A few seconds later, we were attacked by a swarm of ME 109s. We shot down a couple, but they kept coming. A 20mm shell went through our vertical stabilizer, setting up a vibration throughout the entire tail assembly.

When the entire tail broke off, I jumped out of my seat, put on my parachute pack and dived head first out of the lower escape hatch. Upon landing safely, I tried to get away from the area as quickly as possible, walking for three days in an attempt to reach Spain. I was picked up by the French resistance on the third day and spent 70 days in their care while they made contact with British intelligence, who arranged for a small gunboat to pick us up on the northern coast of France.

Heroes. Real, live, action heroes. And they're in DC this weekend!

UPDATE: Some of these stories are really amazing. I could read stuff like this for days ...

Some more:

I was looking over the side and saw some of the LCIs under fire: ships being hit and men being killed. I wasn't really nervous-I was just seasick. I just wanted to get to that beach!

Later some medics made it. They came over and asked us if there was anybody really hurt. About 20 guys said, "Yeah, me." So the medics said, "Okay, one at a time. The worst will get attention first." I said, "I'm all right, get to me later." I was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for helping the wounded while still under fire and being wounded. I was wounded three more times after that, and I made all five campaigns in Europe. At the end of the there only three of us left from my company that landed on D-Day.

When he was done Brian Chontosh had cleared 200 yards of entrenched Iraqis from his platoon’s flank. He had killed more than 20 and wounded at least as many more.

Yup, it's true. From the official Marine Corps commendation:

While leading his platoon north on Highway 1 toward Ad Diwaniyah, Chontosh's platoon moved into a coordinated ambush of mortars, rocket propelled grenades and automatic weapons fire. With coalition tanks blocking the road ahead, he realized his platoon was caught in a kill zone.

When his audacious attack ended, he had cleared over 200 meters of the enemy trench, killing more than 20 enemy soldiers and wounding several others.

Funny, I must have missed that on CNN.

My name is Joe Ponder, I live in Keystone Heights, FL. I served in Coastal Divisions 11 and 13 from July of '68 until I was wounded in a Sealords combat mission in Nov of 1968 on the Bo De River, During this time Senator Kerry was in our unit.

I'd prefer not to be here, but I feel that it is my duty to be here and Stand with this association and explain why I signed this letter. My family feels I need to be here. It's my duty to be here. My daughters and my wife wanted to know ... (pause, chokes up) if I took part in the atrocities described. I do not believe the things that are described happened.

There are more, many, many more unequivocal indictments of John Kerry's character from some of the men that knew him best. I challenge any reasonable Kerry supporter to sit through the entire video and not come away with serious reservations about their candidate. I also find it somewhat shocking that I have never heard any of these sound bites replayed in the mainstream media. These are dramatic sentiments expressed by serious and credible men.

If you're on the fence in this election and you have the time, watch it. And ask yourself: how would a man as cynical as the young John Kerry run the United States today? Is he largely the same person? What do his personal ambitions and tactics of 30 years ago say about the value he places on his personal political survival and success today? And how will this impact the decisions that he makes in a time of war?

These are very legitimate questions.

A Macroglossius lunarius incontinentis caught in mid-stream.

In Dr. Haight's encounter, the moonbat urinated on her car when she was away from the vehicle, thus implicating the Macroglossius variety shown above. Both species instinctively void themselves upon seeing any form of Bush-Cheney iconography, but the Desmodius would have laid in wait for her return and actually attempted to void itself on the good doctor, not on her car. In either case, the Glock bumper sticker that she mentions in her report is an ineffective deterrent, though a Glock itself would certainly be helpful in the face of a live assault by an attacking Desmodius.

When living and working in an area of the country that is rife with Shy Peeing Moonbats, it is absolutely essential to outfit your research vehicle with the appropriate repellent equipment. The Blaster Moonbat Defense Kit is available for about $655, easily snaps to the vehicle's undercarriage, and is highly effective when modified with the optional remote urine sensor.

A demonstration of the Blaster in action.

I wouldn't take an automobile into the field without it. Thank you for your helpful and informative submission, Dr. Haight, and keep up the fantastic work!

On another note, I've also received quite a bit of correspondence enquiring as to the etymological origins of the word "moonbat." There are two theories behind the term's origin, and neither is mutually exclusive:

1. It is a play on the name of the infamous columnist George Monbiot, noted for his remarkable ability to learn the human language and prolifically approximate punditry for a large circulation British newspaper. It's important to note that contrary to popular conception, Monbiot is not the father of some mystical bloodline; killing him will not in fact cause all other moonbats to revert to human form. Despite the wishful thinking of some, Moonbats are an eternal corollary of mankind.

2. It's also a simple descriptive term, effectively marrying the legendary "lunacy" associations of lunar mythology with the rather unattractive characteristics of flying rodentia. A wonderful serial treatise on this theory was written by my colleagues at the Barking Moonbat Early Warning System:

Part One
Part Two

Having studied moonbats in their natural habitats for many years now, I can only say that whatever the origin, the term is a stroke of brilliant accuracy; when I witness the live behavior of one of these fascinating creatures, the term "moonbat" just ... feels right.

Cheerio. Until next time.

Suggestions that people get more sun exposure, however, have sparked an unusually intense, and sometimes bitter, debate. Skin cancer experts are alarmed that people will disregard warnings about unprotected sun exposure, making them more vulnerable to what is the most common malignancy.

Are many (perhaps most) Americans frying themselves into premature aging and skin cancer? Certainly. Would that in any way increase via Vitamin D-geared recommendations of "exposing the hands, face, arms and legs to the sun for five to 15 minutes a day a few days a week?" No.

Visit a dermatologist and they'll typically bombard you with draconian admonitions to apply sunscreen every day, wear tightly woven clothing and broad-brimmed hats for a trip to the mailbox, or simply build a network of interconnecting underground tunnels that would allow safe transit to work and the grocery store without the fear of any UV exposure. The problem with this conventionally unwise ideal, (along with most exaggerated long-term medical protocols) is the fact that it presents a simple, reactionary course of action for a vastly multifactorial situation. It's narrowly tailored to one specialty's research.

Sunlight in overabundance causes DNA mutation, suppression of the immune system, a chronic increase in collagen-degrading enzymes (eventually leading to thinner skin), distortion of the skin's structure and a permanent imbalance in the natural level of anti-oxidant protection. On the other hand, a chronic underexposure to sunlight can be tied to Vitamin D deficiency, loss of sex drive, suppression of anabolic hormones, depression, increased susceptibility to various cancers (including melanoma from acute burns) and thinner skin, along with other consequences that likely haven't been charted.

But in simplistic fashion, most dermatologists draw the following conclusions:

1. Wear sunscreen every day, all day, especially during the summer months.

This will keep your skin smooth and unlined, but it may also give you rickets and a serious case of depression. While seasonal UV mood enhancement is generally assumed to take place via light that travels through the eyes, science also now indicates that complex chemical reactions occur in the skin. A singular example would be how the body absorbs the radiation and locally produces @-Melanocyte Stimulating Hormone, aka the stuff that gives you pigment. This hormone has been directly tied to various central nervous system functions, including sex drive, appetite supression and sense of well-being. Too much sun damage mutates your skin and gives you cancer - a tiny bit of damage may provoke just enough hormonal reaction to keep you happy, trim, sexually interested and cancer-free. But please realize - most Americans do get too much sun in irregular doses; it's all about balance, moderation and consistency.

2. Don't advise the layman to get any sun! Skin cancer rates are epidemic, and any grudging advisory will be blown out of proportion by a sun-hungry public.

Rubbish. Give patients the best available information and allow them to make appropriate judgments about the proper course of action. When I was 18, I went to a dermatologist for a halo nevus. After getting it removed, the doctor read me the extreme riot act about staying indoors, wearing SPF 30 every day and even wearing specialty clothing that offered 100% UV blockage. Being a swimmer, life guard and Florida teenager, I regarded her advice with confusion and contempt; it was looney. It failed to take into account anything regarding my age, attitudes or lifestyle; hence, it was almost completely ignored.

Regulatory bodies and professional societies serve up this patronizing condescension on a regular basis. The next time you read an article regarding a medical controversy or breakthrough, pay close attention to the quotes served up by the official professional society of whatever medical specialty is regarded by the article; often it's somewhat appropriately cautious. Just as often, it contains some tacked-on soundbite that serves up an irresponsible scare tactic employed to buttress the speaker's conservatism on the issue.

So get some sun! 15-20 minutes, a few days a week, is probably enough to give you what you need, more for darker-skinned folks, less if you turn pink within 10 minutes. Depending on your skin type, if you plan to be outside for more than a half-an-hour, especially between 10 and 2, definitely use at least an SPF 15 sunscreen and perhaps a hat and sunglasses. The only effective broad spectrum (block UVA/UVB) sunscreens are physical blockers - look for sheer, micronized zinc or titanium dioxide on the ingredient list. A little common sense and moderation will keep you happy, cancer-free and banging like a steel drum.

ONE YEAR LATER UPDATE: Please see my comments under this thread for more thoughts on skin cancer and medical advice.

Look around, the signs are everywhere: bloggers dropping off the face of the planet with nary a warning; grizzled veterans taking suddenly announced breaks or stepping back from the brink of warblogging exacerbated anxiety; even typically flawless comedians dropping schtick to bravely announce that they are battling this silent killer.

Where did it originate? It's believed that this year's insiduous strain was spread from mainland China, likely making the jump from animals to humans via the consumption of the testicles of endangered Guizhou snub-nosed monkeys, a creature widely known to zoologists as "the angry pundit of the animal kingdom." The human index case is believed to be this blogger, who was infected with the disease after eating Guizhou-nut nacho dip at a Beijing Spring Festival party in late January.

Playing with fire: a party platter of candied-BBQ Guizhou snub-nosed monkey balls.

The bad news? The disease is rampant, painful and has the capability to permanently cripple a blogger. Observe these scans of an anonymous subject recently afflicted with stage four SMBS:

The good news? With aggressive treatment, that very subject has almost completely recovered and now blogs at a reasonable approximation of his former glory. In addition ...

Doctors Rindall, Johnson, Schmidt and VanClyburn.

... some of the world's most highly qualified scientists are furiously racing to isolate the pathogen and synthesize a cure. Also, Atrios may yet contract a chronically debilitating form of the disease.

In the meantime, there are several common-sense steps that you can take to control this epidemic:

1. Take a break from the news - discover your inner cat-blogger.

2. Just go ahead and ban that troll - it's refreshing.

3. Drop the pretense of highbrow discourse - go ahead and tell someone to "fuck-off" in one of your comment threads.

4. Don't be afraid to take a few days off completely. Announce your break, set a timeframe and send them off to INDC Journal; your readers will return. And I'll send them back, I swear.

5. Entertain the idea of employing a temporary guest-blogger.

6. Stop eating Guizhou snub-nosed monkey balls.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I'd like to take this opportunity to publically announce that I've been silently suffering from this condition since Monday. I'm sure that you've noticed - I've been slow-witted, lazy and really just posting a bunch of horseshit. Even this post is simply horrible; for this, I am truly sorry.

Please take note of my symptoms:

* Irritability
* Poor concentration
* Inability to fisk the New York Times
* Loss of "sense of well-being" and desire to post
* Painful burning sensation and iridescent discharge while urinating

After initially shrugging off the warning signs, I finally gave in and saw a doctor yesterday. He advised bed rest, light posting, three days without politics and curiously, a single 500 mg dose of Ciprofloxacin and seven days of Doxycycline 100 mg orally, twice a day.

I believe that I will recover; I must recover. If you or someone that you know comes down with any of these symptoms, do the blogosphere a favor - nip it in the bud and seek help before it does permanent damage. The blog you save could be your own.

Thank you.

UPDATE: Another SBMS sufferer in denial. This is a classic case of diversion; afflicted bloggers consistently offer excuses like "I'm busy," or "my real life is just really fantastically cool and action-packed right now" and such. Don't be fooled; this man is crying for help.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Yet another sign of the raging epidemic ...

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: FLASH! A supplemental report can be found here.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE(!): Another case documented at Instapundit.

Unique Visitor: Roughly represents one unique individual that visits your site, typically determined by IP address.

Visit: An individual session.

Hit: An antiquated term that represents a graphical element that's rendered on the page.

So for example - let's say that I access one of my protest posts 5 times on a given day, twice from home and three times from work. There are 30 graphical elements, including logo, sidebar items and moonbat pics. Here's how the stats shake out:

Unique Visitors: Likely two, one logged as my work terminal and one from home.

Visits: Five, based on my individual sessions of fawning self-worship.

Hits: 150, determined by multiplying 30 graphical elements by 5 visits (this only assumes one "page view").

Now I assume that most bloggers intend to project "visits" when they employ the term "hits." The question of "unique visitors" and "visits" is a bit cloudier. In the case of Instapundit, for example, these numbers could be highly different; I'd expect that he has somewhere around barely seven figures in unique visitors* in any given month, but probably requires scientific notation to chart the number of visits.

* Wildly speculative and inaccurate conjecture.

Revolutionary crickets chirping.

... revolutionaries are notoriously unreliable. I asked the proprietors where the "Prisons, Police & Repression" teach-in was, and I was told that the group is rather haphazard about how they maintain their schedule. Two things immediately disturbed me:

1. How will the people throw off the fascist chains of the man's oppression when they can't even keep regularly scheduled meetings?

2. The coffee that they served me tasted remarkably like piss.

I decided to pack it in and head for the memorial.

Tracing the name of a fallen officer.

The Memorial is a beautiful oval shaped space with long, curved walls that bear the engraved names of officers killed in the line of duty.

The typically spartan stone was festooned with wreaths, pictures, poems, letters ...

... and newspaper clippings.

An impromptu tribute.

This is my father's New Jersey State Police Academy classmate, Werner Foerster. On May 2, 1973, he and his partner, Trooper James Harper, pulled over a car containing three individuals: Sundiata Acoli, aka Clark Edward Squire, Zayd Malik Shakur and ...

... Assata Shakur, aka JoAnne Chesimard, all members of an ultra-violent Black Panther splinter group called the Black Liberation Army, "whose stated goal was to take up arms for the liberation and self-determination of black people in the United States."
The BLA was responsible for the murders of more than 10 police officers around the country, and these three were wanted for questioning regarding the deaths of two police officers in New York; one white, one black.

As Harper questioned the car's passengers and Forrester provided back-up, the three BLA members opened fire on the troopers with hand-guns. Harper was shot in the shoulder and managed to escape down an embankment. Forrester was struck twice in the chest. As he lay on the ground bleeding and helpless, Shakur/Chesimard took his service revolver and shot him twice in the head. The cop-killers briefly escaped, but were quickly hunted down by police. In an exchange of gunfire Zayd Malik Shakur was killed and Chesimard and Squire were wounded and captured.

After their capture, my father was part of the team assigned to guard the severely wounded Chesimard in the hospital. As the troopers stood outside of her room, she incessantly chanted, "If I had some poison gas, I'd throw it on your white ass."

Both were tried and sentenced to life in prison. During the trial, both defendants were highly disruptive and violent. Eventually the judge had them placed in a separate sound-proof booth that suppressed their chants and allowed them to hear and see the courtroom through a plastic window. During the proceedings, the two defendants laid on the ground of the booth and had sex in the midst of the courtroom. Chesimard became pregnant and had a daughter before being transferred to the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women, where on November 2, 1979, she was sprung from the prison by four visitors that took a guard and a driver hostage. Despite an intense manhunt, she remained on the lamb in the US until 1986, when she made her way to Cuba and was granted political asylum. Today she walks free as a professor, counter-cultural heroine and published author, reviewed by the NY Times: "A deftly written book... a spellbinding tale." Incidentally, her stature has also been augmented by virtue of being the aunt of the late rapper, Tupac Shakur.

In 1998, Congress voted for a resolution to ask for Shakur's extradition. The site Afro Cuba Web stated:

"The Congressional Black Caucus was asleep at the switch on this one, with 23 members voting against Assata and 13 not voting, which is hardly different. Maxine Waters voted against, but then said she did not know who Joanne Chesimard (Assata's pre-Panther name) was."

When Congresswoman Waters figured out that Chesimard was Shakur, she filed a protest against her original vote and wrote an apologetic letter of clarification to Fidel Castro.

I find it beyond disturbing that clear, cold-blooded murder is regarded as a political or racial issue.

Sundiata Acoli, aka Clark Edward Squire, remains in prison, though he is a cause celebre of the "Free Mumia" folks, which have made recent attempts to assist him in securing parole. A counter-effort, spearheaded by the victim's family, police associations, popular magazines and bloggers are pushing to keep him in jail. From what I can gather, in this case, justice is likely to prevail - Acoli was denied Federal parole and will probably be denied state parole (due to their refusal to grant him an in-person hearing), though a final decision is still pending ...

Justice or no justice, the cops that these people murdered are still dead; their names are engraved on the walls of the memorial.

Larger image

The most remarkable features of the memorial are the fantastic statues of protective lions that mark its four corners.

Playin' in the sun.

Something that struck me about the police officers that were gathered for the ceremony was their incredible diversity: women, blacks, whites, hispanics ...

... and even men wearing dresses.

The ceremony began as the wreath was brought forward.

The colors were presented ...

... the wreath was laid at the center of the memorial ...

... and a police chaplain led the crowd in a prayer for the dead.

Larger image

The wreath was then flanked by a rotating honor guard.

It was a touching tribute, capped by ...

"Amazing Grace."

Some facts about the hazards of police work (via NLEOMF):

* More than 14,250 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty in the 20th Century.

* The deadliest decade ever for law enforcement was the 1970's, when an average of 222 officers made the ultimate sacrifice each year, including a record 271 officers killed in 1974.

* The average age of the officers killed last century was 38 and the average length of service was about eight years.

* Shootings accounted for about half of all police fatalities during the past century.

* Approximately 500 officers were killed in multiple police death incidents.

* With 50 police deaths, September 11, 2001 was the deadliest day in law enforcement history.

UPDATE: Urban Farmhouse has a post featuring some other permanent memorials.

UPDATE: Want to read more on domestic terrorism lionized as brave rebellion? Need a blood pressure spike? Go here.

The payback?

If Carter were just anyone, he would not be the subject of such stories. But as the editor of Vanity Fair, which routinely writes about the producers of that and other movies, the suggestion is of a serious breach of journalistic ethics. Among editors of newspapers and magazines, it's not considered kosher to carry on side deals with figures you cover in your publications.

Perhaps if Carter goes, I won't have to endure cliche-ridden anti-Bush editor screeds and covers with a shirtless Brad Pitt in order to access some exceptionally good articles. It's hella embarassing to be holding a mag that resembles gay porn on the subway, let me tell ya ...

GR: Good points, all.

INDC: … yes, well, when you first started blogging, did you ever imagine that Instapundit.com would get this big?

GR: Nope.

INDC: So, what, you were doing it as more of a hobby or an experiment? You were actually surprised by the speed at which you achieved your current popularity?

GR: Yes.

INDC: Okay … well, you often write about how blogging and other new media vehicles are revolutionizing the traditional media environment and changing the way that news is disseminated; do you think that this trend will lead to a situation where blogs may eventually eclipse or even replace traditional media?

GR: Hmm. You’d think.

INDC: Uh, care to elaborate on that?

GR: More thoughts on that at Glennreynolds.com.

INDC: Uh, yes … I’m sure that there are, but since we’re here and all … do you have any current thoughts on the matter?

GR: I guess.

INDC: And, those would be …

GR: Heh.

INDC: Um … … forgive me if I’m not making much sense here, this is my first interview, and I’m a little nervous. In no way do I intend any ... disrespect, but the interview might be a bit more informative if you could, uh, expand on some of your answers.

GR: So noted.

INDC: Ok, well, back to my initial question then - do you have any additional thoughts about the blogosphere’s role in the future media environment?

GR: But of course. More on that here.

INDC: Yes, yes, I see your laptop … um, but can you tell them to me?

GR: Update: more here ...

INDC: What the hell is your ...

GR: ... and here ...

INDC: Alright then ...

GR: ... and here.

INDC: ... let’s ... let's just skip ahead and try something a little different. I had thought it might be fun to liven up the interview with a little pop psychology.

GR: Yes, let's!

INDC: Ok, why don't you take a look at this inkblot and tell me what you see:

GR: Nanobots.

INDC: Ok, and this?

GR: It's not work safe.

INDC: Uh huh ... and this?

GR: Prison rape.

INDC: And ... here?

GR: Mazda RX-8.

INDC: How about this?

GR: Lileks.

INDC: Lileks? No shit, huh? Ok. Well that was somewhat more revealing than your previous answers, but let's go back and try some regular questions again, shall we? I'll try one more time: the future of the blogosphere - where are we headed?

GR: Yet another update: more on that here.

INDC: Yes, yes, yes! I skimmed that article by Bill Quick like two years ago! What are your ...

GR: Read the whole thing.

INDC: Dammit! What are your thoughts? What do you think? Do you have any opinions of your own? Can you form compound-complex sentences? Jesus, you are really starting to piss me off, Reynolds!

GR: That's too bad.

INDC: Are you making fun of me? Is this ...

GR: I agree.

INDC: Is this a fucking joke to you? You think INDC Journal is just a fucking joke?!

GR: Not ready for prime time, if you ask me.

INDC: Not ready for prime time? Not ready for prime time?! Fine, fine! Screw this interview, and screw you, buddy! You can take your "more here's" and your "heh's" and your "Lileks's" and you can stick 'em where the sun don't shine! You hear me? I take funny pictures and crack jokes about moonbats, ok? And people like it, so you can just piss right off!

GR: I'd like to say that I'm shocked by this, but, well, I'm not.

INDC: I'm out of here!

GR: You'd think.

INDC: Kiss my ass Reynolds!

GR: Heh.

FIN

UPDATE: A somewhat more professional interview can be found here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: For my homies at the OTB Traffic Jam.

The democratization of technology and information means that most anyone can get his hands on anything. Like weapons of mass destruction. We now know that Osama bin Laden was working on a serious biological-weapons program during the 1990s. But what is most astonishing is that the scientific information and manuals found in Al Qaeda's Kabul safe houses were not secrets stolen from government laboratories. they were documents downloaded from the Internet. Today if you want to find sources for anthrax, recipes for poison, or methods to weaponize chemicals, all you need is a good search engine. These same open sources will, unfortunately, soon help someone build a dirty bomb. The components are easier to get than ever before. Mostly what you need is knowledge, and that has been widely disseminated over the last decade. Even nuclear technology is now commonly available. It is, after all, fifty-year-old know-how, part of the world of AM radios and black-and-white television. Call it the democratization of violence.

Buy it and read the whole thing. The writing on the wall could not be any more distinct; we are in a race to marginalize radical elements before the "democratizaton of violence" assures the destruction of Western Civilization, and perhaps with it the entire world. Unfortunately, our chances of success over the course of this century are perhaps less than 50/50 - but we need to try. So whenever you get discouraged about the war, or have thoughts about withdrawal after the deaths of Americans, visualize what is coming down the pike if we fail. This perspective should help assign appropriate worth to our current sacrifices and setbacks.

When I feel bad, it helps me to call you at work. Frequently. Rushing me off the phone will just make me cry and pester you with e-mails. I have a little dog that I tend to bring everywhere, because if I leave him at home, he yips. If you plan on sleeping with me, you will not complain when I bring him on dates in a little black bag. I'm a little curious about spanking, but we can never try it at my house, because my ex-boyfriend lives on the other side of the wall and will hear us.
SEXUAL QUIRK:
I will blow you, but not consistently.

Or this:

Though I committed through twenty years of a failed marriage, I have a lousy track record when it comes to monogamy. As soon as want and desire become need, I get squeamish and start roaming for the next conquest. I'm opinionated and annoyingly logical. I'm short and color-blind. I'm reasonably trim for my age, which means I'm getting a bit thick in the middle. I hate shopping and wear mostly jeans and T-shirts. If you're looking for a guy with no mother issues, I'm not for you. If you want kids, I'm not for you. But if you want someone whose temper can be easily provoked, I'm your guy.

(Via Spartacus)

PS - Make sure that you actually click on the link to "goat play" ... it's not that b-a-a-a-a-a-d.

These bastards have refocused us - this is what we are fighting. This is why we need to stay and win in Iraq, even through periods of intense doubt. The Commissar asks legitimate questions about timetables, effective force structure, measurable progress; the Washington Post quotes generals voicing concern about strategic failure; fine, these questions of course need answers. But if it takes two years or ten years, tactical withdrawals followed by messy re-engagements, $500 billion or trillions, this problem, this cancer of Islamic extremism is not going to go away. It flourishes in medieval, closed societies, and our best strategic hope to weaken it is to invest in the success and democratization of the rest of the world. If we fail, we fail trying, we fail making mistakes and correcting them, because defensive isolationism and/or tactical application of military force are one-way tickets to destruction. Highly imperfect as it is, our present, starry-eyed course as charted by the current administration is the only available path that even attempts to adequately answer this strategic challenge.

Study history with any intensity and a constant theme will arise over and over and over: stronger societies that unhesitatingly apply their strength win. That's why the mid-term survival of the United States is dependent upon pressing our advantage and changing the world while we still have overwhelming economic and military dominance, an end which takes more than a few years' patience. This paradigm will shift drastically within this century, perhaps within a generation or two, as innovation lowers the boundaries to terribly destructive technology. At that point, it's likely that the world may be doomed anyway, but literally our only hope may be the previously spurred evolution of most corners of the earth towards pluralistic, democratic societies that will naturally marginalize extreme elements.

If you were horrified by what that small group of men did with a knife and a video camera, ponder what they yearn to do with highly efficient chemical agents, nuclear material or future nanotechnology. There is no "exit strategy" in Iraq, merely victory or defeat in the first or second round of a lifelong, messy epic battle - civilization vs. those that wish to destroy it. It's going to be ugly, it's going to involve defeats and it will not be politically expedient. Pick sides and fight, feel free to examine and question tactics, but don't for a second think that ignoring the war or withdrawing from individual battles will make its consequences disappear. Our political leadership needs to refocus the American electorate on the gravity of this struggle and the sacrifice that it demands, for the only thing that can defeat us at this stage of the game is flagging political will.

We're in it to win it. Suck it up, people.

In this regard, a president such as Bush, with his lack of cosmopolitan sheen, diplomatic grace and deference to European cultural superiority, exacerbates European hostility. But all those Democratic-leaning Americans I met at three different political conferences over the past three months, who aggressively pushed the notion that "It's all about Bush," are sadly mistaken. It isn't.

"Yet another universally held conviction," he writes ironically, "is that Americans make it a point of honour to elect only mental defectives as presidents. From the Missouri tie salesman Truman to the Texas cretin George W. Bush, not to mention the peanut farmer Carter and the B-movie actor Reagan, the White House offers us a gallery of nincompoops."

Don't let the Europeans down this November!

Unfortunately, my favorite Bushism of all time did not take place in Western Europe:

Arriving for a caviar dinner at Russian President Vladimir Putin's country residence, Bush viewed the immaculate grounds and told his host: "Nice of you to mow the grass for us."

Awesome. You have to love a man that can animate a cherished cliché; every time he opens his mouth, poll numbers plummet in Europe and swing upwards in America. I don't think that I'd want it the other way around ...

Even so, Terri England says her daughter is innocent. "She has more values than that," she told CBS News. "She's a good girl."

Look at the photographs, mom. You did a bang-up job.

That's how she generally is remembered in Fort Ashby: a kid who liked to go outside during storms, who loved the movie Twister, who wanted to be a meteorologist who chased tornadoes.

... and sexually and psychologically tortured naked men.

These images are so damaging, so outrageous, that excuses are not welcome or warranted. Do yourself a favor - be quiet and ignore the media. A few immature sadists and a digital camera have given the world yet another excuse to give us grief, assuredly endangered the lives of additional Americans, perhaps cost the Secretary of Defense his job and succeeded in scoring heavy political points against Bush in an election that will go a long way towards deciding the fate of our society. Think about it. My irrational instinct on this matter screams capital punishment, but hard time will suffice; I want these assholes to intimately learn how professionals run a real prison.

I was sitting in the waiting room at a doctor's office on Friday when ABC news ran the photos and President Bush's initial statement that "their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people." Sitting next to me was a Middle Eastern man and his three year-old daughter. Upon hearing the remark, he snorted and laughed bitterly, at which point I whipped my head around with enough velocity to ruffle his hair, and burned pinholes in his temples with my eyes. He quieted down and actually moved, but I wanted to plead with him:

What, you live here and you think that those events reflect the will of the American people? That the nurse that just greeted your daughter with such maternal joy would love to molest some helpless Arab prisoners?

But what can you say? Those that are hell-bent on sticking to the anti-American narrative have just received a nicely wrapped gift. And those that are responsible for handing it to them need to pay dearly for their thoughtless and disgusting actions. We don't do that in America. And every leftist that snorts at the naiveté of that comment truly doesn't understand: Believing that mantra and voicing outraged scorn is what actually brings our society closer to the ideal.

UPDATE: Similar sentiments are expressed here.

"Gimme an 'A'! 'A'! Gimme a 'B'! 'B'! Gimme a ..."

"Well, isn't that special!"

"Geeeeorge! You're giving ya fatha a heeeaart attack!"

"Serenity now, Serenity NOW!"

"Ok, first one to fall asleep gets their underwear in the freezer!"

"... and we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. To take back the White House. Yeeaaaaaaarrrgh!"

Jon Stewart?

WRONG! Jon Stewart isn't really a pundit, Orfi, he's a comedian. And he's a communist comedian, at that.

Tucker Carlson?

WRONG! If you were opining opposite Begala or Gollum, you'd look pretty damn good too.

Tony Snow?

WRONG! Smart but too smug, too sanctimonious.

George Will?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ... oh, wha ... huh? Oh - WRONG! I said "political pundit," not "baseball pundit."

Laura Ingraham? Alan Keyes? Michelle Malkin? Dick Morris?! Fred Barnes?!!

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG , WRONG and WRONG!

John McLaughlin? I like his style (heh), but ... WRONG!

Miller? Love 'im, but the 17th Century Kabuki references limit his appeal. WRONG!

Now Charles Krauthammer or Brit Hume, the most popular choices, almost made me reconsider my initial judgment. Unfortunately, still WRONG and ... WRONG!

Both of them are highly admirable verbal ninjas that brook no bullshit and ably deliver the right-thinking smackdown. Hume is a like hard-assed old dawg with a bone and Krauthammer is an absolute frickin' genius, but they both have one fatal flaw - you almost always know where they'll be coming from on an issue. (Krauthammer often overcomes this predictable narrative with his straight-up brilliance).

So no, the best (and least appreciated) political pundit on TV is ...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Morton Kondracke!

INDC Bill worships Mort ... at an altar ... with candles, lots of scented candles and pictures. Mort is king. Mort is the best.

Mort is brilliant, measured, clear and thoughtful. His sincere moderation and ability to put Juan Williams and Fred Barnes in the corner lend him umatched credibility among other right-leaning commentators. Mort is a hardened veteran of the DC trench wars, The New Republic, The WSJ, Newsweek, The McLaughlin Group and This Week with David Brinkley. He also wrote a book about his wife's battle with Parkinson's and personally champions the search for a cure. When Mort speaks, Bill listens. So should you ...

I wrote him a poem:

Morton Kondracke
Take Fred behind the woodshed
Grass blows in the wind

Mort is also one Hell of a nice guy. Long live Mort!

Suspicious packages were found on the first floor of the building on the left. The police closed down the block and are refusing to let anyone in or out of the building. The HazMat units and the fact that they haven't evacuated would indicate that they suspect biological materials.

Cordoning off the block.

Quarantined.

Man. Florida is looking like a good idea right now ...

UPDATE: It's the next day and the world has not ended. I have also not been able to find any reports of this at the WaPo or on the news. How often does this stuff go on without getting noticed? Did anyone hear about this?

ANOTHER UPDATE: Nothing to see here, just a scare.

She's come to a fundamental, black-and-white conclusion about right and wrong, good and evil. And having made that decision, can you really expect her to fight for anything less? If I told you that children were being murdered by the hundreds of thousands in the United States, would you not fight to stop the perpetrators? Would you let this injustice stand? And knowing that she believes that this is the nature of the struggle, can you expect anything less than her full, exhaustive devotion?

I don't agree with her rage, but I think that I understand.

Now why is this woman so upset? What could cause her to instantly devolve into an animalistic reaction when she witnessed the black robes of priests? Why did she immediately attack, but then let her rage dissolve into wracking sobs as she drew away from the target of her anger?

Maybe 20 years ago, she was a teenager that got pregnant. Maybe she had irresponsible sex, maybe not; maybe birth control failed, or she was somehow coerced. And when she found out that she was pregnant, she became scared and wracked with guilt. She couldn't tell her parents; she didn't know what to do. She knew that something new and frightening was taking place within her body, and she felt a powerless, gnawing feeling in the pit of her stomach. She had no money and no husband, and all of her future plans evaporated in an instant. And likely, all of this emotional pain was exponentially magnified when she decided to have an abortion and was then branded a cold-blooded murderer by her family and her church.

I don't agree with her rage, but I think that I understand.

I used to be casually pro-choice. My libertarian instincts led me to inviolably believe that the will of the individual trumped most debatable moral constructs, especially when they involved control over the fate of one's own body. But as I've gotten older, and really began to realize that the entire worth of our society is based on the unusual value that we place on individual life in nearly all forms, I've started to more carefully consider the issue.

What is the difference between a newborn infant and an eight month-old fetus? And what is the difference between the fetus at eight months and seven months, seven and six and all of the subtle increments to conception. It's life. It's a "bundle of cells" and life, and I think that elements of the pro-choice movement do themselves a disservice when they gloss over this reality. Abortion, at any stage, involves destroying some form of "life." But here's the thing - that doesn't make it untenable for me.

I once got into a rather heated argument at a restaurant with some friends during the run-up to the war in Iraq (bear with me). They were arguing against invasion based on the concept of pacifism, and among other things, I was heatedly championing our moral responsibility to free a tortured people from the yoke of institutionalized murder and oppression. Given the unique pretext and our ability to effect change, I argued, pacifism for the sake of pacifism would constitute an unrealistic moral failure. It was my opinion that concerns about innocent deaths that would take place during the course of a war were superceded by the much higher number of innocents that would be murdered in the event that the current regime maintained power. I applied cold mathematics to morals, and decided that the "balance of pain" gave the United States the authority to act. In short, I was perfectly comfortable with my country killing thousands of innocent people, so that others could have the opportunity for a better quality of life.

How does this concept lend itself to the abortion debate?

Several years ago, in my early twenties, I dated a nineteen year-old woman that had had a child when she was just sixteen. Her parents were divorced, relatively poor, and she was embroiled in the drama of a splintered, dysfunctional family. When she became pregnant, her deeply Catholic parents coerced her into keeping the child, and in that moment, an easy future completely evaporated. Her hopes of attending college disappeared. Her family's shaky finances ran dry. Her youthful urges remained, but most of her ability to act on these normal desires was denied by the early responsibility of motherhood, which created constant conflict in the mind of teenage girl. Her relationships with men were one-sided and destructive, as nearly every normal young male decided to stay far away from a woman with a child, at least for the long-term. And perhaps the most damning element was the fact that her family was a psychological lodestone that she was forced to depend on until her child reached adulthood. She was trapped in an extremely difficult situation, and the expense and responsibility of a child had effectively condemned her to a difficult spiral of financial and psychological struggle. Given the coercive nature of her family's wishes and the bond that developed over her pregnancy, there was no realistic option for her to give the child up for adoption.

I'm not suggesting that every single, teenage mother is doomed to this fate; but I can tell you with confidence that given certain circumstances, the decision to keep a child can present a woman with a very hard life. I saw it with my own two eyes. Has the girl that I dated survived? Yes. Would she give up her daughter now? No way. But objectively, was it worth sacrificing her youth, her chance to get an education, her odds-on ability to achieve financial stability at any time during her life, or her chance to establish new, positive relationships free from dependence on her dysfunctional family? I can't speak for her, but the answer certainly isn't simple. Upon rational analysis, the "balance of pain" could have reasonably given her the moral authority to terminate the pregnancy.

So this is why I am still pro-choice. When combined with the fact that the positions of the Supreme Court and recent legislative efforts have made surprisingly rational distinctions about when the rights of an unborn child supercede or equal the rights of the mother, based around the independent viability of the fetus, I believe that a rational moral calculus should allow young, mentally and financially unprepared women the opportunity to terminate a very early pregnancy in a clean, safe environment.

My libertarian instinct and realistic morality remain: it's not your horrible choice to make, the consequences are not yours to bear and the continued survival of the life in question is not dependent upon the symbiotic cooperation of your body. In my eyes, that's the end of the story. I understand the passion of the other side, and in many ways I respect it, but this personal moral calculus and the control of one's body, even if it involves another form of life, should invalidate the involvement of the state in what is still a largely subjective and highly personal judgment.

Note: I almost wanted to back out of publishing this ... I originally wanted to present a more comprehensive analysis, but I found that treatment of this issue to be simply too massive and unwieldy for a simple blog entry. Instead, I've merely voiced a 1 AM stream-of-consciousness based on my own experience. I encourage those that disagree with me to let me know, but if you do, please - keep it civil. Thanks.

I wish I'd seen this too ... so let me blatantly beg for links to voluntaryXchange.

Just this week I've got: Bjorn Lomborg's dust-up with Scientific American, neanderthal genes goofing up our heads, what will happen when GMail meets ambient technology, and why Kofi Annan is public enemy #1.

Ah, David. Your youthful exuberance reminds me of me, way back in ... January. You struggle in the dark, groping your way up the ecosystem, pouring your heart and soul into writing blog entries for an audience of yourself, your mom and your one friend who occasionally surfs on slow days at his government desk job. On cold, lonely nights, you lie awake and ask yourself "Why must my genius be overlooked by the fates?!" You toss and turn, and eventually get out of bed, stumble out into the elements, kneel in the midst of a blaring thunderstorm and hatefully curse the cruel God that has condemned you to toil in torturous obscurity. Been there.

So you want to get the word out, and you want it out now. Time to comment spam! Here's the proper technique:

1. Carefully stake out your prey. Your first mistake in comment spamming INDC Journal was the fact that you chose a blog that really doesn't actually have any readers. The best targets can be found by scouting the top echelons of the blogosphere for sites that have open comment threads. For example, Tim Blair, Dean Esmay, Allah and Protein Wisdom are all big shots that have been foolish enough to maintain reader comments. Capitalize on their faux-populist attempts to maintain a connection with "the people." (Don't be fooled, however; every blogger is an "ivory tower Andrew Sullivan" at heart!)

2. Choose your subject matter. Don't just perform a jack-of-all-trades link dump in a man's comment section; it's bad form, even in the inherently shady parlance of comment spam. Remember, even comment spammers look at link dumpers with disdain! (Sort of like the treatment that child molestors receive from murderers and thieves in prison) Instead, surf the big sites that you like, spot a blog entry that is related to something that you've written (or vice versa), and lock and load. Which brings us to the next rule.

3. Don't "blatantly beg" for a link. You are cool. You are confident. You ain't here to comment spam, you're just trying to add something to the discussion by offering up a little related link, daddio. Here are some sample scripts:

The Tim Blair comment spam: "G'day Tim. Yeah, Margot Kingston is a stupid bitch ... check out this photoshop of her getting shit on by a kangaroo! No worries."

The Allah comment spam: "Oh Creator of Worlds, may your beatific beneficence cast its warm glow upon my proud kaffiyah. I humbly submit this photoshop of Yassir Arafat getting raped by a badger."

The Dean Esmay comment spam: "Hey Dean - I agree with the concept that Paleolithic diets may ward off modern spikes in the rates of early-onset diabetes, heart disease and cancer, but I have yet to run across a multifactorial study that examines this issue with any statistical significance. I did come across this table that cross-tabs daily protein consumption with rates of Irritable Bowel Syndrome, though. Check it out, it's fascinating!

The Protein Wisdom comment spam: "I was shootin' putty at the moon ... thinkin' Goldstein makes spirits bright, but then I'm like, why you hasslin' me, bitch? Knowhatimsayin? Link."

Get the drift? Kingston-hate for Blair, Arafat badger-rape for Allah, cross-tabs for Dean and God-knows-what for Goldstein. Any of these approaches have a serious shot of getting you noticed!

Now gussy up your blog entries, write some cool stuff, use spell-check and you're ready. Go forth, my child and comment spam!

UPDATE: INDC favorite son Boyd displays perfect form with his brilliant piece of spam in this post's comment section. Here's your cookie, Boyd.

ANOTHER UPDATE: James Joyner has more thoughts on the matter. Time to invest in a wayback machine.

The speeches contained the typical hyperbolic rhetoric, marshalling this crowd of hundreds of thousands to fight the depredations of the "anti-woman" Bush agenda. They singled out administration members by name: Ashcroft, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (Rumsfeld?!), a list capped in one speech by a patronizing, heartfelt appeal to the honorable Colin Powell to forsake his distasteful service amongst the enemy and return to the fold.

One harangue in particular caught my attention, delivered by a fiery, square-built woman with close-cropped blonde hair. It was a screaming, apoplectic treatise on the virtues of "cunt power," that demanded that the nation bow to the authority of the "cunt" and pledge allegiance to the the United "Cunts" of America. "My Cunt 'Tis of Thee," etc., etc. (find that coverage in the WaPo)

At this point, I became a bit disturbed, for the crowd wasn't awkwardly tolerating this obscene and immature rant, rather raising their arms and screaming throaty acceptance of a woman performing second rate porno-schlock, ostensibly as a legitimate representative of one side of a highly divisive and important public issue.

I consider myself pro-choice, but this wasn't my crowd, and these orators didn't speak for me. I moved into the mass of people to get a closer look.

A common theme.

The abortion issue has become a proxy for the religious and cultural wars. I can understand the pro-choice activists; extreme religion has played a major role in fueling the most intolerant ideologies of the pro-life movement, but I also wondered what additional bad experiences with religious figures may have driven so many to such a vehement disavowal of the church. I'd venture a guess that in many cases, this dislike goes far beyond this single issue.

Another common theme.

Ringing throughout the grounds:

Hey Hey
Ho Ho
George Bush Has Got To Go!

Hey Hey
Ho Ho
George Bush Has Got To Go!

Impeach Bush!

Bush Keep Your Hands Off My Bush!

I couldn't glance in any direction without glimpsing some totem or sign that expressed rather strong feelings against:

A. Religion

C. Some combination of the two.

The thematic battle lines of this march were drawn: George Bush is the enemy, and if you are pro-choice you must support his downfall.

Hard statistics on the percentage of pro-choice Republicans are difficult to nail down, but two-thirds of all Americans believe that abortion should be legal within the first trimester, and seven-in-ten Americans oppose abortion after the sixth month of pregnancy. This indicates a great deal of mainstream party overlap that generally supports the abortion environment as it currently stands under the stated policy of the Bush Administration. By exaggerating the current state of affairs, the speakers largely undermined their case for how quickly reproductive rights would dissolve under a second Bush term.

In addition, a significant portion of pro-choice supporters are Libertarian/Republican voters that won't be easily swayed into the warm embrace of Bush-hate. I couldn't help but think that this narrow and all-encompassing line of political reasoning weakened the hand of the pro-choice movement rather than strengthening it. The rhetoric certainly alienated me.

There were quite a few activist physicians handing out literature.

A sampling of a much larger group of "Medical Students for Choice."

The New York Times crossword puzzle?

Don't get me wrong - there inevitably were many moderate voices within this massive march; but I was a bit surprised by the casual vehemence and hyperbole of anti-Bush sentiment from most of the crowd. The great national divide was on stark display at this rally.

The last huge wave of the crowd prepared to embark on the march route.

I made my way closer to the East stage ...

... and ran into another very narrow special interest group.

"G-d is Coming and she is Fat"

Who knew?

Larger image

I watched the tail-end of the crowd leave the Mall, on their way to the White House and Pennsylvania Avenue.

Cutting across 8th Street towards Penn, I ran into a second group of pro-life counter-protestors. This group had a softer approach, forsaking the bloody signs and screaming rhetoric for a more palatable appeal.

This small group of about 50 protestors seemed to represent a calmer face of the pro-life side of the protest.

Ruh-roh ...

Drawing up on Penn, I immediately realized that this would be a flash point. These Episcopal priests stood in a silent line along the packed four-lane route of the march.

For the most part, the priests prayed or calmly attempted to speak to protestors that drew near enough to engage them. I had little idea how badly many in the crowd would react to the mere sight of the religious garb.

Ok, maybe not all religious garb ...

Mere seconds passed before I witnessed the first bout of rage. Thousands upon thousands of people walked by, and I would say that perhaps a fifth of the individuals within sight and shouting distance had a highly aggressive reaction to the presence the priests. They yelled, spit and uttered shocking profanities. A smattering of the worst:

"Fuck you!"

"You want to kill women? Fuck you!"

Etc. And on ...

... and on ...

... and on ...

... and on ...

... and on ...

... and on ...

... and on ...

... and on ...

.. and on ...

... and on.

(Note: the previous specific quotes cannot be directly attributed to the individuals pictured above - except perhaps the woman mouthing the word "fuck")

It was simply stunning. The second these people (and thousands of others not caught on film) saw the priests, they simply lost their minds. It was like watching a live-action scene from the Exorcist, repeated ad infinitum. No exaggeration, no joke.

This was a fine example of hateful mob mentality. The belligerents that screamed the most vile profanities were egged on by the people that they were with, which made for a nice collusion of nasty emotions: violent anger and malicious, hysterical laughter. About 4/5 or more of the protestors had little reaction to either the priests or their more aggressive fellow marchers, but 20% of thousands of marchers is ... a lot of angry, insane people.

This shot was snapped about a second after the priests and a cop were hit with a spray of red liquid. I was genuinely surprised that the officer didn't hop the fence and introduce the culprit to "Mr. Baton."

A special highlight: these moonbats reacted with absolute rapture at the chance to put on a dramatic, "sinful" show for the priests.

After only about 45 minutes of watching all this, I became a bit shell-shocked and decided to call it a day. Before I left, I spoke to a pro-lifer that was quietly standing near the priests and displaying one of the happy-face "I'm Pro-Life" signs.

"Mind if I ask you a few questions?"

"Sure."

"You're pro-life. Does that mean that you are against abortion in any circumstance? At any period?"

"Yes."

"Even in cases of rape or incest?"

"Yes, in all cases."

"What are your feelings about birth control?"

"We're against it. Abstinence is the only acceptable form of birth control."

"Well ... I see. Don't you think that complete abstinence is a bit unrealistic for everyone?"

"Anything less is a sin ..."

Without much common ground to be had, I decided to pack it in ...

... but not before running into this little guy on my way out. The way his mother coaxed him to say "abort Bush" and pose for my camera made me ill.

I didn't want to deal with this anymore. I ducked away from the path of the march and took an alternate, circuitous route home.

Postscript: I don't think that the most vitriolic scenes that I witnessed that Sunday were in any way representative of mainstream opinion on either side of the debate. Upon reflection, it was typical mob behavior, as the most ignorant and nasty elements of the crowd fed off of the general mass of chattering, negative energy and lashed out at their opponents. Whether it's a gathering of 50 or 500,000, the trend is clear: nuts always come out to protest.

I guess it's just a little depressing when you witness how many nuts there really are ...

In the final installment of INDC abortion blogging, I'll take a crack at alienating all of my readers by looking at both sides of this issue ... and offering an opinion. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: A little linkage for the OTB Traffic Jam.

On the way to the march, I ran into these children, posed on the corner of L & 15th. Their signs convey the message of "women's rights," certainly a "soft sell" approach, but I couldn't help but feel that twinge of discomfort that I get whenever I see children carefully posed for political purposes. More of this later.

On the way to the march, some Protest Warrior affiliates were out and about in an attempt to make a point about the war on terror. Protest Warrior has no official position on abortion, but these guys wanted to offer a counter to the virulent Bush-hatred that marks most of the pro-choice movement.

Unfortunately, the admittedly off-topic and somewhat confusing message was lost on most of the pro-choice marchers, who either ignored them, looked bewildered or just pointed and giggled.

"President Bush: Please Don't Touch the Vagina."

This was a common theme. By the end of the day, I was going to get more than my fill of "tee-hee I'm naughty, yet clever" slogans and catchphrases.

Here I ran into the first group of pro-life protestors at Constitution Avenue on the cusp of the National Mall. They were largely affiliated with church groups, and I couldn't help but notice that the youngsters had appropriated a bit of the punk rock/Che Guevera "protestor chic" commonly associated with "progressives." I gather that Jesus is down with the kids these days. Notice the dissonant, awkward appeal to the assumed "vegan/vegetarian" sensibilities of the pro-choicers.

The first heated emotions of the day.

The pro-choice woman on the right engaged the woman on the left in calm tones (I could not distinguish what she was saying), and the woman on the left quickly became very animated, shouting about the annual massacre of thousands of babies. Eventually, the woman on the right disengaged and walked away. I doubt that she changed her mind about anything ... except perhaps the wisdom of debating with extreme activists.

Upon encountering the pro-life counter-protestors, the look on these pro-choice marchers' faces was typical; I read it as slightly uncomfortable bemusement. For some reason, almost no emotions on either "side" that I witnessed during the course of the day seemed quite ... "right."

This woman later gave a tearful speech about how she had been traumatized by an abortion that took place in her youth.

The "hard sell" rhetoric amplified by a bullhorn. Common themes:

* Abortion is murder.

* Religion forbids abortion.

* Abortion is harmful to the health of women.

* Abortion denies the choice of the child.

The "hard sellers" display the graphic signs depicting the effects of late term abortions.

Pro-choice, pro-life - Bush still can't get a break. These attempts to appeal to "progressive" positions assumed to be held by "the other side" seemed pointless and awkward to me. It's doubtful that a pro-choice advocate that you call a "murderer" is going to re-evaluate their position on abortion based on other common ground, even if they happen to belong to Peta, ANSWER and the NAACP.

This group of pro-lifers eventually gathered and kneeled in the middle of the intersection. Notice the Spanish signs and the bandanas, typically the flair of romanticized anarchists and revolutionaries.

The cops immediately formed a protective line between the pro-lifers and the marchers passing by on their way to the Mall.

I would not mess with this man ...

The pro-lifers organize ...

... and drop "dead" ...

... while others outline them in chalk ...

... and scrawl messages on the street.

The police issue their first dispersal warning to the illegally assembled protesters. The pro-life organizer checked his watch and then advised his group that this was only the "first warning" and that they had 15 minutes until the second admonition.

Now this is how you fake death, while somehow ...

"Ohmigawd, Becky, I am SO dead!"

... cellphone use dilutes the impact.

This gentleman seemed very intent.

Patriarchal symbol of oppression?

Eventually I left the pro-choice protestors in order to join the rally on the National Mall, largely held in between the Washington Monument and the Capitol.

As I got close, it became apparent that this wasn't going to be 30 Communists ranting across from the White House, or an intermediate gathering of moonbats in a park; this was a huge, mainstream issue.

At the top of the rally, individuals gathered to head the scheduled march.

Some "honored guests."

I failed to catch any of the celebrity marchers that were highlighted in the news.

An elderly participant.

Here I stumbled across a very narrow special interest group.

A common sentiment.

I engaged these two gentleman in conversation, asking them why they focused on the anti-Bush rhetoric (previous pic). They responded with a recitation of a litany of things that they felt were wrong with the Bush administration, largely issues unrelated to abortion. I then told them that I'll be voting for Bush in November, but that I am also pro-choice, and that I have issues with the broader anti-Bush focus voiced by many of those that I may agree with on abortion. The individual on the right responded that protestors often view gatherings of such magnitude as an opportunity to give voice to other issues that have less organization and public traction. I was surprised by the fact that he quite lucidly and rationally admitted this sentiment.

These protestors equating queer rights with abortion rights were blocking some of the more graphic pro-life signs. I asked these ladies a few questions:

Me: "Hey, mind if I ask you something? Now I'm not breaking your chops here, but I'm genuinely curious as to how "reproductive rights" are "queer rights," given the non-procreative nature of gay sex. Can you explain it to me?"

Lesbian-gal #1: Well, you see, it's ... like ... it's ... (calls to her friend) ... hey can you answer this guy's question as to why reproductive rights are queer rights?"

Lesbian-gal #2: "Oh, ok ... well the rights of women to have an abortion and the rights of gays and minorities are the same because we are all oppressed peoples ... as a lesbian woman, my struggle is their struggle."

Me: "Oh ... so, and I'm just legitimately asking here, you have common ground because all women, minorities and gays are oppressed? Out of curiosity, can straight white men ever be oppressed?"

Lesbian-gal #2: "Sure ... sure they can be ..."

Me: "They're just not chronically oppressed, oppressed by nature ... ok, I get it. Now another question: why are you blocking this guy's sign?"

Lesbian-gal #2: "Because it's sick. It's gross."

Me: "Definitely, yeah, but that's his view. I mean, that's what he's trying to make you consider."

Lesbian-gal #2: " Well, we don't carry around pictures of abortion providers that were murdered by pro-life people."

Me: "Ok, point taken. Thanks for answering my questions."

A few minutes later, the blockers left and the sign was unveiled. I'm not certain about the effectiveness of the extreme imagery. It makes a strong case against late-term abortion, but that impact seems dwarfed by the fact that the graphic image largely alienates people from really considering the message. It's difficult for me to look at; most of the marchers seemed to immediately block it out and ignore it after being repulsed.

I left the front of the march gathering point, and headed over to the main rally grounds on the Mall ...

In tomorrow's installment, I'll wade into the crowd and take the pulse of the pro-choice movement, as well as observe some of the more extreme emotions voiced by march participants.

Part Two can be found here.

UPDATE: Brought to top ...

UPDATE: I know that it's not Monday, but this one's for OTB Beltway Traffic Jam.

Rate of fire? No matter what the gun looks like, a semi-automatic weapon fires a round every time you pull the trigger. Automatic weapons are - for all intensive purposes - illegal. (see UPDATE at bottom)

Magazine capacity? Extra capacity magazines can be purchased for most semi-auto hunting rifles, and the reloading process on most normal capacity magazines is rather quick and easy anyway.

Appearance? The AR-15 has this scary black military design, while this Ruger looks less mean and threatening by virtue of its burnished wooden stock.

It seems that Jackson is promoting the "Mother's Day March to Halt the Assault" here in DC on May 9th. Not sure if I'll cover that one. My favorite line from Jackson?

We're the most violent country on Earth, and it doesn't have to be that way.

Sorry Jesse, but a quick Google will tell you that the honor belongs to South Africa, with 114.8 murders for each 100,000 people. The US has a murder rate of 6 per 100,000. By way of comparison, the gun-bereft Swedes have a rate of 10 murders per 100,000.

And contrast those numbers with the fact that at least a third of the Swiss own firearms, yet they have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world.

Never let facts stand in the way of a good soundbite.

UPDATE: Instead of writing that automatic weapons are "illegal," I should have stuck with my original description: "highly regulated."

Fully automatic weapons have been restricted in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934, available only to police, military personnel, and private individuals who manage to obtain permission from the US Treasury Dept, pass an extensive background check, fully register the firearm and continually update the owner's address and location of the firearm and pay a $200 transfer tax. Some states require state permission as well. The US Treasury Dept. lists only a few hundred thousand lawfully owned fully automatic weaponss. The bulk of these are owned and used in the motion picture industry.

Possession of these types of firearms are Federally possible depending on additonal local or state laws, as explained by John of Argghhh in the comments section below.

The distinction between semi and fully automatic weapons is their ubiquity and how difficult they are to get; fully automatic weapons are essentially "nationally registered," something that many gun advocates fear as a first step to the eventual removal of second amendment rights. The crux of my argument remains, as legal ownership of fully auto weapons is not considered a factor in highly violent gun crime due to their careful regulation ...

Since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has ever been used in crime, and that was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian).

... and "assault weapons" are often arbitrarily distinguished from regular semi-automatic firearms because of cosmetic purposes or slightly higher magazine capacities.

Point is, if I want to kill a bunch of people in a park, I can do it with the same tool that I'd use to go hunt deer.

(John can feel free to offer additional clarifications on that point)

I'm not a bad person, per se, but part of me really didn't know any better. I saw a yummy cookie, I wanted yummy cookie goodness, so, much like an animal, I tried to get it in the only way that I knew how. There are just some concepts that one doesn't fully understand until you actually have some blogging experience. For example:

1. I didn't know how ridiculous it was to e-mail Reynolds and Tim Blair in January and say "Hey, long-time reader - I have a blog now with no content, could you put me on your blogroll? Thanks."

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

2. I had little idea what that silly trackback thing was, what it meant and how instrumental it would be in spreading the INDC gospel. Surprisingly, I don't think many people that have blogged for months understand this concept yet. Get with it.

3. It didn't cross my mind that it was unethical to track down Andrew Sullivan in a Dupont Circle, ahem,"bookstore" and pretend to be gay while coyly mentioning my blog. He shot me down, anyway.

4. It took me several rounds of comment spam to grasp the fact that early frequent commenter "penis enlargement pills" wasn't a devoted, if somewhat kinky, fan. (Big letdown, that one)

5. And I didn't fully realize how fortunate I was to have Dean Esmay's help in setting up my blog and tossing me a few early links, considering that he was a vaunted "Mortal Human" and I was merely an "Insignificant Microbe." I didn't really know what the hell the Ecosystem was, or that I even had another reason to feel inferior about something. Thanks, blogosphere!

Maybe this all points to the fact that I'm a sleazy, ignorant and slightly sociopathic man. And maybe it says something about the blogosphere; that all of us self-absorbed little digital egomaniacs are wrapped up in a cocoon of our own clannish specialness. An attitude that says "Oooh look at me, I'm a blogger. Watch me blog. See how many 'Unique Inbounds' I had this week?"

Face it, most readers come into our sites, scan the headlines and pop back out again in less than 10 seconds. They could care less.

So now that I have a few regular readers, a regular friendly troll (Hi Don) and am spared the psychic torture of staring at triple goose eggs every time I peek at the Awstats, comments or trackbacks, would I take it all back? Given the choice, would I surrender my newfound traffic in a bid to reclaim some infinitesimal shred of dignity and self-respect?

Hell naw! Once a whore, always a whore!

Linkee-linkee-link-link-linkeee-link-link-linkeee-leeeeee!

Linkee?

...

Linkee?

Sssh. Just hold me.