

Those aren't moonbats but a close relative, the orange-clad dingbat.

I'm in my sixties, and the Arab Street has been chanting at me for almost that entire time. By now the street must have killer potholes, because they sure don't seem to be repairing it....

Funny stuff. I keep hoping that some of these comedians will hold a protest over something here in Dallas so I can post the photos on my blog but no such luck. Dallas just doesn't have the entertainment possibilities of DC. I'll have to go all the way to Austin I guess.

It's really the Krokus reference that sticks in your mind. Which is horrible, when the only words to "Midnight Maniac" you remember are the title words, and the song WILL NOT get out of your head.

Someone tell ANSWER. This HAS to be a human rights violation.

I gave up on the media long ago. I think it was the radio report breathlessly announcing that a reunion of old socialists ( Vietnam war protestors ) had drawn 8 of them. Over by LAX in a city of 3 million, in a metro area of 15 million, 8 whole protestors. Calling coverage like this news should be a violation of truth in the labeling laws.

Arab Street? Isn't that at the corner of Quagmire Ave. and Vietnam Blvd.?

What are you suggesting?

That 25-30 people can ALL BE WRONG?

Its great that we live in a free country that allows people to protest.
Its also great that we can freely call these people idiots.

I'm so glad that these folks have proven to be as crazy as I thoght they were. This ends only in a black hole-like structure made not of gravity, but stupidity. Fewer and fewer; dumber and dumberer.

You're right the ANSWER guy, but what's sad is the apparent lack of interest in due process and human rights around here. Guess arbitrary arrests and Gulags are OK if you're a Republican?

With 20,000 people being held without charge in Iraq today it's just possible that some of them are starting to hate us for the sake of their freedom.

I don't know, seems to me being a conservative used to mean standing up to government excesses. DId 9/11 change that too?

New t-shirt idea....
"PAVE the Arab Street"
(with thanks to the guy that mentioned the potholes in same....

Good for those people. They protested for a good cause. They are in the right.

Unfortunately, they also make themselves targets for hacks like you.

You are all missing the obvious:

KROKUS' 1st American "hit" was a truly awesome remake of "American Woman", the oh-so-clever anti-American screed by CANADIAN band The Guess Who (and recently remade by Lenny Kravitz). If we've lost the '80's hair metal vote, there's no hope for Bush.

So what should the legal status of those people
(the Gitmo prisoners, not the protesters)
be? They are not prisoners of war.

When should the US government be permitted to
pick people up and put them in prison camps?
And when should it not be allowed?

If there are instances where the US is NOT
permitted to put people in prison camps then
there needs to be some kind of legal status for
the folks who are put into camps so that we
can determine if they SHOULD be in those camps
or not.

Remember, George Bush will not always be
President. We WILL get another Bill Clinton in the
office. What unrestrained power do you want to
give that future Bill Clinton?

-rover-

Have you ever noticed that Bob Franken looks a lot like Leslie Nielsen from the side?

Of course I'm serious! And don't call me Shirley!

"So what should the legal status of those people (the Gitmo prisoners, not the protesters) be? They are not prisoners of war."

They aren't? I guess I was fooled by the way, you know, that we took them *prisoner* while they were *shooting at us* in a *war*.

How about this for their status: They stay locked up until al-Qaeda formally surrenders? At that time, those of them that we can't bring charges against are free to go home.

"When should the US government be permitted to pick people up and put them in prison camps?"

Well, one answer that springs to mind is "when they're shooting at our soldiers on a battlefield".

Relevant commentary (and some debate) regarding detaining unlawful combatants can be found here:

http://volokh.com/2004_04_18_volokh_archive.html#108256839347710402

IMO Eugene Volokh makes a pretty convincing case of why the detainees fall outside the purview of American civil law. Key point:

"Since even perfectly lawful combatants may be detained indefinitely, without trial, unlawful combatants may likewise be detained indefinitely, until their trial (or until the government decides, as it may wish to, to release them or reclassify them as lawful combatants).

The current litigation thus isn't challenging punitive detention or execution, which hasn't taken place. Rather, it's challenging prophylactic detention -- the very sort of thing that was indeed done to German and Japanese soldiers captured during World War II. And, for the reasons I mentioned above, there's no reason in the U.S. Constitution or U.S. habeas corpus law for treating challenges to detention filed by alleged unlawful combatants more favorably than similar challenges filed by lawful combatants."

Andrew,

They are explicitly not "Prisoners of War".
Ask the Bush administration. They didn't want
them labeled as such.

And if you won't answer, "When do we have
the authority to imprison people"
Answer the more telling question.
"When should we NOT imprison people", and what
legal method do we have to make the distinction
between the two??
-rover-

They may have been shooting at us during a war, but they're not prisoners of war. See, there are some rules you have to follow before you get the protection of POW status, and those bastards broke nearly every one. Al'Qaeda, most obviously, attacked civilian targets on 9/11; once we were in Afghanistan, the Taliban forces (or their al'Qaeda auxillaries) murdered one of our soldiers after he was captured. And, of course, there are the uniform, visible insignia, and obeying a chain of command requirements for lawful combatants -- no sign of any of that on their side.

Because of all this, none of them are protected under the laws of war. But even if they were POWs, none of them would have any recourse to the US courts.

The Geneva Convention explictly lays out conditions that combatants must meet in order to officially be considered "Prisoners of War".

It takes more than just being captured while fighting during a war to meet the conditions necessary for that status.

The GC was designed with a "carrot and stick" approach to give people incentives to follow certain rules and giving people official POW status when they don't meet the criteria makes it less likely that people will follow the rules laid out in the GC in the future.

Yeah, what Robert said. Heh.

Right, they aren't POWs, because, as unlawful combatants, they don't get the same protections as POWs. They, however, are not ordinary criminals; they were combatants, so they don't get the rights of criminals, either. And international precedent is absolutely clear; unlawful combatants are subject to summary execution at capture or any time thereafter.

Since they have no rights explcitly established in law anywhere on Earth, they at best implicitly posess only the subset of rights shared by both criminals and POWs. And at that, not even all of them, since they are subject to summary execution.

Now, who should be classifiable as such? I'd argue that persons captured on U.S. soil, who are U.S. citizens, should be given the benefit of the doubt (to prevent domestic abuses) and treated as either POWs or common criminals.

I guess you're not running the picture of the dead American soldiers in their coffins returning to the United States. You people make me sick. How many American have to die before you Republicans admit you made a big mistake invading Iraq. Stopping lying to the American people. You should be ashamed of yourself. Killing people never solves anything. It only makes money for you rich assholes.

Is the guy behind the cardboard "bars," the Dad from Harry & The Hendersons?

Daniel,
Whether it was a mistake remains to be seen.
Maintaining the status quo of sanctions and
intermittent bombings would have
certainly been a mistake. Personally I think
we should have just dropped the sanctions, packed
up and went home. But we're there now.
(Even if it is an undeclared war. I wish they'd
impeach Bush for that... Of course I wish they'd
impeached Clinton for his undeclared wars. ahh
well.)

Lunatic (and others),

There must be some legal recourse for those
caught up accidently or maliciously to prove that
they aren't combatants. It is dangerous to just
accept the word of a politician or soldier or
anyone. There must be an open check on that power.

Otherwise the government can capture ANYONE and
imprison them forever. All they have to do is
CLAIM they are evil doing foreigners. That is
a dangerous power to give anyone.

-rover-

Dan--

Remember your blood pressure meds.

Killing Germans or Southerners never solved WWII or the Civil War, eh?

Anyway, I'm a registered Republican (shhh, I'm one of about 4 in Berkeley) but I'm not making money off of Iraq, darnit.

Where's my check?

TV and to some extent print media present 'news' as if it really was information rather than entertainment. Every time I've seen an event that made the news, the news was wrong.

This included both things big and small.

The WTO 'riots' in Seattle? The protest was big and annoying. The 'riot'. . . well, I walked down Broadway when it was reported to be happening, and I didn't notice any riot. Also, that group of protestors from Portland really should bathe more often - I could smell them from the street as I walked past each day.

The earthquake in Seattle? My brother in Portland felt it. The guy who owns my apartment building saw pictures of destruction on the news and called me from an airport in Tennessee and asked "Do we still have a building left?" Answer: that stack of 15 books on the corner of my desk fell over. Media version: Seattle Rocked. Real version: I gotta pick up 15 books.

Media version: Power Out for Over 4 Hours. True enough, since mine was out for about 11 hours, and 11 is more than 4.

I saw a woman get stopped by the police on interstate 5. She got out of her car and ran. Then she looked back, saw the policeman chasing her, and she jumped the railing and did a swan dive off the ship canal bridge. At 165 feet above the water, this was a suicide. Media version: Traffic slowdown on I-5 at 45th street due to police activity. Two lanes closed.

I saw a picture of a 'Palestinian Activist' throwing a rock at IDF soldiers - with 15 photojournalists next to him, taking pictures. My first reaction was to think 'How odd, that no one would say to him that it's wrong to stone someone.' Then I realized that these were NewsPeople, and that they believed that neither morality nor reality should get in the way of a 'good' story.

Killing people never solves anything.

Don't be silly, of course it does.

You just have to kill the right people, and enough of them.

Killing Hitler did not solve any problems? None at all? Not even a leeeetle teensy weensy one???

My heartfelt thanks for the laughs, not least to the macroglossus lunarii (except for the guy in orange behind the duct-tape bars --- he looks like he's waiting for little girls to wander by).

Rover and any other earnest visitors -

If you will notice, my post does not criticize the concept that individuals may or may not deserve civil rights that would ward off indefinite incarceration - it DOES make fun of some of these protestors, who casually throw around words like "concentration camp," and it makes fun of the media, who essentially lie about things to make them far more interesting than they really are.

Feel free to use this space to debate, that's fine - but don't confuse the spirit of my post with a larger, concrete judgement over the issue before the court (which is an interesting and debatable one). I'll save that for a more serious post.

Daniel - get a clue.

Killing people ... only makes money for you rich assholes.

I'm confused. Is there a bounty on the enemy now? Damn! I thought we were still doing catch and release.

And what about us poor assholes? When do we get our money?

rover, the legal recourse is you wait till it's over.

Here's a fact: no American prisoner taken east of Suez has ever enjoyed the protections of the Geneva Convention.

US prisoners, whether civilian or GI, were mistreated or murdered in Russia, China, N. Korea, Japan, N. Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

You could print all the protests of that fact by the conventioneers parading in DC on the back of a 37-cent stamp.

Killing the right people frequently solves everything. Listen idiot, you are not peter pan and this is not Never-never land. Grow the fuck up.

LOL. Great photo series. I also like the comments, especially from that squirrel right above me. :) LOL

Roversaurus, might I suggest you take a Constitutional Law class before spouting off as to what is or isn't a declared war? Might I suggest you see what Senator Joe Biden (D-Deleware) has to say on the subject...

http://biden.senate.gov/~biden/press/release/01/10/2001A24C02.html

“I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I’m the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what ... against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.”

First, as a Republican, all I can say is I hope my check is on the way because my car needs repair.

I will admit to being troubled by the idea of American Citizens captured in America held without the benefit of access to a lawyer. I am also not satisfied that we are doing a satisfactory job of making sure that the people we are arresting in Iraq are actually guilty of something.

I understand that we are involved in a war and that our enemies recognize no rules. But we need to be careful that we do not deny others that which makes us great, our respect for life and liberty.

Finally, I suspect that the number of actual Iraqis that will be killed by coalition forces (excluding foreign fighters who have come to Iraq to kill Americans) will likely be less over any 12 month period than would have been killed by Saddam Hussein were he still in power.

What we are doing is right. When we were the victim of tyranny others (ironically the French and Germans, ok Prussians, but they are from what is now Germany)sacrificed their lives for us. We are simply paying that assistance forward.

Daniel Roberson:
Come over to the right side. There's plenty of money over here to go around. Why stay with all those poor Democrats? It's great over here wallowing in the coins and bills.
Join us, before we take all your money, too.
Maybe you can buy some new stereotypes.

Great stuff! Love the guy behind the bars. SO realistic.

There are different kinds of "unlawful combatants", you know.

In WW2 German saboteurs secreted into America to destroy railways and such were executed.

During the Cold War the Rosenbergs were executed for giving American missile guidance technology to the Soviets.

The Rosenberg executions were controversial in some circles because prosecutors initially believed the Rosenbergs had given the Soviets nuclear secrets, and the Rosenbergs' defenders believed that prosecutors would not have sought the death penalty had they known from the beginning the Rosenbergs were trading in missiles rather than bombs.

While the Rosenbergs' defenders argued the dubious idea that missiles were a lesser crime than bombs, there was a very real issue of government abuse of power which arose from this trial: the counterintelligence hysteria which would become known as "McCarthyism".

Stunned both by the Soviets' rapid penetration and replication of America's nuclear technology and the realization that American citizens would willfully give military secrets to the Soviets on the basis of ideology, a faction of radical hawks led by senator Joe McCarthy began a nation-wide witch-hunt. Anyone connected in any way to the ideology of Communism fell under suspicion of ideologically motivated espionage a-la the Rosenbergs.

The inevitable backlash against McCarthyism saw accusations of espionage take on a taint not seen since 1776 and the Constitution's famous skepticism regarding charges of "treason".

It is for that reason, and to save the lives of American spies, that the execution of spies waned in favor of parole or, should no prisoners be available for exchange as in the Johnathan Pollard case, indefinite imprisonment.

That takes care of espionage: execution is no longer the general policy; it is now the exception rather than the rule.

What about saboteurs? Have times changed since WW2's bomb-toting Germans spent $100 bills, couldn't answer questions about Betty Grable, and paid for these gaffes with their lives?

Members of pacifist organizations who damage military equipment or break into subs aren't executed, although if any of them ever actually made it to the reactor room the guards might fire on them.

Even if such a saboteur were successful beyond his or her wildest dreams, by some nefarious means sending a deadly radioactive spume over half of Groton in glorious protest, that person would have to be found guilty before execution. Like the Unabomber and Tim McVeigh, there would be a fair trial in a civilian court.

"Unlawful Combatant", I'm trying to say, is redundant, already covered by other laws, laws with such names as "First Degree Murder" or "Reckless Endangerment" which very nicely fit punishment to severity of crime. A few protesters hammering ineffectually on a railroad track are different from radical fundamentalists ramming jets into buildings, and our civilian laws already deal with that.

In a country that embraces the death penalty, do we really need to circumvent the justice system? Can't we put 'em on trial before we hang 'em?

To hell with the (un)Patriot Act and all this "unlawful combatant" legal weaseling. Throwing away the rule of law makes us no better than the mullahs who cite "God" in lieu of law. It's all an arbitrary exercise of power.

Do you not trust the American justice system -- and an American jury -- to put the right people in the ground?

"..But we're there now.
(Even if it is an undeclared war. I wish they'd
impeach Bush for that... Of course I wish they'd
impeached Clinton for his undeclared wars. ahh
well.)"

This is the Gulf War - Phase 2 and not an undeclared war. The Gulf War never officially ended. An indefinate ceasefire was called to be sure Saddam would comply with UN resolutions.

Below is a "reliable" lefty source.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/28/newsid_2515000/2515289.stm

Get your facts straight.

I took a dump in my cat's litterbox

What if they gave a protest...
and nobody came.

Hey you guys knock off all that serious comment stuff. This started as a Krokus thread didn't it?
You'll should be ashamed of yourselves for hijacking this thread.

Let Krokus speak, Title "Burning Bones"

In a restaurant (Spagos?)
Drinkin' beaujoulais wine
You're with your favourite girl (George Soros?)
And you're passin' the time

Well, you look through the paper
Holocaust in the roxy
Five bottles later
You're lovin' your lady

I can see
Burning bones of war
I can see
Ashes on the floor (Monicas cigar?)

There stands a soldier
In a barbed-wire land
The fear of death in his eyes
And a bottle in his hand
But, now the wine he's drinking
It's got the taste of blood
No more plastic war movies (CNN?)
To show him what it's like

I can see
Burning bones of war
I can see
Ashes on the floor

(Guitar solo)

I can see
Burning bones of war (Yassin/Rantisi?)
I can see
Ashes on the floor (Yep, thats Yassin!)

OK you can get back to your "off topic" commenting now.

>>>Killing people never solves anything.

Oh crap! And we've been wasting all this money on the military for all these years!

Why didn't someone tell us this before?

LOL @ marc! Thanks!

Dude! Thanx for the f**king KROKUS link! Way cool! I'd almost forgotten 'Screamin' in the Night' - I used to bang my girlfriend to that one! Dude, but those guys are way old now. Maybe that was his son.

"So what should the legal status of those people (the Gitmo prisoners, not the protesters) be? They are not prisoners of war."

They are "illegal combatants" according to the Geneva Conventions. They don't even have the honorable status of "Prisoner of War". And they need not be accorded to the same rights as POW's. That's what happens, when you don't play by the rules, you don't get the goodies.

Why has there been no outrage at the treatment of the captured American soldier? Where's the outrage at the random kidnappings and murders of foreign civilians in Iraq? Why no concern at the terrorists random murders of whoever happens to be in the wrong place. Say, kindergartners and schoolgirls outside a Basra police station. Where are these people's priorities? They are warped, sick and self-hating people, who think like this.

So am I the only one who figured to ask the most important question:

did you score with the Amnesty babe, or what?

Jess' askin.

Great stuff, but I have to ask...

... What the hell is a "moonbat"?

1) What kind of person does it seek to describe? And is the word just some random absurdity, or is there something about "moon" and "bat" that have a particular connection or cultural allusion?

2) Who came up with it?

Thanks.

This ought to be Rule # 1 in Journalism 101:

"When the number of protesters present does not equal the number of Media Members present, there can be no story."

God it's Liberty Valance:

Print (here televise) The Legend!

Or Churchill:

Never Before Have So Many of Us Depended on So Few of Them To Make The Predetermined Point We Were Gonna Present In Any Event!

TomCom

Great work on the photo story of the massive protest (and great work in general). I commend you for the Krokus reference, but I'm disappointed no one could work "Long Stick Goes Boom" into the commentary. No problem...I'm sure Marc Storace will be at the next protest.

I remember once, back in 1987 in San Ysidro, Ca., a lefty demonstration was going to be held in a city park. The leaflet I saw announcing it had a long list of over 60 (sixty) organizations, all preety screwey. I told my wife "c'mon let's see how it turns out". When we got there, there were hardly 20 people, which made me figure out that each person represented 3 organisations or whatever LOL. We really had a laugh that evening. :)

Didn't Krokus also sing "Eat the Rich"? Now there's a tune that the moonbats/LLL could get behind.

As for the "mistake" of invading Iraq, the NY Times ran editorials back in 1946 about how we were "losing" the peace in Germany with our misguided policies. It's so easy to gloat over setbacks when you were against the effort anyway, but hardly constructive.

German resistance movements fought on for two years after the V-E Day; we should expect the same thing in Iraq for years to come. The latest uprising in Iraq is little more than a power play and will be crushed. Al-Sadr will find that his support is greatly diminished after this.

I think it was important to invade Iraq and dismantle the Baathist regime there. Getting Saddam alive and his sons dead were just added bonuses. When someone like Saddam induces your 'ahem' allies to alter their stances on cooperation and maintenance of good international order with the lure of oil money (TotalELFina) how can you trust them to assist you in nuclear non-proliferation efforts, or in simple traveller screening and customs efforts?

This conflict has been very revealing about our 'ahem' allies in Europe and Russia, partners in security, and the effectiveness (or total lack of it) on the part of the UN. Perhaps thats why the loonies of the Left are so much in a snit these days, as even they can see all their cherished notions dispelled by the harsh spotlight of Reality.

Like the disgruntled sportsfan whose dreams of championships are mercilessly crushed, these fans of "international cooperation" and "UN mandates" find their team exposed as losers and wannabes.

I think this is where we find out who the American fifth columnists are, and we should be taking names.....

"Don't ya know, life is a bitch..."

Detention is actually a good thing for the individuals involved. If it were known that enemy combatants, if captured, would be released by judges, soldiers would quickly learn not to take prisoners. This nation seems to be trying to forget the very concept of "enemy." It is just absurd to extend rights to those who are dedicated to destroying those rights.

You guys haven't been getting your checks? I receive one monthly, usually from Halliburton. I'm typing this on my new laptop from the hot tub I was able to buy...

Actually the guy looks more like Gino Vanelli than the krokus singer.

I was at the pro life rally and when we got to the supreme court there were some pro-choice people there. Instead of the media showing the thousands of people in the march they focused on the 20 or so pro-death people. Made me sick.

Listen...I know you enjoy making fun of people's looks, and you have every right to do so. But are you implying that you are in FAVOR of indefinate detentions without trial, the end of due process, and the suspemsion of civil rights by execute branch decree?

Or doesn't your political thinking exend beyond "ha ha ha he looks FUNNY..."?

"But are you implying that you are in FAVOR of indefinate detentions without trial, the end of due process, and the suspension of civil rights by execute branch decree?"

If we are talking about rabble who shoot at our guys and gals, absolutely. They have no right to a trial, they have no right of due process and they have no civil rights... all that ended when they raised an AK in anger. Maybe we should be sure the scum at Gitmo have nothing left to tell us, shoot them and feed them to the sharks. Then wouldn't the moonbats howl!

I took my lunch trip down to see the IMF protesters (about 50) and low and behold, Mr. Krokus was there. I got a couple of minutes of video of him jumping and chanting and stuff, but my Macintosh is down so it won't be going up before next week. If someone in D.C. wants it to post, just email me.

BillOH:

There are two points I think you're missing:

1) How do you know that "the scum in Gitmo" are gulity of the crimes you suggest?

They haven't seen a lawyer, haven't had a chance to state their case, etc. All we have is the Executive Branch's say-so. So you have to assume that the White House is A) infallible and B) telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the prisoners in Gitmo. Even if you think they're telling the truth---and I don't think they are, but what the hell? there's a first time for everything---are you willing to tell me that the White House never, ever makes a mistake?

2) If we beat, torture, and kill indiscrimately, how are we different from the terrorists?

In other words, is it moral to become the winners-at-any-cost, or do we prove that we're better than common thugs by being BETTER than they are---not just richer, and better-armed, and blood-thirstier, but morally better. And the way to do that is to afford our enemies the rights that they would deny to us.

Put another way: should the US be the good, by-the-books cop---say, Commissioner Gordon---or the crazy trigger happy vigilante cop---ie: Denzel in "Training Day"?

Don't get me wrong---I'm not talking about letting them go with a slap on the wrist, or not letting military intelligence (sic) try to get valuable intel. I'm asking if BECOMING terrorists is the best way to DEFEAT terrorists.

Actually, we ARE being by the book in detaining unlawful combatants, in fact, as posted above, we have the right to shoot them since the Geneva Convention only applies to parties that honor it in practice. Holding them in GTMO for military tribuna is actually above and beyond what international agreements require us to do.

Hey Don - as I mentioned like 20 comments ago (go back and look), the purpose of my post wasn't to offer a definitive judgement on the case before the court, but it WAS to poke fun and pass judgement on people that casually throw around the terms "concentration camp" and "tyranny," and to have a little fun at the media's expense.

If you would like serious commentary, you can find other posts on this site (on other topics) that will slake your thirst. Regarding this issue, my serious take on it will have to wait.

An example of a more serious treatment of a protest my be seen here:
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000276.html

As for this: "enjoy making fun of people's looks" - you may kindly kiss my ass on the matter - my criticisms of people's "looks" were hardly mean-spirited, limited to pointing out certain semi-celebrity resemblances and making a ha-ha at a man in an orange jumpsuit with a really shitty prop. If that's wrong, I don't want to be right.

Lighten up, beehortch.

Third pic down, man on the right: A regular pan handler in front of my building. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Bill, I hear your point, this is a humorous look at the protesters and media, not debate class...

But sobebody has GOT to point out to Don Meyer that there is a world of difference between disarming and detaining people who are shooting at you and "beating, torturing, and killing indiscrimately". How do you think these guys came to be prisoners? Did we send goon squads throughout Afghanistan looking for people of Arab descent, arresting and torturing them to make an example of them?

These guys are not political prisoners of the "executive branch". The "White House" didn't capture them, the US military did, with weapons in their hands, trying to kill us. Are we better than they are? Yes. We do not kill indiscriminately, or even discriminately based on your association with a group (e.g. 9/11, "Death to Americans!", etc.) And when we win, we take them prisoner instead of killing them on the spot, as they usually do to our forces. But if you are going to try to use our higher morals to hamstring us, shame on you.

To Don's credit, however, I must admit that he is at least actually thinking about these issues, instead of simply using them as an opportunity to dress funny and get on TV, like the 25-30 individuals above.

OK, Sorry. Now, back to your regularly scheduled program...Like, when is this spontaneous protest from the outraged populous scheduled to start? Anyone?...Come on, I got a deadline to meet here...

Oh, and I really like the photo of the two Amnesty International people standing next to each other: one decrying detention without trials - apparently calling FOR trials - and the other calling for a STOP to trials! Maybe we should coordinate signs before the next protest!

Hey Bill: This was my first visit to your blog (I followed a link from Dean's World) and look forward to reading more.

I guess Haliburton making money off dead Americans doesn't bother you lot. When gas hits $4 a gallon,you can't breath cause the air is dirty, your water is undrinkable and you have been downsized by your company maybe then you'll get it.

Great stuff, but I have to ask...

... What the hell is a "moonbat"?

1) What kind of person does it seek to describe? And is the word just some random absurdity, or is there something about "moon" and "bat" that have a particular connection or cultural allusion?

2) Who came up with it?

Thanks.

Do you ask the wind why it blows? Or the trees why they grow? I have had enough with your silly questions. Go ask the moonbat, and see if he can tell you:

http://www.barking-moonbat.com/

The only thing missing from the photos was the guy with the sign that says: Homeless--Will work for food

My questions may be silly, yes. But the Internet is about communication, so I figured I'd try to, you know, communicate. Google searches on "what is a barking moonbat" and then, simply, "barking moonbat" were unfruitful.

Thank you for the link. On to my next "silly" question.

Was the phrase coined by the invididual at the site to which you directed me? Or did it already exist, and was simply picked up by him as a focus?

At what point did it become a kind of catchphrase in the blog world? When and how did the meme spread? I ask because I surf political blogs quite comprehensively, and had never even heard of the above-linked site.

I can explain the etymology of "fisking," I can tell you the source of "blogosphere," I know how "Instalanche" took root. But "barking moonbat" continues to puzzle me, and I'm interested to know the nature of its origin and its subsequent popular usage. I'm wondering, in other words, what I missed and when.

Paul, sorry if my sarcasm is a little obstruse - I was kidding when I called your question "silly." It was a diversionary tactic.

I really don't know the origin of the word; only that the second I heard it it seemed to describe the phenomenon perfectly. As you can imagine, my ignorance of the etymology is highly embarrassing, especially since I have claimed the mantle of "expert" in moonbatology.

Thank you for exposing my horrible secret.

Oh, I know your "silly" was just a bit of theatrical sarcasm. I took no offense, trust me.

I'm just one of those oddballs who's fascinated with words, particularly the spread of new language and memes in the Internet world. Guess some part of my brain is just irked that I missed this whole "moonbat" deal -- how it emerged, how it took off, etc.

Certainly didn't intend to derail the thread!

:-)

Krokus is being held at Gitmo? They should be freed immediately!

Dick Cheny sired my black love child!

That's nothing. Dubya is the father of my black
love child. Call me George! I still love.
Farah

Actually, some of the people in Gitmo were actually rounded up, because they were suspected Taliban/Al Queda. They weren't necessarily in arms against us at the time either. Be that as it may, in these times of uncertainty, I feel is is better to err on the side of caution, and hold these people awhile.

Don:

Saying we're at war one more time I'm sure won't crack the shell of some people ignorance, but, WE'RE AT WAR! Blathering on about us needing to extend courtesies to these people, when they wouldn't and don't extend the same, just annoys the hell out of me. I served in the military for a stretch, and gave up my civil liberties to serve this country, and I would give up my civil liberties again if it meant the surival of our way of life. We are at war, and the objective is to win so that we can continue to live what is left of our pre-9/11 American dreams. When you say we need to be careful how we act in these times because we don't want to trample on any liberties, have you given thought to the fact that if we don't restrict some liberties, we may no longer have a government of our choosing that grants us our liberties?

Worse yet, we may have nothing more than our smoldering buildings and corpses to show for ensuring everyones liberties aren't restricted. At least you'd be able to have a clear conscience.

Moonbats in the Night
Tin-foil's wrapped too tight
Hey Bush - Fuck You!

In Office way too long
To win is simply wrong
Fuck Cheney, too!

Halllllllllllll - iiiburrrrrrrtonnnnnnn!!