This is funny.

"I come in peace, Earthlings."

So very natural. So very fluid. So very Kerry.

Andrew Sullivan gets it. Too bad Kerry doesn't. And won't.

It seems that I am only going to the Second Level of Hell. I think that I was bumped from Limbo down to the fiery gates via my answer to this question :

Do you eat at restaurants several times a week?

Yes, yes, God forgive me, yes!

... but I think that we can safely put the issue to bed now that we know what Barbara Streisand thinks.

(Via the super-blogging Llama Butchers)

In Slate, Timothy Noah examines why Wolfowitz was "wrong about Iraq:"

According to the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz habitually "belittled" the threat posed by al-Qaida prior to Sept. 11. In one much-quoted passage from Clarke's new book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, Wolfowitz complains at a White House meeting, "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because [the] FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."

Regarding Clarke's interpretation of Wolfowitz "belittling" the problem, I have grave doubts that stem from Clarke's personal animus and tendency to use rather dramatic descriptions of people and situations. Regarding Wolfowitz's theory about state sponsorship:

A. We don't know for certain what "official" state resources may or may not have played a role in any terror attacks on US interests. Noah assumes as conventional wisdom that Al Quaeda had no help.

B. Wolfowitz may be defined as partially correct in this sentiment, if you define state sponsorship as states tacitly approving the funding and technology that provide resources to Al Quaeda. This has been established as fact.

But now that Noah has established that Wolfowitz was "wrong about Iraq," perhaps subtly voicing the idea that this overarching wrongness has had a misguided impact on the decision to invade (I strongly disagree - Wolfowitz urged toppling Iraq long before the potential nexus of terror and rogue states became the primary national security focus, and he still would today, post-invasion and no WMD) ... I find his rationale for Wolfowitz's conclusions genuinely interesting: overconfidence bred from success.

Here, once again, Wolfowitz was taking American foreign policy several steps beyond the usual cold war thinking of the era. When he studied the Persian Gulf in the late 1970s, Wolfowitz had started out with the predicatable cold war anxieties about a Soviet drive toward the oil fields of the Middle East, but he then had gone on to focus on a different possibility, the prospect that Iraq might try to dominate the oil fields by invading its neighbors. So too with Wolfowitz's China policy. ... In both instances, Iraq and China, Wolfowitz was beginning to think about foreign policy issues that were to arise a decade later, after the Soviet collapse.

Pretty prescient analysis by any standard. And this pattern of successful analysis helps me to disagree with Noah's blanket assumption that Wolfowitz was so incorrect in his assumptions regarding this latest war. Democracy may not materialize in a timeframe that is well-regarded by cable news and election cycles, but Wolfowitz's theory of self-determination in Iraq setting the scene for a greater revolution in the Arab world and Iran hasn't been given sufficient time to play out. Even so, within a year of the invasion, Iran's drive toward reform has been progressing at accelerated speed, Syria faces rioting Kurds that demand freedom, Libya has given up WMD in pursuit of integration into the international community, and the Arab Summit was hastily called off due to disputes over how to approach Democratic reforms amongst the member states. Who would have ever thought such an idea was even possible?

Wolfowitz, that's who. I wouldn't bet against him.

ZZzzzzalon's "Table Talk" topic of the day:

Is Bush the Worst President Ever?

Heh. Some cliché excerpted moonbat nutty-goodness:

The right-wing zealots who helped to impeach Clinton and steal the 2000 election from Al Gore got their wish. They got to be in charge for a while, and now we're all paying the price. Tax cuts for the rich and a never-ending holy war with terrorism: Exactly the kind of world the Bush family and their friends could want - they sit secure in their guarded mansions while their companies profit off of the violence and fear everyone else lives under.

Heh. She's described me! I sit in my 500 square-foot, uh, mansion, and sigh longingly while thinking thoughts about never-ending holy war ... I mean, even though I'm an atheist, but details, details. Go Bush! Go military-industrial complex! Go Holy War! Yaaaaaaaaaay!

PS - Kudos to "Captain Billy," (no relation) who seems to be holding it down in the discussion.

Why are members of the Congressional Black Caucus meeting with Michael Jackson?

Innocent until proven guilty is an important concept, but isn't it a bit indelicate to be publically meeting with an accused child-molestor? Michael Jackson could be innocent, but I find a few things repulsive about the entire affair:

1. His bizarre public behavior has no stigma or consequences.
2. The fact that some individuals publically circle the wagons or ignore his pattern of bizarre behavior because of race or celebrity.
3. That we are such a nation of starf***ers.

Will I live to see a day when the race issue is considered irrelevant? Or a day when our society doesn't equate infamy with celebrity? Where we can all hold hands and sit in disdainful prejudgment of accused child molestors together? Or at least measured distaste until the resolution of the case? I doubt it.

Remember, OJ Simpson still goes clubbing and signs autographs. A friend of mine saw him out at a club in Miami and reacted with glee by yelling "Juice!" I could have thought of a few more choice things to yell. "Murderer" has a nice ring to it. Another friend was golfing with Deion Sanders' little brother, and OJ was scheduled to join them but cancelled. He was excited. I would have been excited as well, but for different reasons. Imagine hanging out, joking around with OJ, taking him aside on the 18th hole and saying,"Juice, buddy, there's just something that I have always wanted to ask you ... I mean ... can you tell me ... I mean, what's it really feel like to kill two people. I mean just saw their freaking heads off?"

Now that would make a great story and be morally acceptable! This would all need to go down in a very public place with excellent avenues of escape of course ...

UPDATE: Rosemary brings up a good point. We know that the CBC will meet with Michael Jackson, but will they defend Condi Rice? Don't hold your breath. I forgot that political ideology trumps race and celebrity.

A Somalia flashback in Iraq.

There's a great deal of debate over "velvet glove" vs. "iron fist" tactics in Iraq, but in this case, I'd have to advise a serious show of force. No amount of new schools or hospitals are going to influence the individuals that are capable of such hatred and violence, and force is still the major currency in that country. Use it. Not conducting a retaliatory event will invite further attack and more overt hostility. Meanwhile, build the schools. Drop the hammer. Set up the institutions of Democracy. Lock down the troublemakers. Fix the electrical grid. Conduct raids.

It's going to take a concerted and judicious combination of both approaches to see this country through to sucessful representative government. This is a horrible bump along that road. I don't envy the people that are working their asses off to make this happen, but I believe that they can do it.

I've won one of the two caption contests that I linked to earlier - the one on Captain's Quarters Blog. Ok, well not exactly "won" outright, but I did win the "Report to Sick Bay Immediately (or, The "I am simply shocked that you would reopen the wounds of Vietnam for Caption Contest gain") Award." I'll take being called a "sicko" over being called a "winner" any damn day of the week ...

Now let's see if I can reel in another one with my caption of Frank J's monk-kicked-in-the-nuts-picture:

"Wear-come to the Matlix MuthaFucka!" or "South Korean Democracy in Action."

Ok, those are weak, but so is the competition. My pick for the best entry:

"This sure beats dousing yourself in gasoline," by Rich.

Whomping Willow and the Captain's Quarters Blog have been added. The virus spreads ...

Two tough ones are up at IMAO and Captain's Quarters Blog. Please contribute.

INDC journal has made The Commisar's map of Bloggahland. Spasebo Bolshoye, Comrade.

I would like to point out that while INDC Journal may be geographically based in the Northeast of the map, we are ALWAYS on the front lines in the struggle against the worst offenses of the creeping Moonbat Colony. And while you are here, please enjoy some pictures of my fine corner of the world.

James Risen makes the following declarative aside in his review of Richard Clarke's book in the New York Times:

The explosive details about President Bush's obsession with Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks captured the headlines in the days after the book's release, but ''Against All Enemies'' offers more.

I'm sure the author would have no clue why I write this, but a note to Mr. Risen: Editorialize all you want about the content, pace, organization and believability of Richard Clarke's book; that's what is expected in a book review, after all. But please don't make completely unironic, "factual" statements that bend the laws of time and space to fit your tidy little political views. It's unseemly.

Clarke's credibility takes another hit as a witness contradicts large portions of his book's account of the events at the White House on September 11th.

In Mr. Clarke's telling, he gathered the staff around and told them to leave for their own safety, particularly those with young children. They declined, and according to Mr. Clarke, Mr. Miller then "grabbed a legal pad and said, `All right. If you're staying, sign your name here,' " so that a list could be e-mailed out of the building. The purpose, he recalled Mr. Miller saying, was "so the rescue teams will know how many bodies to look for."
...
"That paragraph was a complete fiction," Mr. Miller said. His recollection is that after Mr. Hadley issued his instructions to keep the Situation Room operating, Mr. Clarke came over to Mr. Miller and said, "You realize what we signed on to 10 minutes ago?" Mr. Miller said that this "is a very different spin" on events.

UPDATE: Rich Lowry takes on Clarke's "tenor and tone" at NRO.

Clarke's tenor suggests that it was bizarre that it took Bush officials, many of whom weren't in place until the spring of 2001, eight months to bring to the verge of presidential approval a plan to eliminate al Qaeda. But policymaking takes time. The Clinton administration's Presidential Decision Directive 39 identified terrorism as a national-security concern, and was "signed in June 1995 after at least a year of interagency consultation and coordination." At least a year.

Read it. That is all.

Greg Easterbrook has a common-sense, non-partisan analysis of the Clarke fiasco and September 11 finger-pointing in general:

No Democrat, no Republican, no top-secret adviser, no pundit knew September 11 would occur. It is not necessary to analyze classified intelligence or intercepted cryptic Arabic messages to be sure of this--just to remember how lax airline security was up until that day. Warning after warning after warning about airline security had been issued, yet nothing was done; not by any Democrat, not by any Republican, not by the airlines themselves, which have lost vast amounts of money owing to that terrible morning. With the Richard Clarke flap and the 9/11 Commission, recriminations have been reduced to the two parties mutually complaining that their opponents failed to know the future. For the top levels of the U.S. government and media to be obsessing over pointless accusations regarding who failed to know the future makes the leaders of the nation, including its media leaders, appear deeply silly.

While I do fault previous administrations for weak half-measures in response to clear provocations, I'd say that's about right. Even Clinton did not have the political capital necessary to engage in a full-scale war against Al Quaeda prior to 9-11. Read the whole thing.

... phenomenon is out of control.

Speaking of "dreams," protestors invaded Karl Rove's yard and banged on his windows.

The crowd then grew more aggressive, fanning around the three accessible sides of Rove's house, tracking him through the many windows, waving signs that read "Say Yes to DREAM" and pounding on the glass. At one point, Rove rushed to a window, pointed a finger and yelled something inaudible.

My question is, why didn't he just ask his father to open up a fiery pit in the yard that would have swallowed them? I just don't get it.

A dream realized.

(Via Dean, Via It Tastes Like Burning, Via The Cheese Stands Alone, Via ... ah, f**ck it!)

This blogger has a fantastically comprehensive round-up of links from the blogosphere and a great analysis of the relative risks and benefits of anti-depressant use. Check it out. I mean, if you dig that sort of thing.

The World War II Memorial and the Washington Monument. There's more ...

Read More »

Senator Kerry ponders the fact that he has been drinking lead-tainted District water for the past 20 years.

Let's review what we know:
Kerry lives in Georgetown, where it seems that 52.5% of the randomly tested homes displayed elevated lead levels, defined by the EPA as containing greater than 15 parts per billion. Kerry has lived here for twenty years.

Therefore, let me make the following suggestion: perhaps Kerry flip-flops because his lead-addled brain doesn't actually remember his original position!

Maybe there was something to Howard Dean's whole "Washington outsider" spiel ...

The need to assign blame for the elevated levels of lead in the District drinking water grows, as the Washington Post reveals that a group of high school students discovered lead contamination five years ago. I don't generally expect too much from government, but lead-free drinking water would be a definite bonus.

On a side note, the WashPo's coverage of this strikes me as what constitutes some of the best examples of everyday journalism - the dogged pursuit of a public interest/safety issue. Giddyup.

UPDATE: A head rolls.

A naturally skilled competitive eater turns back from the brink of greatness:

I was simultaneously triumphant and repulsed. The alpha male in me said I had walked into a contest cold and taught some experienced eaters a lesson. The rational part of my brain said I had just eaten 1.75 pounds of meat. In eight minutes.

Being a somewhat gifted human garbage disposal myself, I find it befuddling that this man could so easily walk away from a path of fame, fortune and Buffalo deliciousness.

... is one of the most impressive beaurocrats that I have ever seen. The fact that this relatively gentle, visionary man, who "asks himself every day how he can limit suffering," is painted as a bloodthirsty monster is one of the worst rhetorical crimes of the left. Read his editorial in the NY Post.

... brings the pain on Dick Clarke. Everytime I read CK, I want to sing:

Boom!
There goes the Boom!
There goes the Boom!
How ya like me now?!

(Via just about everyone in the blogosphere)

Between the aforementioned looming Age of Robots and this, I'm not so sure.

UPDATE: Add flying freakin' snakes to the list. Crimeny!

PrestoPundit encapsulates my thoughts about Richard Clarke's motivations - personal animus and "cognitive dissonance."

Via Dean, who has some of his own thoughts on the matter.

Canada's troops to reclaim Arctic Five-year plan to 'put footprints in the snow' and assert northern sovereignty.

A "Ceremonial Deist" blessing to our brave Canadian allies in the War on Terror. Root out them Al Quaeda snow bunnies, boys!

(Via Jonah Goldberg in the Corner)

The sentiment celebrating the history of US-Japanese relations in this ad is nice, but I can't help but chuckle about the fact that somewhere in that period of time there was a sneak attack, a World War and a couple of nuclear detonations. Not to mention Voltron, Godzilla and Nintendo.

My how times change - and then remain the same.

And it's strange how such a polite society was also so fanatically militaristic. I once asked a Japanese friend, "What's the worst thing you could say to another person in Japanese? How do you tell someone to f**k off?"

He responded,"Oh, no, no ... we don't have word for that."

"But what do you say to someone that's really mean, when you want to straight-up kick their ass?" I persisted.

He paused, had to think about it, and replied, "Kaya-lay-o, Bacca-ya-lo."

"What does it mean?"

"Oh, well, like 'get out of here, you dumb man.'"

Priceless.

The Age of Man hath reached the beginning of the end.

Jap robot? I wonder if it looks like this.

"My GOD - you have the most beautiful eyes!"

Caption #2: "Let me show you this chokehold I learned in Vietnam ..."

It seems that the Bush Administration failed to order a crucial airstrike after being presented with actionable intelligence regarding the location of group of insurgents plotting to take down the government.

Shameful.

Go watch this Brain Terminal video of "Mary the Protestor." Hilarious!

His resignation letter is posted at the Smoking Gun.

(Via the Llama Butchers)

And read his detailed praise for the Bush Administration's anti-terror efforts at this briefing in August of 2002. Clarke doesn't just offer vague accolades; he actually details that striking policy changes were made quite early in Bush's term:

Clarke: So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
...
Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline. (Emphasis added)

Realistically, how much credibility does this man have left?

Or pre-emptively reactionary to reactionaries, but I think that Bush's jokes about WMD at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association 60th annual dinner were inappropriate material and could prove to be a serious political misstep:

There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said.

This, on the other hand, was hilarious:

There was Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), a frequent butt of gentle Bush ribbing, holding his fingers a few inches apart. Bush said, "Whenever you ask him a question, he replies, 'Let's see what my little friend says.'"

The New York Times has a gushing review:

Michael A. Newdow, who makes his living as an emergency room doctor, gave a spell-binding performance before the court.

And the Washington Post concurs:

Any doubts about whether California atheist Michael A. Newdow made a mistake by arguing his own case against the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance evaporated about midway through his performance at the Supreme Court yesterday.

Newdow is a slightly eccentric guy, typified by his sarcastic status as a "minister" in a church that doesn't actually worship a deity and his zealous advocacy of the concept of forced paternity, but he is also an extremely bright, focused man. Just from watching his pre-court debate at American University, I was pretty positive that he would present an effective case.

Now we'll have to see if the judges are swayed more by logic or politics. I hate to say it, but I think politics might win out on this one.

UPDATE: I debate this a bit in the comments section over at Blackfive.

With the Zionist pigs, or their foes that send "mentally slow" 14 year-olds to blow themselves up?

Abdu told soldiers of his dream of receiving 70 virgins in heaven, which his dispatchers had promised him, and said that he had been tempted by the promise of sexual relations with the virgins. He said that he had been bullied at school for his poor academic performance and that he had wanted "to be a hero."

Disgusting.

Just read.

(Via Dave Barry)

By golly (not God), I think this man has a case. I watched Newdow debate on C-Span the other day, and I was struck by the consistency and simplicity of his argument. As this WashPo analysis points out, maintaining "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance really has little obvious legal rationale, and certainly could be defined as a coercive endorsement of religion by the state. And while a ruling against the phrase could be interpreted as encouragement for the subsequent removal of all references to "God" on currency, monuments and other symbols of government, I happen to believe that the pledge is a much more viable, unique case, because it is a coercive act by the very nature of being an active, public, daily pledge. Having a quarter in your pocket with the declaration "In God We Trust" could likely meet the innocuous standard of "ceremonial deism;" a child being pressured to declare and equate patriotism with faith in a group setting does not.

My own personal experience ratifies this thought, since I was an atheist from an early age. Every day I stood up an repeated the pledge without a hitch, until about sometime in middle school, when I really absorbed the reference and basically started omitting that part during my recitation. This was a practical solution to a very minor problem, and perhaps an example the 90% of the public that supports "under God" might suggest to atheist children, but technically it's unconstitutional. Ask yourself:

How isolated would I feel in school if I would have decided to take a stand about my convictions and been forced to become a public spectacle by virtue of having to explain a daily denial to say the pledge?

Why didn't I have the opportunity to express my patriotism towards the secular institution of the state without having to violate my (non)religious beliefs?

Given the fact that deism is practiced by over 96% of America, how would expressing a public disbelief in God have affected my social standing?

And why should any child be coerced into even coming close to making this silent choice?

As Newdow expressed in the debate, the idea would hardly be tolerated if the Pledge said "under Allah" or "under Jesus." So essentially America is clinging to the notion that the phrase belongs in this public ritual because most of us "feel" that it belongs, not because it's continued inclusion has any serious legal rationale. In contrast, there exists significant precedent that indicates the expression does not belong.

Imagine for a second some other "majority" opinions in our history that have thankfully been overturned to protect and establish fundamental equality for minority positions. The fact that this case is a relatively pointless exercise for some people does not trump the rights and potentially strong opinions of a non-religious minority.

Advantage - Newdow.

UPDATE: More details from Newdow's argument:

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist noted that Congress unanimously added the words "under God" in the pledge in 1954.

"That doesn't sound divisive," he said.

"That's only because no atheists can be elected to office," Newdow responded.

Some in the audience erupted in applause in the courtroom, and were threatened with expulsion by the chief justice.

Imagine how disturbing your trip to the zoo would be if you were suddenly attacked by a freaking gorilla. And impressed props to the maternal instinct:

DeLeon said he first saw Cheryl Reichert, 39, trying to close a door to the aviary, but the gorilla forced it open and jumped on her. Then DeLeon saw Jabari go after 3-year-old Rivers Heard and his mother, Keisha Heard, 31.

"He picked him up like a rag doll and then bit him in the head," DeLeon said. "His mother started hitting the gorilla on the back, but that just made him more mad. He threw young Rivers and then turned around and attacked her."

Growing up, that kid had better not give his mom any crap:

"Go to your room, you're grounded!"
"But moooooooommm!"
"Hey, I took on a 300 lb. gorilla for you!"
"Yeah, yeah, ok."

... again why he is the top dog. He is all over this Clarke story like white on rice. Hats off to the Blogfather.

Bob Kerrey rocks the house, y'all.

I'm especially fond of the ultra-cool "W" beanie pullover hat, the "Interstate W" mousepad and the leather "W" Coasters. Or for un flavor muy internacional, "Viva Bush." (I've been saying that for years.)

Of course I could never display any of these things in public here in DC, but they would be neat to look at in the privacy of my own home.

And if you uh, um, disagree with Bush, you can always buy some of this satirical gear. I wonder if the folks at "The Whitehouse Gift Shop" realize that there are some relatively serious, thoughtful people who might even buy one of those "4 More Wars" bumper stickers and display it without too much irony?

Today's Monster search agent for marketing careers in Washington, DC turned up a decent haul. This might be meaningless for extrapolation to the national job market, as DC's government funding gives it a unique resistance to unemployment, but it's an encouraging sign.

US-DC-Washington/Metro ENTRY LEVEL MARKETING CAREERS Viva Marketing Group, Inc. APPLY

US-DC-Washington/Metro TYSON'S CORNER MARKETING FIRM SEEKS ENTRY LEVEL ASSOCIATES Madison Marketing Group APPLY

US-DC-Washington/Metro ENTRY LEVEL W/ GROWTH POTENTIAL Tri-Ad Promotions APPLY

US-DC-Washington/Metro 9 Entry-Level Marketing/ Advertising Positions Available Immediately... Venture Marketing Solutions APPLY

US-DC-Washington/Metro Senior Business Analyst AARP APPLY

US-DC-Washington/Metro MANAGEMENT TRAINEE OPENINGS AVAILABLE CRC Advertising APPLY

US-DC-Washington/Metro Regional Marketing Director Westfield APPLY

US-DC-Washington/Metro ENTRY LEVEL MARKETING CAREER AVAILABLE TODAY!!! Viva Marketing Group, Inc. APPLY

US-DC-Old Town Alexandria Online Marketing Manager APPLY

US-DC-Washington/Metro Manager, Program Infrastructure Marriott International APPLY

Instapundit has a typically thorough set of links that round-up information about Richard Clarke and his history as an anti-terror expert. Check it out.

Frank J gives Sheik Ahmed Yassin's death his typical sensitive treatment:

* Bail!: I heard when Yassin got hit, his brain shot right out his skull. I hope my own brain is smart enough to try and save itself like that when the time comes.

The empathy continues with his take on anti-depressants and suicide:

* Happy Killers: Anti-depressants are a suicide risk? How does that work? Are you like really happy during plunge from the bridge?

Ah, just go read the whole thing.

Dean voices skepticism about the FDA publicized suicide risks associated with anti-depressants. I typically agree with his health writing and conclusions, but I think the post is a bit dismissive. Statistically, he may have a point (I have not been able to find many large studies that isolate the multifactorial problem of increased suicide rates during anti-depressant treatment), but my personal experiences with antidepressants and the experiences of people that I know point to more than a minor phenomenon.

There are various severities and types of depression, and the state that I was in prior to my wild ride was outright despondent. Not twitchy, or crushed, but despondent. Seeking the help of a doc, I was recommended buproprion (WellButrin), a popular anti-smoking aid/anti-depressant that is thought to work on Dopamine receptors in the brain (though this theory is weak). Buproprion tends to give you energy rather than chill you out, and can actually increase sex drive/function rather than diminish it (which is a common SSRI side effect).

I started taking the drug and tapering up slowly. Within a few days, I was having mild headaches. I was told to tough it out. After a week, I became a bit jumpy and the headaches continued to come and go. The dose was maintained, and once again, "give it time to work." Two weeks in I hit a crucial phase: time to up the dose by a large percentage. Following doctor's orders, I took the appropriate amount and took a very frightening ride, one where I had little control over what was happening to me.

Where I had been sad and aloof before, now I was frightened and beside myself with emotional pain. Where I had not looked forward to going to work before, now I was largely incapable. I would wake up mindlessly upset before work. I called in sick several days. Once again, the doctor told me that this was a function of my anxiety and depression, and that I needed to tough it out.

I took vacation the next week, because I knew that I needed to get myself straightened out before attempting to work. It only got worse. My negative thoughts didn't flit in and out of my head, they materialized and stayed, tripping around and around until I found it unbearable. Without putting too fine of a point on it, I hit a very, very dark, terrifying place. I finally wound up needing family support to help me out. I was literally shaking with agitation and anxiety. This was very uncharacteristic, to say the least.

All of these effects - the headaches, the mental fog, racing thoughts and finally anxiety, crushing depression and even suicidal ideation - were directly related to starting and upping the dosage of the drug. My doctor, a psych at a major University teaching hospital, had followed standard protocol in slowly weaning me onto the drug, and advising a waiting period to "tough out" deleterious side effects. In retrospect, he should have pulled me off of it as they hit a certain severity, but the coup de grace of scary ideation and massive depression came on so suddenly that I doubt that this would have eliminated the problem.

What might have helped was a warning prior to starting the drug. About two months after surviving this scary encounter, I read this eerily similar account first published in the New York Times, written by a psychiatrist at UCSF who experienced the same effects while trying the drug herself. She was absolutely puzzled by this sudden assault on her emotions, and her subtle guilt over previously telling patients to merely "tough it out" is fairly evident. I cannot tell you how much reading this account helped my state of mind, helped me to realize that my actions and reaction to this substance were not merely a sign of weakness or a fundamental culpability for how I behaved.

Do I blame my doc? Not really. Do I hate anti-depressants and think that they are evil drugs? Not really. They have a place and they help a great deal of people out of crippling depression. BUT - these commonly-prescribed things can have sudden and catastrophic effects on a segment of the population that is susceptible to the mysterious, sudden changes in brain chemistry that occur with the introduction or removal of these substances into one's system. Their prescription is not something that should be taken as lightly as a GP-prescribed beta-blocker or round of ambien.

In this case my experience tells me to screw statistics - the negative effects were stunning and real. And I'm glad that the FDA is revising protocol to include careful monitoring of new patients and the introduction of warning labels - it might have helped me out.

Mel Gibson's Passion gets a crucial endorsement:

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has watched Mel Gibsons's controversial Passion of the Christ at a private screening and said it was not anti-Semitic.

(Via AllahPundit)

It seems that the Israeli military has killed Saruman the White.

He agrees with the premise of my light fisking of Richard A. Clarke's assertions against the Bush administration.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that the Bush administration — which defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election — was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks.

"I see no basis for it," Lieberman said on Fox News Sunday. "I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric."

Something is pretty obvious about Clarke's rhetoric and the timing of these accusations. Contrast Lieberman's rationality with Jimmy Carter's increasing investment in outlandish charges:

The 2002 Nobel peace prize winner said Mr Blair had allowed his better judgement to be swayed by Mr Bush's desire to finish a war that his father had started.

An ex-President repeating the charge that Bush sent troops into Iraq on the basis of some family grudge? Depressing and scary.

UPDATE: Condi fires back at Clarke.

I'd heard of punks against Bush, but punks for Bush?

"I look like someone who should be hanging out with Marilyn Manson — in fact I have hung out with Marilyn Manson," Mr. Graves said. "It doesn't affect what my morals are."

"I think George Bush is a wonderful, competent leader," he added. "And I believe that he is bringing this country on a right and just course and he understands the true nature of evil."

Interestingly, this guy is one of the former members of the Misfits, whose most famous song has this line:

I got something to saaaaayy, I killed your baby todaaaaay!
And it .. doesn't matter much to me, as long as it's deeeaddd!

This is all very confusing - this guy is for infanticide, but against abortion? Heh.

Rumsfeld Hosts No-Holds-Barred Martial Arts Tournament At Remote Island Fortress

I wonder if the Onion writers stole the concept from this.

... but hey, whatever works. More incredibly deep moonbat artwork here.

Once you form a worldview and make basic political distinctions between "good" and what is "evil", "right" and "wrong", the mind tends to instinctively downplay or filter out information that contradicts your initial decision. For reference, here is a black-and-white summary of my current views regarding poli-sci:

Brilliant. Loopy.

Good. Bad.

Admirable. Deplorable.

As a result, that's why it's puzzling and difficult to read and absorb something like this:

President Bush’s former top terrorism advisor says the president isn’t doing the best job fighting terrorism. The former advisor, Richard Clarke, discusses this and other observations he made while he was a White House insider in an interview with Lesley Stahl to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

It's unusual that such a senior figure would make such dramatic criticism. But let's read on:

“Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he’s done such great things about terrorism,” says Clarke in tomorrow night’s interview. “He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We’ll never know,” he tells Stahl.

At this point, I become skeptical. Anyone who makes a shadow of a claim that President Bush had some likely ability to prevent September 11th raises my suspicions. Let's face it; terrorism wasn't high enough on anyone's agenda prior to September 11th. To suggest that Bush had some unique potential to cut through the mounds of raw intelligence and prevent this surprising attack just doesn't ring true. Could more have been done? Probably. Was there beaurocratic inaction? I'm sure of it. But without the watershed event of those buildings coming down, no administration (not even Clinton's) deserves blame for failing to anticipate and prevent such a stunning event. Moving on ...

Clarke tells Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation.

This is well-documented in Woodward's book, Bush at War. Almost immediately after September 11th, Paul Wolfowitz brought his long-term strategy of Middle-East engagement to the table. Realizing that the war on terror needed to be viewed as a strategic effort (of which military force and the installation of a Democracy were key components) in place of a tactical rataliatory event, Iraq was immediately identified as a terrorist state that was very high on the list of priorities. As Bush famously said, "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists." Iraq was most definitely with the terrorists.

"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks],'" he tells Stahl.

Once again, repeating the mantra that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quaeda is a simplistic interpretation of the motivation for war and a two-dimensional approach to a three-dimensional problem - the potential nexus of 21st Century rogue states with the capacity to develop and deploy WMD and fanatic Islamism. The people who use the train of logic that discounted a threat from Iraq view the war on terror in a fundamentally more narrow way than many of those who supported invasion. Of course the Afghani-based terrorists needed to be taken out, along with their hosts, but the realization of our terrible vulnerability renders intolerable the existence of any outlaw regime that has a history of terrorism, WMD development and continuing, overt hostility towards the United States.

Did Rumsfeld make the comment that Iraq needed to be taken out merely by virtue of more appealing targeting? I wouldn't be completely surprised. But he didn't get his way. Also notice how Clarke says "we all said," which indicates that he was not a lone voice in the wilderness. The President took opinions from his cabinet and advisors, analayzed the situation, made the correct decision to move in Afghanistan, and then prioritized dealing with Iraq only after Al Quaeda had been engaged.

Richard Clarke may be trying to make some scratch by generating publicity for his book, he's likely pissed off at those that he disagrees with in the Bush Administration and I'm sure he is probably voicing his convictions. But - his analysis of how this administration is combatting terrorism seems laden with rhetorical and misleading criticism. Based on the quotes in this article, it's a superficial analysis. And it makes me glad he isn't advising the president any longer ...

A great article in the WashPo reviews the current conventional wisdom on a variety of common health issues. An extensive read (as links go), but well worth a minute.

Blackfive basically sums up how I have been feeling about a lot of events and/or statements related to the war on terror lately:

He is so wrong on so many different levels that this is...Disgusting.

The reference is to Dominique de Villepin, who has decided to grace us with his wisdom regarding the struggle for Western Civ:

"Terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before," de Villepin said. "Today, it is one of the world's principal sources of world terrorism."

ARRRGHHH!

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad endorsed Democratic contender John Kerry in the U.S. presidential race Thursday ...

He also told him to watch out for the Jooos!

(Via The Llama Butchers)

... that John Kerry is a real dick?

His next trip down, a reporter and a camera crew were allowed to follow along on skis — just in time to see Mr. Kerry taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow.

When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, "I don't fall down," then used an expletive to describe the agent who "knocked me over."

UPDATE: Tim Blair has a more thorough, hilarious analysis.

It’s all the Secret Service guy’s fault. The Globe’s report is rescued by this delicious image:

There were some hecklers, too, such as a few children who murmured, "George Bush, George Bush" when Kerry walked by.

He may have won the support of anonymous foreign leaders, but Kerry has lost the crucial Children of the Corn demographic.

Most of us don't think much about how conventional foods can affect our daily health. I don't mean the long-term consequences that we typically hear about, like obesity, diabetes or heart disease, but rather how what we eat that day might negatively impact that day's quality of life by causing a rapid deleterious effect on blood chemistry. Of course there are obvious examples, like gorging on mexican food and being chained to the can for several hours, but did you make the connection that a meal containing processed lunch meat and cheese may be giving you that migraine?

On a personal note, I've been feeling a bit under the weather this week, with a dull headache and foggy thoughts. Coincidentally(?), I've been eating a great deal of blue cheese. Hmmmm. It's either that or the lead in the water.

Oftentimes, evil, insane people achieve great success.

Rasputin.

Chuck Manson.

Vlad the Impaler.

Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth.

NEW YORK - Fired “Apprentice” Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth — hated by some of her fellow cast members — got plenty of love Thursday at Ebony magazine’s awards luncheon.

Manigault-Stallworth, a guest, received hugs, kisses and requests for photos at the fifth annual event, which honors outstanding women in marketing and communications.
...

Manigault-Stallworth is negotiating a book deal and a talk show, and is interested in doing political commentary for the upcoming presidential election.

Evil even has its own web site these days.

Okay, okay, maybe I'm being a bit hyperbolic - she didn't kill anyone (yet), or bring down the House of Romanov, or drop thousands of people on sticks, but this woman is horrible, just horrible. And clearly pathological. Just the sound and cadence of her voice makes my skin crawl, dripping as it is with the characteristic twitches and sing-song lilts of a fragile, huge, universe-sucking ego. What a world of star-f*ckers we are ...

UPDATE: Meeting of the, uh minds. Dumb, meet evil. Evil, meet dumb: Chris Matthews and Omarosa. What the hell kind of line is this:

MATTHEWS: OK, well, that‘s a tribute I do accept. Anyway, thank you very much, Omarosa. I‘m sure I‘ll be seeing you in the headlines as bold print for as long as you live.

I realize the fact that organized labor plays a role in keeping wages reasonable and protections in place for many deserving workers, epecially those that work in difficult industries, but I can't help but abhor the strong-arm tactics and coercion that these organizations use to get their way. I mean, look at this example: the Real World was lured to Philadelphia, which is a huge image/tourism coup, considering the repeated glamour shots of the host city that are exhibited to 4 million viewers every week. But - because the show didn't want to use a Union contractor to renovate the Real World house, organized labor decided to make unbearable for the producers and the show pulled out. In this situation, no one wins, especially the Unions, who not only don't get the work, but look like mafia bullies in the process. And for curiosity's sake, I'd like to know - why is it that organizations sometimes consciously try to avoid using union workers? Obviously there is a cost issue, but is there anything else? Besides distaste for their tactics? Forgive my naiveté.

My own personal experience with Unions centers around a former job as a marketing manager for a string of hotels in DC. The hotel worker's union had beef with some benefit issues, and they proceeded to enact 24-hour demonstrations outside the hotels, yelling rude slurs and making the stay a nightmare for guests. I actually tried to speak to some of the picketers on my way in a few times, and was met with unbridled hostility. How was this a reasonable tactic? It engendered the opposite reaction from management, who had been ready to compromise on some points. It's extortion.

The red line was completely shut down today, this is kind of an odd thing/semi-big deal. I had to walk to work. I heard something about smoke ... Mechanical? Rider on the tracks? Bomb scare? Not sure, I'll keep you posted.

UPDATE: "A fire in the control box." Not sure what that means, but ...

UPDATE:
Metrorail Returns to Full Service
Operations Expected to Be Normal for Afternoon Rush

The problems began with a 7 a.m. fire at an electric cable box on the tunnel wall between the Woodley Park and Dupont Circle stations. Smoke filled the tunnel.

He links me. Then he ignores my attempts to be his best friend/manservant. And then he copies my blog! Note the time stamps:

EXHIBIT A:
Instapundit: JEFFERSON MORLEY SURVEYS THE EUROPEAN PRESS for the Washington Post and discovers that some realism is beginning to appear.
3/16 7:28 PM

INDCJournal: Some Encouraging Signs: Read Jefferson Morley's World Opinion Roundup for some European media reaction to the Spanish bombings.
**3/16 1:31 PM**

EXHIBIT B:
Instapundit: UPDATE: And is it really smart for Kerry to be bragging that foreign leaders want him to beat Bush so as to produce a more compliant U.S. foreign policy? ("Without naming anybody, Kerry said he had received words of encouragement from leaders abroad who were eager to see him defeat Bush on Nov. 2.")
Er, which foreign leaders are we talking about, here. . . .?(link to Kim Jong Il)
3/8 2:30 PM

INDCJournal: Democratic White House candidate John Kerry predicted on Monday Republicans would try to "tear down" his character and said some foreign leaders had told him they hoped he would beat President Bush.
When has Kerry spoken with Kim Jong-Il?
**3/8 1:41 PM**

EXHIBIT C:
Instapundit: THE 1000 FIGHTING STYLES OF DONALD RUMSFELD: My favorite is "Hidden Monkey Hands." (Via Tim Blair).
UPDATE: Don't miss Crouching Tiger, Hidden Defense Secretary, either. . . .
2/18 7:53 AM

INDCJournal: This is Hilarious
The kung-fu fighting styles of Rumsfeld.
(Hat Tip: Frank @ IMAO)
UPDATE: More fighting pictures of Rummy.
**2/17 10:06 AM**

I rest my case. Either Glenn Reynolds is actually blogging so much that he links to and formulates every random thought in the universe (which might be possible), and we are all just wasting our time, or he is a damn dirty thief. I think an explanation is in order, and either way, he owes me an apology. I mean, leave some links for the rest of us!

Dean has some ruminations on the Instapundit, basically noting what an ephemeral tease the whole "Instalanche" experience is. He also links to the Commisar's take on how to get sustainable exposure, and it involves lots of commenting and commie ass-kissing and the like.

My personal experience with getting "Instalaunched" (or getting hit with an "Instalanche," if you prefer) via a link from Professor Reynolds:

My minor 'lanche got me so very high. It felt so good, man, like I was flying, like I'd buried my face en la coca a la Tony Montagna. I felt like I was ruler of the WORLD, like I suddenly had the power to kill a man, just by making that Darth Vader strangling motion with my hand.

But then ... then my minute came and went, and the fame fluttered out of my frenzied, pathetic grasp. It was gone. All gone. The traffic left as quickly as it had come. The comments dried up. I started to get the shakes. I craved attention and simply couldn't stand the idea of a life without another Instalink. I began e-mailing Glenn repeatedly, and he was RUDE and would not answer, even though I felt that we'd established a true friendship, a real spiritual bond by virtue of being "link-buddies." Finally, I sent this:

"To: pundit@instapundit.com
From: Instapunditfan@indcjournal.com
Re: My undying devotion to your special inner light

Glenny,

Please please PLEASE link me! Did you see my entry about Purple Elephant Sh*t and the State of the Union? Wasn't that a scream? Or my fun take on the Salon.com celebrity cruise? Did you? Well, DID YOU? Much better than your boring s*** blogging!

I'm sorry... that was passive-aggressive. I'm lashing out because you have hurt me with your silence. It's just that I thought that we had something meaningful. I even started blending puppies, just to be more like you. Last week I juiced a 6 week-old Doberman. I named him Andrew Sullivan before I frapped 'em, cuz you soooo kick Sullivan's ass. He couldn't carry your laptop bag. I would even kill Frank J if you told me to. (BTW - would you? Like me to?)

Now please link me! Please! Linkee-linkee-link-link-linkeee-link-link-linkeee-leeeeee!

With eternal love,

Bill

PS - I'll be in Knoxville in a week, why don't we take the Instafamily out for a BBQ in the RX-8, Professor!"

So anyway, the bastard e-mails me back with some legal-sounding letter saying to "cease-and-desist all communication, written, oral, electronic or otherwise." And still no link.

The Instalanche ruined my life!

They seem to have their own web site! I have a couple of observations:

* Good concept, weak copy on the site - it doesn't seem authentic. For example, it's spelled "sig heil." Every German kid learns that by like age five, dude.

*Who is going to break it to Saddam that he is not a foreign "leader" any longer?

*Say what you will about him, that Kim Jong Il is one strikingly beautiful specimen of manhood.

(Via Bill McCabe)

... or even necesarily very smart, but I do believe that I predicted something like this:

Attack threats over headscarf ban

Here.

(Link via Tim Blair)

I guess that there is some uh, sort of logic in this-

"The man insisted he had no other choice but the donkey because he could not afford to pay a dowry to get married," a local police officer told Reuters.

... but why couldn't he have just masturbated while thinking of donkeys?

Among our "friends," the Saudis.

Sources close to the detainees said eight people had been taken in by police, including former university professors Abdullah Hamid and Tawfiq Qussayer. Hamid was one of more than 800 people who signed a letter to Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, Crown Prince Abdullah, urging that a timetable for political reforms be implemented in the Persian Gulf state, which is under pressure to open up its absolute monarchy.

Bush had better get involved in this.

MY BRAIN CELLS DIED!

Read Jefferson Morley's World Opinion Roundup for some European media reaction to the Spanish bombings.

Le Figaro:

"The bombs of Madrid have shown us how much we are without defense and how much our knowledge of the terrorists is insufficient," says Le Figaro. "Each country can be hit, whether or not it has participated, like Spain, in the Iraq war, whether or not it has decided, like France, to forbid Islamic headscarves in the schools."

Yep.

... that this was a MAJOR victory for the terrorists?

CNN also has obtained an al Qaeda document that spells out the terrorist group's plan to separate Spain from the U.S.-led coalition on Iraq.

The document was published on the main message board that is used by al Qaeda and its sympathizers last December.

The strategy spelled out in the document calls for using terrorist attacks to oust Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's Partido Popular from power and replace it with the Socialists.

That, in turn, was expected to drive a wedge between Washington and Madrid and result in the withdrawal of Spanish military forces from Iraq.

Does the Spanish Prime Minister-elect realize what playbook he is taking cues from? Some consolation - 38% of the Spanish electorate understood this fact and voted for the Popular Party candidate.

Cash-strapped Salon.com takes a page from the National Review and starts its own "hang out with Salon staffers" vacation cruise, this Sept. 4-11 ...

Imagine ...

Sitting at the Captain's table with David Talbot as he regales you with horror stories about the "Bush Machine" and its right-wing "hitmen."

Watching a wild-eyed Michelle Goldberg prowl the ship, intently searching the shuffleboard courts for right-wing spies sent to sabotage the cruise and "crush (righteous) dissent."

Witnessing Joe Conason's mental illness up-close-and-personal.

And of course -

Celebrating the third anniversary of September 11th with your fellow Salon.com readers:

* I watched from my window, not on television, as the twin towers fell. As shocked as I was, I felt that this was not my problem as a black person. The people who worked at the World Trade Center were mostly white men, and so they had nothing to do with me as a black woman.

* 2001 was a great year for me; I hated the twin towers and I hated the Taliban and now they're both gone!

* In the days and weeks that followed the attacks I found myself worrying about the rescue dogs that were working the site. There were reports in the media almost daily about injuries to the dogs (and in some cases deaths) and I found myself wondering if it was really that important to recover things like concrete splashed with the victim's DNA.

Sounds fun!

Armed rebellion in Northern Iran.

(Via Roger Simon)

This:
Al Qaeda Implicated In Madrid Bombings

Then this:

Spanish Socialists Oust Party of U.S. War Ally

Then this:

Spain Likely to Pull Troops From Iraq

What a terrible sequence of events. The majority in Spain has conferred true political power on terrorists. What will it take for Europe to learn? Especially since Spain has likely always been on the short list of Islamist targets. Depressing.

A month ago, I noted Colin Powell's burgeoning public defense of the Administration and hoped that he would continue to use his powerful charisma to engage critics. It seems that he has decided to join the fray:

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday challenged Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry to name the foreign leaders whom the Massachusetts senator claims want him as the next U.S. president.

...

"I don't know what foreign leaders Senator Kerry is talking about. It's an easy charge, an easy assertion to make. But if he feels it is that important an assertion to make, he ought to list some names," Powell said. "If he can't list names, then perhaps he should find something else to talk about."

I love it! Keep it coming, Mr. Secretary.

Larger image

The ceremony was quiet and brief. At about noon, a procession of diplomats and private mourners made their way from the Spanish Embassy to Washington Circle. Once there, Spanish officials stood silently behind the white placards for about five minutes. They then dispersed and the media converged on the white-haired gentleman, who a reporter told me was the Spanish Ambassador. His voice broke and his eyes misted as he spoke briefly in Spanish and then English, and the key quote was:

"The Spanish people, along with the American people, all the freedom-loving peoples of the world - we will persevere together." (It was difficult to hear him, but I'm 99% sure this is accurate).

The ceremony then slowly dispersed, with the crowd mingling around the circle and the embassy, where flowers and tokens were continuously being dropped off. DC Police had one side of Penn Avenue blocked off and the crowd was riddled with various security personnel. I'm horrible at estimating crowds, but I'd say a couple of hundred people were there.

UPDATE:

Another ceremony: Bush Expresses Condolences to Spanish Ambassador

Mourners gather in front of the embassy.

The crowd moves towards Washington Circle.

The Spanish Ambassador chokes up as he speaks to reporters: "The Spanish people, along with the American people, all the freedom-loving peoples of the world, we will persevere together."

"The smart thing for us to do is stick together." (I think, roughly)

UPDATE: WRONG! - "Madrid, The beauty that you are, we are with you!"

Dean Esmay highlights the "line of the day" by Stephen Green ...

"But part of me is so angry after yesterday's bombing, that all I could think was, "Isn't it time we made that American sentiment 'Live free or die' into a goddamn ultimatum?"

... which reminds me of one of my favorite lines by George Carlin:

"Live and let live, that's what I say ... live and let live ... and anyone who disagrees with that? Take 'em outside and shoot the mother f%^&*ers!"

Just as surely as soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, there's another war going on, one of ideas. It's a bitter, discouraging war. Oftentimes I think it will be lost; that the subtle shadings of "conventional wisdom" smattered throughout the media establishment will sap America's will to resist the looming threat to civilization. But then I am heartened by the blogosphere, Charles Krauthammer, Andrew Sullivan, Tony Blair, Christopher Hitchens, Jonah Goldberg, Victor Davis Hanson, Fareed Zakaria and the legion of other incredibly bright people who are making the case, day-after-day, for the civilized world to mount an active defense. These people inspire me to update a blog, to e-mail friends, to engage in constructive discussions about politics with friends and to debate ideological foes. For those of us who are not hunting terrorists, this is our role in the fight. And as cheesy as this may sound, the well-known individuals that continue to effectively press this argument with conviction and eloquence are warriors and heroes, make no mistake.

WARNING: ANGRY RANT.

Perhaps the most striking divide in this country is between those who actually believe that we are at war and those who don't. For those who don't, this sounds like another golden opportunity to wake up: the senseless murder of 198 commuters, slaughtered during rush hour on a train. Defenseless. Innocent. Dead.

An event like this doesn't just stoke my hatred of the terrorists, those violentally intolerant cockroaches that seek to buy divinity or secular political godhood by dismantling civilization and murdering innocent people ... I view the terrorists as clever, deadly animals, simply and unerringly guided by psychotic hatred. Their role is clear, and they merely need to be exterminated. I would have little doubt that we could accomplish this, if it were not for the efforts of a more subtle enemy that facilitates their existence ...

What has really started to creep into my thoughts and inspire my anger is our generation's version of what Stalin called the "useful idiots." The apologist leftists. The auto-pacifists. Those that let their personal aversion to violence solely animate their political views. Those that exclusively shriek about cultural relativism and "root causes." Those that play politics to the detriment of the war on terror. Those that let their personal predilections about domestic issues chronically interfere with the concept that we are in terrible danger.

I'm sick of it.

*I'm sick of Salon.com's paranoid delusional hand-wringing and self-loathing of America.

*I'm beyond sick of Joe Conason. I have NEVER read anyone who is more of a craven, knee-jerk ideologue.

*I'm sick of Paul Begala, that f**kwit that will play any angle to further his sworn demonic allegience to a political party.

* Ditto Sidney Blumenthal and the little monster that is Carville.

*I'm sick of Bill Maher's snarky, intellectually shallow one-liners that imply Bush's dishonesty about motivations for the War in Iraq.

* I'm sick of Chris Matthew's intellectually shallow mouth-breathing spittle-fests that also imply Bush's dishonesty about motivations for the War in Iraq.

* I'm sick of Reuters.

* I'm sick of Ted Rall and John Pilger, both of whom might actually join Al Quaeda, if given the chance.

The list goes on, and on and on ...

But mostly, I'm sick of the legion of Maureen Dowds. They surround me in this city. They are more concerned with "cosmeceutials," and materialism, and faux-empathy with society's downtrodden, and hatred of Bush than they are with the fundamental, pressing concept that technology has evolved at a faster rate than humanity has matured. And to strategically attack this problem we have to take a shot at an aggressive gameplan that remakes whole societies, not one that hunkers down and seeks to pray for peace while attending cocktail parties.

To these people the idea of a series of bombs exploding in Spain is an event made abstract by distance, and the attacks in NY and DC have been made abstract by time. WAKE UP! It is here! And just as easily as it could be a train in Spain, or crumbling Twin Towers, or a nightclub in Bali, or a pizza parlor in Israel, it can also be on the subway YOU are riding on - tomorrow!

And it's not caused by Bush. And it's not caused by some coup the CIA may have engineered in the 70's. And it's not Donald Rumsfeld's wet dream. And it's not about oiiiiiiil. And it's not because of the Patriot Act, or the fact that Brazilians need to be fingerprinted before they enter the country.

Terrorism is hatred, it is human nature, and it and terrible weapons are here to stay. We must not lose focus. And we must realize that those who facilitate loss of focus are also a type of enemy. They undermine the will of free and properous societies in the face of a threat. They offer contrarian criticism without credible alternative. They give rise to the concept that Democracy and capitalism are weak.

How to confront this enemy? Ideas.

(NOTE: Yes, I realize that I am only vilifying left-wing ideologues and worshipping right wingers; but the rabid left-wing is on the wrong side of an issue that is so vital, so important, that they must be singled out and defeated. Also, the right-wingers that I venerate are some of the most reasoned thinkers on either side of the left-right debate)

John Kerry in 1997:

"Now that [the Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow?"

Fool. Read the whole thing.

Study Finds That Teenage Virginity Pledges Are Rarely Kept

UPDATE: Dean Esmay's opinion suggests that I should have read the results a bit more closely ...

Democratic White House candidate John Kerry predicted on Monday Republicans would try to "tear down" his character and said some foreign leaders had told him they hoped he would beat President Bush.

When has Kerry spoken with Kim Jong-Il?

Thomas Friedman nails it in today's column:

There is a reason the "next big thing" almost always comes out of America, said Mrs. Narayanan. When she and her husband came back to live in Bangalore and enrolled their son in a good private school, he found himself totally stifled because of the emphasis on rote learning — rather than the independent thinking he was exposed to in his U.S. school. They had to take him out and look for another, more avant-garde private school. "America allows you to explore your mind," she said. The whole concept of outsourcing was actually invented in America, added her husband, Sean, because no one else figured it out.

The Narayanans are worth listening to at this time of rising insecurity over white-collar job losses to India. America is the greatest engine of innovation that has ever existed, and it can't be duplicated anytime soon, because it is the product of a multitude of factors: extreme freedom of thought, an emphasis on independent thinking, a steady immigration of new minds, a risk-taking culture with no stigma attached to trying and failing, a noncorrupt bureaucracy, and financial markets and a venture capital system that are unrivaled at taking new ideas and turning them into global products.

This is essentially what nearly every economist that appears on Lou Dobbs tries to explain to the old protectionist goat.

Dick Cheney has a sense of humor! It also seems that he reads the paper when he is hunkered deep in his subterranean lair.

Thank you, President [Al] Hunt, members of the Gridiron . . . at one point during your skits, I had a little scare. I felt a tightness in my chest. I started gasping for air and breathing irregularly. Then I realized it's called laughing. . . .

Dave Broder: "How would you accurately describe
your role in this administration? Be honest."

I would say that I am a dark, insidious force pushing Bush toward war and confrontation. . . .

Susan Page of USA Today asks, "What do you think of Senator John Edwards?"

I think he's cute as a button. . . .

I can't believe he actually said this stuff. Hilarious.

... if Dubya could communicate as effectively as Tony Blair.

Actually, it is now apparent from the Survey Group that Iraq was indeed in breach of UN Resolution 1441. It did not disclose laboratories and facilities it should have; nor the teams of scientists kept together to retain their WMD including nuclear expertise; nor its continuing research relevant to chemical weapons and biological weapons.

As Dr Kay, the former head of the ISG who is now quoted as a critic of the war has said: "Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441". And "I actually think this [Iraq] may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought."

These points are almost completely overlooked by conventional "wisdom." The debate is poisoned. More:

All of it in the end is an elaborate smokescreen to prevent us seeing the real issue: which is not a matter of trust but of judgement. The real point is that those who disagree with the war, disagree fundamentally with the judgement that led to war.

What is more, their alternative judgement is both entirely rational and arguable. Kosovo, with ethnic cleansing of ethnic Albanians, was not a hard decision for most people; nor was Afghanistan after the shock of September 11; nor was Sierra Leone.

Iraq in March 2003 was an immensely difficult judgement. It was divisive because it was difficult. I have never disrespected those who disagreed with the decision.

Sure, some were anti-American; some against all wars. But there was a core of sensible people who faced with this decision would have gone the other way, for sensible reasons.

Their argument is one I understand totally. It is that Iraq posed no direct, immediate threat to Britain; and that Iraq's WMD, even on our own case, was not serious enough to warrant war, certainly without a specific UN resolution mandating military action. And they argue: Saddam could, in any event, be contained.

In other words, they disagreed then and disagree now fundamentally with the characterisation of the threat.

I've debated the war with many, many people, and when you sweep away the rhetoric, the generalizations, the politically poisoned points, this is what you are left with. A gut feeling about the nature of the threats facing the civilized world. The position against war is defensible, and there are logical reasons put forth by some who advocated against it. But they just don't feel the heat; they haven't agreed with the concept that Western Civilization is in peril, and that rogue states with access to significant resources pose the greatest immediate threat. The concept that in terms of the century's prospects, we are two minutes to midnight, and the solution is to rework and invest in the sustained success of entire civilizations, while snuffing out threats like brush fires around a keg of dynamite.

Well, life isn't simple. But it doesn't have to be as subtly, preternaturally, systematically complex as John Kerry makes it out to be. His dizzyingly complex record has already set him up for the best line George W. Bush has had in months. In his first campaign speech, Bush said he was surveying the field of Democratic candidates and found them very diverse: "They're for tax cuts and against them. They're for NAFTA and against NAFTA. They're for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. They're in favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts."

Via Andrew Sullivan's take on Kerry's incredibly shallow politics. Read the whole thing.

He also regularly heaps praise on President George W. Bush and his war on terror, including the invasion of Iraq. "There are at least four or five [officials in the Bush administration] who could hold their own against the Founding Fathers," he says.

Read the whole thing.

North Korea warms to Kerry presidency bid

Please read my earlier comments about this here:

Ask yourself this: who is Bashar al-Assad, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Jaques Chirac, Kim Jong-Il, Magneto, Satan and various other declared or covert enemies of America rooting for in November? And why?

But this is funny as hell:

I just realized I never congratulated Kerry for sealing up the Democrat nomination for president, so here it goes:

Welcome to the jungle, baby... NOW YOU'RE GONNA DIE!!!

Rick Brookhiser has a funny anecdote in the Corner:

At the 1988 GOP convention, George H.W. Bush threatened drug king pins with the death penalty. P.J. O'Rourke leaned over to me and said, "Even if the drugs are good and the prices are fair?"

I'm Caligula. Score!

(Via Dean's World)

Slightly warped, from Frank J:

'But who shall bear the ring?' Kofi Annan asked.

'I'll take it,' Condi said, reaching for the Ring.

Bush pulled her back. 'I'm really getting tired of this.'

'I'll take the precious,' Chirac announced, 'Yesss. Jacques will protect the precious.'

'No way I'm letting him touch it!' Bush yelled.

'And I won't trust it with an elf!' said a dwarf.

'Nor I with a dwarf,' responded an elf.

'And no jooos!' shouted a Muslim.

This one is actually offensive if you really think about it:

Who's Sauron -- bin Laden or Bush?

At least they've expanded their horizons past Hitler analogies. The piece is accompanied by a picture of Viggo Mortensen wearing a "War is Not the Answer" t-shirt. If war wasn't the answer, it amazes me that I have still not heard a credible argument for what was the answer, especially since the status quo of UN sanctioned "containment" was even more of a failure than previously assumed:

Millions of Iraqis were struggling to survive on rations of food and medicine. Yet the government's hidden slush funds were being fed by suppliers and oil traders from around the world who sometimes lugged suitcases full of cash to ministry offices, said Iraqi officials who supervised the skimming operation.

So what was the answer Viggo?

Right Wing New