Visit Dorkafork here.

Historical Reenactments with Ferrets Series: Liberace brings down the house at Radio City Music Hall, June 9th, 1978.

Three blogs in as many days have trackbacked to a post at INDC without actually linking the post. This is bad form, essentially using another blog as a simple billboard for your post without the gesture of reciprocal traffic. All trackbacks of this nature will be deleted.

The genocide in Darfur has spread:

The chaos in Darfur, the war-ravaged region in Sudan where more than 200,000 civilians have been killed, has spread across the border into Chad, deepening one of the world's worst refugee crises.

Arab gunmen from Darfur have pushed across the desert and entered Chad, stealing cattle, burning crops and killing anyone who resists. The lawlessness has driven at least 20,000 Chadians from their homes, making them refugees in their own country.

Hundreds of thousands more people in this area, along with 200,000 Sudanese who fled here for safety, find themselves caught up in a growing conflict between Chad and Sudan, which have a long history of violence and meddling in each other's affairs.

"You may have thought the terrible situation in Darfur couldn't get worse, but it has," Peter Takirambudde, executive director of the Africa division of Human Rights Watch, said in a recent statement. "Sudan's policy of arming militias and letting them loose is spilling over the border, and civilians have no protection from their attacks, in Darfur or in Chad."

Kevin Drum frets:

I don't think that any force smaller than about 40,000 troops would be able to contain the violence in Darfur. Where are 40,000 troops going to come from?

Well, if certain outspoken quarters of the left, the international community and the US State Department weren't so historically opposed on principle and could ethically fine-tune the option, the answer might be private military firms. "Mercenaries" would deploy faster, cost exponentially less than UN or US deployments and represent a much more effective stabilizing force than any multi-national UN peacekeeping operation (though probably not moreso than an American-led force) at a force structure of much less than 40,000 troops.

One only has to review the late-90's history of the now-defunct private South-African military contractor Executive Outcomes to assess the utility of a well-trained and directed private force:

Read More »

Hank: Wow, those cartoon protests are really awful, huh?

Dale: Yeah. You know, I don't got nothin' against Muslims, it's just that Islam is an evil religion. It just inevitably breeds terror.

Hank: Huh. Isn't that kind of odd, though? To say that Muslims are ok, but Islam isn't? Considering the definition of "Muslim" is "A believer in or adherent of Islam"?

Dale: ...

Hank: You know, like sayin' Islam is the problem, but not necessarily it's followers, they could be ok?

Dale: ...

Hank: You know, like the inherent contradiction between believing an entire religion is evil, but the class of people whose defining characteristic is that they follow that religion, that you have no problem with them?

Dale: ...

Dale: How about that American Idol? That Taylor Hicks is something, ain't he?

It seems that HBO and the creators of the televised adaptation of Band of Brothers are working on a World War II miniseries set in the Pacific Theatre. Production started on the "The Pacific War" in the summer of 2005, with an unspecified release date:

11/30/05 To answer a lot of veterans who felt left out by Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, HBO, Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg are teaming up again to present a ten-part miniseries about the Pacific War. Partly based on E.B. Sledge’s compelling autobiography about his participation in the campaigns of Peleliu and Okinawa, it should be another really accurate portrayal of WWII combat.

Considering that Band of Brothers is the best miniseries ever made, this is exciting news. I'm a bit concerned that internet updates on the progress of the series drop off last year, however ...

Related: I just finished the third person Biography of Dick Winters "Biggest Brother : The Life of Major Dick Winters, The Man Who Led the Band of Brothers," and am working on the first-person "Beyond Band of Brothers : The war memoirs of Major Dick Winters." Both are highly recommended, despite natural redundancy in the material. Dick Winters animates the phrase "Giant among men."

The lesson I draw from the books? Quit complaining and "do."

Jim Geraghty e-mails:

A couple of days ago, I remarked that we had been "snookered" on the details of this Dubai Ports World deal -- it was not "outsourcing homeland security duties" as Chuck Schumer had described it.

Well, all weekend long, just about every Democrat - and more than a few Republicans - continued to describe the deal in ways that were just flat-out false. This is no longer a matter of being misinformed or sloppy with the wording. This is an intentional effort to make sure the public thinks we're going to have UAE citizens with ties to al-Qaeda in charge of port security.

This is an organized, coordinated, disinformation campaign designed to stir up fear and hysteria, quash the deal (and any behind-the-scenes intelligence-sharing aspect), hurt the president, and ruin our relations with the UAE.

I can't begrudge somebody having qualms or questions about the deal, but I can't abide somebody lying to the public to hurt our national interests. (And I trust the judgment of guys like Tommy Franks and Peter Pace.) In the long history of Democratic malfeasance, rarely have they so deserved to get beaten.

Is rhetorical malfeasance by Democrats worse than Republican hysteria? Close, but probably. It's amusing watching "tolerant liberal" politicians ideologically contort themselves by stoking irrational xenophobia and rational fear of terrorism into a National Security issue that attacks the President's right flank.

Did I write "amusing?" I meant "depressing." Maybe "resignedly exasperating" would work best.

Read his piece, "AN ORGANIZED DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN ON THE PORT DEAL."

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds is on the same page:

What's interesting -- and what supports Geraghty's point -- is that Democratic politicians who have generally opposed "racial profiling" are nonetheless opposing the ports deal because, basically, the company involved is an Arab company. It's funny that it's the Bush Administration that has -- not least because it's traditionally been too friendly to the Saudis -- been very careful not to cast the current war as a war against Muslims or Arabs. (It was forever before Bush even admitted that his war against terror was actually a war against fundamentalist Islamic terror.) Obviously, however, the Democrats, and judging by the polls, a lot of other people, feel otherwise.

I think that's unfortunate. Osama and the Islamists want to see an all-out war between Islam and the West. If this happens, Islam will rapidly become a tiny remnant of its current self. You can worry about port security if you want (I did, though I feel better about the port deal now -- though in part because it appears that port security in general is so very bad that this deal can't make much of a difference) but casting this in terms that suggest that we're at war with all Arabs, or all Muslims, just buys into the Islamists' apocalyptic scenario. I don't like to see people in America, by pandering to stereotypes, doing that.

*** I saw Moby at the DC Whole Foods on P Street yesterday. Which was somewhat surprising, until I considered the fact that I was at the Whole Foods, and that's where the fey little neohippie cosmically belongs, somewhere in between the Eco Lips Organic Lip Balm and the granulated kelp condoms.

It's sort of like running into Keith Richards at the liquor store, or Paris Hilton at the talentless multimillionaire whore shop.

Read More »

SAPPY!

(via red)

*** Congratulations to previous Picture of the Week winner Whiplash the Cowboy Monkey; this coming week it looks like the contest will be Naked Rubber Chicken Man versus The HYPNOCAT! Who will win? I... think... it will be... the HYPNOCAT!

Bill Adds: That first link is amazing.

Furor Over Cartoons Pits Muslim Against Muslim:

In a direct challenge to the international uproar over cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad, the Jordanian journalist Jihad Momani wrote: "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras, or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony?"

In Yemen, an editorial by Muhammad al-Assadi condemned the cartoons but also lamented the way many Muslims reacted. "Muslims had an opportunity to educate the world about the merits of the Prophet Muhammad and the peacefulness of the religion he had come with," Mr. Assadi wrote. He added, "Muslims know how to lose, better than how to use, opportunities."

To illustrate their points, both editors published selections of the drawings — and for that they were arrested and threatened with prison.

Why were they sent to prison? "In Jordan, a spokesman said the king felt especially obligated, because his family is a direct descendant of the prophet." Others disagree:

In the end, political analysts around the region say that governments have resorted to the very practices that helped the rise of Islamic political forces in the first place. They have placated the more extreme voices while arresting and silencing more moderate ones.

...

Many of the king's supporters said he felt the need to respond as firmly as he did partly because of the rise of Hamas, which won parliamentary elections in Gaza, and to strip the Islamists in Jordan of an issue to rally around.

...

"This has become a game between two sides, the extremists and the government," said Tawakkul Karman, head of Women Journalists Without Constraints in Sana, Yemen.* "They've made it so that if you stand up in this tidal wave, you have to face 1.5 billion Muslims."

It's the same game they've been playing for decades. And it's Reason #3,647 for liberalizing the Middle East.

The article also points out why those of you who have been reading the Arab press and looking for consistantly enlightened writing in Arabic newspapers might have had some difficulty.

"I keep hearing, 'Why are liberals silent?' " said Said al-Ashmawy, an Egyptian judge and author of books on political Islam. "How can we write? Who is going to protect me? Who is going to publish for me in the first place? With the Islamization of the society, the list of taboos has been increasing daily. You should not write about religion. You should not write about politics or women. Then what is left?"

* Tawakkul Karman, head of Women Journalists Without Constraints in Sana, Yemen, does not exist. Neither does this article she "wrote". Or maybe she's just not a Muslim. Not a real Muslim, anyway. LIES! ALL LIES! IT'S.....

Read More »

Who's with me?!

If you're in the Washington, DC area:

Please be outside the Embassy of Denmark, 3200 Whitehaven Street (off Massachusetts Avenue) between noon and 1 p.m. this Friday, Feb. 24. Quietness and calm are the necessities, plus cheerful conversation. Danish flags are good, or posters reading "Stand By Denmark" and any variation on this theme (such as "Buy Carlsberg/ Havarti/ Lego")

Related: Buy Danish. Or Danish music.

*** Daniel Drezner has a huge roundup of links on the UAE port deal. The takes on the deal are generally positive, like this from a Christian Science Monitor story:

Other who work within the port communities agree. They note that P&O will not be "managing" the ports, as many news organizations have reported. Instead, the company is one of many that leases terminals at the port.

"I've never quite seen a story so distorted so quickly," says Esther de Ipolyi, a public-relations executive who works with the port of Houston. "It's like I go to an apartment building that has 50 apartments, and I rent an apartment. This does not mean I took over the management of the whole building."

*** Normal lightbulbs draw between 100W to 120W. An iMac draws 80-85W. (95W using 100% of the CPU.) Pretty amazing.

*** Picture of the week: Whiplash the Cowboy Monkey.

The string "..." was in the blacklist. So hopefully "..." was in the comments that were being blocked. They should be working now.

... so light posting. But no bug can keep me from plunging headfirst into the gooey fray of the ongoing Mayonnaise vs. Miracle Whip War.

Florida Cracker strikes again by snarking that Mayo is of French origin, whereas Miracle Whip is an all-American concoction. Also an all-American concoction?

Plutonium-239.*

That doesn't mean I'll be spreading it on a grilled cheese sandwich any time soon.

To be fair, Miracle Whip can come in handy.

But you can't fight statistics.

* For requisite Cracker reference, Plutonium-239 is the hot stuff in that little metal cannister you've been employing as a windchime/"skeeter zapper" on the porch of your 6 Mile Cypress swamp shack for the past couple of decades.

Related: Three-headed, hermaphroditic possums - NOT indigenous to Southern Florida.

Defending another blogger's generalized snarky condemnation of "1.2 billion Muslims" (and helpfully correcting my html coding), Rusty Shackleford e-mails:

... I'd suggest watching Bugs Bunny Cartoons from WWII. I guess you think that the Warner Bros. were "objectively pro-terrorist" for calling people "Japs" and "Krauts" and worse?

Aside from Rusty's questionable word association strategy, this geo-political analogy hardly makes any sense.

A. The Allies' plan for defeating Germany and Japan had almost nothing to do with enlisting their native populations to fight against their fascist rulers. In fact, the strategy was quite the opposite, with a component specifically focused on breaking the civilian will to fight by carpet bombing cities to dreadful effect. No similar strategy of subjugation - in terms of aims nor methodology - is currently in effect or even possible in the war against Islamic extremism.

B. The terms "Jap" and "Kraut" are indeed objectively "racist" (or bigoted, more accurately), though I certainly have no problem with such benign characterizations in the context of World War II's all-out existential struggle against nation-states. Much more racist were Bugs Bunny's exhortations to "Nip the Nips," and various cartoons depicting the Japanese as subhuman monkey creatures. While many facets of the conflict are more understandable within the context of era, the implication that every American paradigm during World War II is immune to criticism is silly.

C. The war against Germany and Japan involved, again, nation states. And no matter how much individuals yearn to shoehorn our modern struggle against Islamic extremism into a similarly straightforward political template, the objectives are muddier, the measures of success are muddier and ultimate victory cannot occur via the simple application of American might and previously helpful cultural hostility against an eventually subjugated enemy; victory will require cooperation and aid from elements within the same culture that anti-Islam arguers like Rusty unequivocally condemn.

And for this reason, though Rusty attempts to define Islam as a religion indistinguishable from politics, it is relevant to make the distinction between Islamofascism (aka Islamism) and Islam; as self-identified adherents to the latter will be required to marginalize and destroy the radicalized political aims of the former. Why is Muslim help necessary? Because:

A. There is no practical way to gain domestic support for or apply a subjugation strategy to the entire Muslim world, nor remove Islam as the prime cultural identity of 1.3 billion people, nevermind any ethical impulses against the concept.

B. Even with concerted application of all resources, any such subjugation strategy would be doomed to disastrous failure, short of nuclear means, which would represent a greater disaster for the world.

C. The United States cannot operate with impunity on various foreign soils to capture or kill an endless stream of jihadists; it needs allies and cooperation. In addition, cultural limitations hamper our effectiveness at rooting out terrorists and developing effective human intelligence assets.

D. War is politics by other means. But ultimately, with no clearly defined political structures to destroy or subjugate via total war, political and cultural revolution (aided by selective application of Western resources, military and otherwise) is the only plausible, strategic answer to structurally diminish malicious non-state actors operating within larger cultures.

E. This is made all the more relevant and urgent in the face of an intertwined global economy and the technological paradigm shifts occuring within the 21st Century; the playing field is rapidly leveling. The increasing ease of obtaining destructive technology renders the comparative military and defensive advantages of the United States less effective over time, and within two generations, perhaps less, the most plausible strategy to prevent catastrophe abetted by maniacs is the marginalization of radical elements through revised cultural forces, not merely our diminishing superior ability to kill more terrorists, more efficiently.

The following is an excerpt from my Andrew Sullivan parody "interview", which, despite the piece's ultimately silly climax and intent, is about as succinct a treatise on the distinction between Islamofascism and Islam as I can find (to be clear, I wrote this in Andrew Sullivan's "voice"):

INDC: To start … um, you’ve written rather extensively about Islamofascism’s threat to Western Civilization; can you give me a brief summary of your position and why you feel so strongly about this subject?

AS: Well … do you have all day? (laughs) Ok …the short version is, um, that Islamofascism represents this century’s first great crucial challenge to the continued advancement of Western pluralism and Democracy. The 20th Century presented us with the challenges of ultra-nationalism gone awry, then fascism and Naziism, of course, and then the failed ideology of communism. All of these competing ideologies posed a fundamental threat to the very existence of Western Democracy, and, at times, even the concept of civilization itself, with the advent of the nuclear age. In much the same way, this generation and perhaps many generations to come face a similar do-or-die struggle against the rising tide of Islamofascism, which also presents its own unique threats and represents sort of the, the … anti-Democracy. It’s the fundamental struggle of our time.

INDC: Wow, ok, could I get you to describe what you mean by the term “Islamofascism?” For those that might think that you're simply advocating a general clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, or who might regard it as a racist term …

AS: Well, in many ways, regarding a clash of civilizations, they could be right, you see, though I'm certainly not advocating such a disaster, but … Islamofascism isn't a throwaway term that's inclusive of all of Islam. Really it represents significant elements of the Muslim world that are maniacal traditionalists and religious fundamentalists, who apply this virulent strain of belief to the political as well as religious fantasy of restoring the ancient caliphate and destroying the West … the elimination of the scourge of the infidels, the non-believers, etc. You know, basically, all of us. It’s essentially a dangerous representation of Islam, that many would argue more literally represents Muslim orthodoxy.

That’s not to say in any way that it represents every man woman and child that practices Islam; rather, it's a minority application that’s alternately supported by and at war with any modernizing element in the culture. But – the fact that it is generally tolerated and often supported by more moderate swaths of Islamic civilization represents a factor that could possibly mutate the war on terror into quite a literal clash of civilizations. Our resolute action now should aim to prevent this calamity by aggressively spreading the concepts of pluralism and reform in the greater Muslim world. To some extent, Islam needs to be at war with itself; the result of that struggle will largely determine whether the Muslim world as a whole is ever at war with the West.

INDC: Which would be disastrous …

AS: Which would be completely disastrous! Utilizing little hyperbole, it could be the downfall of Western civilization itself. Definitely their civilization, perhaps ours, you name it. Assuming radical Islam isn’t stopped or at least severely marginalized by modernization and moderation of the Islamic world as a whole, and the pace of the ease of technological development remains unchecked, we quite literally face the prospect of the destruction or at least crippling disruption of Western Civilization by attacks with weapons of mass destruction. Some event is actually likely.

Islamofascism has five elements that make it particularly dangerous: demographic and political trends that favor its spread, broken, medieval societies that foster its survival, the irrational and unquenchable extremism of its political and religious motivation, the increasing ease of obtaining destructive technology and the inability of pluralistic western Democracies to cohesively and ruthlessly unite to preemptively face the threat.

INDC: Ok, brilliant, but kind of depressing. Is there any hope for humanity?

AS: Oh sure, sure. You’ve got to remember, the West still maintains large systemic advantages in the battle before radical elements can partially bridge the gap by obtaining destructive technology. A concerted application of resources towards the twin goals of aggressively destroying terrorists and spreading western concepts of pluralism and social modernization gives us our only real shot at avoiding a more destructive wider conflict, or at least preventing catastrophes that would seriously cripple our continuing charge towards realizing the magnificent potential of Western Democracy. There’s plenty of hope, but we need courageous leaders with the will and dogged determination to strategically understand and attack the threat.

Despite the humorous context of the remainder of the post, those paragraphs effectively elucidate my understanding and opinion of the struggle against radical Islam. All of the chest-thumping condemnations of Islam as a whole may feel "right" and grant the emotional security of false certainty to a large segment of the population, but this black-and-white simplification of the complex conflict does little to constructively, strategically address the problem.

Thus, my anti-anti-Islam harangues aren't merely rooted in a sense of naive idealism and liberal humanist impulses - I'm actually trying to advocate a practical methodology.

Buy German:

U.S. real estate investors are descending on Germany, Europe’s largest economy, hoping to find deals in apartment, shopping mall and office buildings.

There are bargain prices because of over-building, high unemployment and declining population.

I wonder what a nice home in the German Alps would run ...

*** Dean Esmay reasserts that "the cure for irresponsible speech is more speech," as does Goldstein:

Speech is defeated by speech—and should be, up until the point where that remedy is no longer plausible or effective, and a turn toward violence is inevitable.

In most cases, ancillary acts carried out as a result of the beliefs themselves are enough for law enforcement to involve themselves in what is otherwise a speech issue (the desecration of graves or synagogues, the harrassment or assault on Jews, etc.); which is why so long as the belief remains a fringe belief in the west, I can see no reason at all to fight it with bans and prison time (though I understand the impulse, and recognize the peculiar history that makes such a choice seem wise).

*** From the enemies make strange bedfellows file: Slate publishes "Bush Critics You Should Trust: A guide to the conservatives and Republicans who have turned on the president." While I don't disagree with some of the angles presented against Bush, it's always amusing to see certain ideologies (liberals, in this case) contort themselves to embrace opponents that share a grudge against a hated bete noir. The Pat Buchanan-Leftist love affair over isolationism these past few years has been a howler, for example.

*** Regarding the United Arab Emirates port security administration controversy, I'm undecided. While my instinct leans towards Robert Ferrigno's position ...

Bush is going to take some ugly political flak for a better cause. The USA needs to strengthen ties with Arab nations. Period. The UAE is not Switzerland, but it's not Afghanistan either, and yes they recognized the Taliban government. They're politicians too. If we can do business with Pakistan, and we must, the UAE is as good an Islamic business partner as we're going to get.

To take away the deal from the UAE now, for no other reason than their religion, would rightly insult all Muslims, and do irreparable damage to our long term interests. This would not even be an issue if the ports were secure. That should be the focus of conservative attention, not who gets the deal to run the port.

... I don't think that contracting our port security administration out to a Middle Eastern company is merely about "religion," and I also don't have the answers to certain relevant questions:

What are the protocols in place to prevent a jihadi terrorist from insinuating himself into the relationship and facilitating an attack on the US?

What are the specifics regarding the UAE's historical alliance with the US?

To what degree - a la Saudia Arabia and Pakistan - is the UAE's government and/or populace comprised of individuals that are overtly supportive of radical elements?

I confess that I'm simply not informed enough to render definitive judgment. On its face, denying a contract to Middle Eastern company simply because of geography, religion, race, association is a bad precedent that sends a terrible message to a needed political ally, but there are important practicalities to consider when we're talking about our national security, specifically our already porous ports. For example, I have a better idea of how I'd feel if the company was based in Saudi Arabia, as the ties between any corporate entity and the government, and the government's penetration by individuals with sympathetic ties to terror would probably carry unacceptable risk.

On the domestic political front, two thoughts:

1. The administration - specifically Bush, who, fairly interpreted or not, is telegraphing simple obstinance - is doing a terrible job of communicating the rationale behind its resistance to scuttling the deal.

2. The negative political implications for support from the GOP base are made worse by Bush threatening to finally use the veto over something like this, as opposed to the myriad pork-laden items that have come across his desk, for example.

The round-up at Instapundit leans towards supporting Bush on the issue.

Any thoughts?

UPDATE: Some of the answers to my "relevant questions" are partially addressed in a WaPo article:

Read More »

Frontline featured an excellent program on the Iraqi insurgency tonight, which is due to be rebroadcast on the web Friday at 9PM and on TV at various times. The footage and perspectives - including realistic, mixed assessments from competent and optimistic yet cautious US military personnel - were very good; highly recommended.

The web site features expanded interviews with individuals that appeared in the report. Col. H.R. McMaster's interview is particularly interesting, as he describes the security see-saw in the city of Tal Afar (I've bolded some passages that reinforce some of the ideas that I've been pushing over the last few weeks):

What was the experience then for the people of this city during this year?

The life was literally choked out of the city. The terrorists had everyone living in abject fear. I mean, people didn't want to come out on the streets; they were afraid for their children to go to schools; the marketplaces closed. What the terrorists did that was very effective for them in terms of giving them the freedom of action they wanted in this city is they [incited] violence … between the Turkmen Sunni, who are the majority population here, and the Turkmen Shi'a.

We've had tremendous success. People come to us spontaneously, thank us for the operation, our continued security efforts. But we also recognize the situation here generally is very fragile.

They attacked the Shi'a, and it was based on this attack … ideology that anyone who does not believe in their narrow definition of Islam is a rejectionist, and it's their duty to wage jihad against them. There were kidnappings and murders and beheadings. These armed camps developed, and the communities fell in on themselves and defended themselves behind what were essentially tribal militias, and one of the tribal militias here in Tal Afar was the police force.
...
And how do you effectively roll that back?

Well, we had to take a very deliberate approach to this problem. One of the things that the enemy did was they tried to cast our intentions here as actions against the Iraqi people and against the Turkmen Sunni population in particular. They've cast our intentions as [those] of crusaders and occupiers who wanted to exploit the Iraqi people rather than help the Iraqi people get their feet under them so this country could succeed and prosper and have security such as they deserve so much. So we had to defeat that disinformation campaign, and it took some time to do that, because you just don't tell people, "Hey, you know that my intentions are pure." You have to prove to them your intentions through your deeds and through building relationships, and we were able to do that over a period of a few months.

It was also important for us … to separate these terrorists and insurgents from the population. It was important for us to address some of their local grievances, and it was important for us as well to show them that we were a force to be reckoned with, … that we had the capability and the determination to defeat these terrorists, because they wouldn't throw their lot in with us … if we didn't demonstrate that commitment to win the fight.

We had some initial actions against the enemy which were devastating to the enemy. [We] were killing 30, 40, 50 of the enemy at a time. I think that helped us; people thanked us for that. Intelligence came in at a much higher level after those very sharp engagements with the enemy within the city. … With the intelligence we were receiving, we could conduct very precise offensive operations to capture them. We had people who were willing to come forward and tell us exactly what these people did and to testify against them in court, because people were really desperate to return to normalcy and to bring security to the city and to their children.

The enemy then tried to deny us that access by attacking the people in an indiscriminate manner, and a very determined and brutal manner. … It became very clear to us that based on the nature of this enemy, based on the strength of the enemy here, that we would have to conduct an offensive operation to defeat the enemy's operation and then immediately transition into getting Iraqi army and police into position throughout the city to prevent the enemy from returning.
...
We're at the stage now where we have established permanent security in the city, so we're accelerating the development of a reconstituted police force.
...
The enemy preyed on this community to such a degree, it became increasingly clear to the people that the source of all of their problems and all of their grievances were the terrorists themselves, whether it was the lack of basic services, the employment situation. But we couldn't do reconstruction here because the contractors would be shot at; the new water pipe would be blown up; the new power line would be destroyed. And so a precondition for progress along any line in any area was the removal of this terrorist organization within the city.

Read the rest, and try to catch one of the rebroadcasts on TV or the web.

And answer me: given the words about the importance of building relationships and gaining Iraqi trust from a US Army counterinsurgency expert risking life and limb in the field, do obnoxiously bigoted attitudes like this (see update) ...

Who gives a shit what Hugh Hewitt, Dean Esmay, Bill Ardolino, and their 1.2 billion Muslim friends think.

... support or undermine the actual methodology behind the war effort? As Reynolds recently opined about Ann Coulter's recent "raghead" remark, people that express such universally hostile sentiments about Muslims are "objectively pro-terrorist."

Read More »

Does Paul Rodgers (of Bad Company fame) do a ...

A. Fantastic

B. Good

C. Adequate

D. Poor

F. Miserable

Other

... job filling in for the late, great Freddy Mercury on Queen's current world tour?

Read More »

Beastie Boys: Brass Monkey (Live Remix)

Warning: Rap!

Radiohead: Street Spirit

Because there's no such thing as too much Radiohead.

*** Donnah (aka Florida Cracker) posts her original recipe for an exotic dish she christens "tunst," and a violent Miracle Whip vs. Mayonnaise war busts out in the comments. As I wrote over there, Miracle Whip is just like mayonnaise ... that's been sitting out in the sun for three days and peed on by feral cats. Cracker's family may slather the vile substance on Florida swamp rat kabobs, but we only ever used to put Miracle Whip on the rims of our garbage cans to keep the raccoons away.

Until we caught some neighborhood rednecks licking the tops of the cans, that is. Donnah, was that ... was that you?

*** I'm still scratching my head over this story about a man that claims to have survived 33 years of unbroken insomnia:

You’d think going without sleep for that long may have its drawbacks, but not for the man in central Quang Nam province who has never been ill after decades of insomnia.

His inability to sleep has not only made him famous, but also represents a “miraculous” phenomenon worthy of scientific study.

Sixty-four-year-old Ngoc, known as Hai Ngoc, said he could not sleep at night after getting a fever in 1973, and has counted infinite numbers of sheep during more than 11,700 consecutive sleepless nights.

“I don’t know whether the insomnia has impacted my health or not. But I’m still healthy and can farm normally like others,” Ngoc said.

"Miraculous phenomenon" indeed; not merely because Thai Ngoc had a fever that rendered him unable to sleep (inflammation wrecking his pineal gland might have done the trick), but that he's been able to maintain health without the sleep-induced metabolic repair and regulation, especially up to such an advanced age:

However, the function of sleep is mysterious. For instance, sleep-deprived rats eat more even as their body weight falls. As sleep deprivation continues, the animals lose their ability to maintain body temperature. Their immune systems weaken, and they are overwhelmed by infection. Thus, sleep is entwined with feeding, thermoregulation, and immunity.

Get that guy into a lab, stat.

*** John McWhorter, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, blames well-intentioned social programs for exacerbating the problem of black poverty. This bit of context is interesting:

The people who think that black poverty and its manifestations are all about racism would be very surprised if they could go back in a time machine to a black slum in 1920. They would find a place where the two-parent family was still the norm, where alcoholism and drug addiction existed on the margins of the neighborhood. Where almost every able-bodied person was employed. Now, these places weren't paradises by any means. But when black people were hanging regularly from trees and segregation was the law of the land, black slums held together. That has changed. Over the past 40 years, black slums have become war zones. We have to ask why--without falling into the trap of supposing that "why" must always be about racism and discrimination.

Sounds like a reasonable request.

*** We're on the cusp of a paradigm shift in life expectancy that has difficult implications for the world economy (among other huge implications):

The age of retirement should be raised to 85 by 2050 because of trends in life expectancy, a US biologist has said.

Shripad Tuljapurkar of Stanford University says anti-ageing advances could raise life expectancy by a year each year over the next two decades.

That will put a strain on economies around the world if current retirement ages are maintained, he warned.
...
"It might be possible to go through two mortgages, for example, or even have 50-year or 75-year mortgages," Dr Tuljapurkar explained.

In the US, the cost of social security and medical care would almost double if people retired at 65 under Tuljapurkar's scenario.

85 by 2050? I think he's being conservative, given the possibility of seeing nearly limitless (or at least exponentially longer) lifespans within this century.

Tonight, one night only, your chance to meet the man behind INDCJournal: Dorkafork. Yep, the man responsible for... how INDCJournal is today. At the Breckenridge Brewery & Pub by Coors Field in Denver.

In addition to needing a Chinese translator, I also need a Moveable Type/Typekey expert, as my comments are going wonky. Apply via the e-mail address on the right. Thanks.

I've noticed a bit of traffic coming from a link to INDC that's featured somewhere on this blog, which appears to be written in Chinese. Now, while I can't be certain of this - as I don't read a lick of Chinese and don't actually know what the guy is linking to - I get the feeling that the author is flaming me, what with all those menacingly gooney squiggles and lines. And I'm very, very angry about it. Furious, in fact. Livid. So if any of you read Chinese and would be willing to translate a bilingual flamewar, so that I might teach this ChiCom bastiche WHAT'S WHAT and drop a few rhetorical nukes across the Yalu River, please let me know. Thank you.

UPDATE: ARGGHHH! YOUR WORMY ALPHABET MAKES MY BRAIN SWIM!

A stunning example of media deception, if true:

The FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" Wednesday night now says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments.

"What you heard on ABC News was their translation," former U.N. weapons inspector Bill Tierney told ABC Radio's Sean Hannity on Thursday.

"They came up with something different on a key element regarding terrorism in the United States," Tierney insisted.

In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack.

Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity.

In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?"

Again, if verified, I'd say that this deserves some serious attention from the blogosphere.

(Via AoS)

UPDATE: Via commenter Foster, it looks like Tierney may be a bit ... friggin' wacked. The ostensible "full" Hussein translations are due out soon, so I guess I'll still take a (skeptical) wait and see approach, despite Tierney's, er, alleged barking mad insanity:

Tierney's methods of ascertaining this location were rather unconventional. "I would ask God and just get a sense if something was valid or not, and then know if I needed to pursue it," he said. His assessments through prayer were then confirmed to him by a friend's clairvoyant dream, where he was able to find the location on a map. "Everything she said lined up. This place meets the criteria," Tierney said of a power generator plant near the Tigris River that he believes is actually a cover for a secret uranium facility.

Between this guy and Scott Ritter, where do they find these UN Weapons Inspectors?

Dorkafork and I have been tapdancing our little hearts out for you people all week, and frankly, we're tired. But you can serve up a little reciprocal entertainment by answering the following question:

Which United States Senator would you least like to sit next to on a cross-country flight?

I'll go first:

Something about Charles Schumer (D, NY) bothers me at an instinctive level; aside from suffering the occasional chill of his probing reptilian gaze, I imagine that he'd smell a bit like wet Cheerios.

And though it may come as a surprise, I'd be delighted to share a row with Senator Kennedy. Delighted. Why? Aside from the remote but possible threat of him honking up a swirly blend of scotch and clam chowder in my lap, think of the upsides: big hits off of his monster flask ("no baby bottles for TK!"), the opportunity to play Iceman to his Maverick when he makes an unsteady bombing run on any attractive flight attendants, and, if he passes out, free creative reign with a sharpie marker, followed by the giggling satisfaction of watching Kennedy deliver a bleary-eyed post-flight press conference with "I *HEART* balls" and a handlebar mustache drawn across the blotchy red canvas of his meaty mug.

Now you go.

UPDATE: Another inane hypothetical: "Dick vs. Jack?"

You're close to the truth, Mr. Marshall. Closer than you know.

I was in New Zealand 20 hours after the shooting. And there was no mention of it in any of the newspapers. Not one. If I had been in the press office I would have sent out a press release immediately. We wouldn't have told the ranch owner to release the news, we wouldn't have waited an hour to inform the President and never would've have waited another 17 hours to hold a press conference.

Why wasn't the press informed immediately? That's the real question, isn't it? Why? The how and who is just scenery for the public: birdshot, the ranch owner, quail... Keeps them guessing and prevents them from asking the most important question. Why? Why was there a delay in informing the press? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up? Who?

I wondered about that myself, too many problems with the official story. Was there ...

... a second shooter?

Well, thank you Mr. X. We may have a break in the case. We picked up a guy we think was involved. Claimed to be quail hunting in Texas on the day in question. Maybe we'll get him to testify.

Read More »

Hugh Hewitt again cracks me up with this latest merciless badgering of UPI curmudgeon Helen Thomas, also known as "La Volpe Sporca" in these parts. This bit is great:

(Helen Thomas): Where did...yes, it's...it's very important to me. Where did you work?

(Hugh Hewitt): PBS for ten years.

HT: PBS?

HH: Yes.

HT: Well, that's a good credential.

HH: There you have it. See? I'm...

HT: But then you decided to switch over?

HH: To switch over to what?

HT: God knows what you are.

Another interesting snapshot from Iraqi Kurdistan:

Iraqi Kurdistan is more pro-American than America. People there refer to George W. Bush as “Hajji Bush” (meaning he made the Muslim pilgrimage, the hajj, to Mecca), an incredibly high honor for a Christian...

Dave Price has the Michael Totten round-up.

More ammunition for contextual critique of the "Islam is evil, Clash of Civilizations" crowd.

Radiohead: You (Live)

Motorhead: God Save the Queen

*** ABC's Nightline features tapes of disturbing pre-war talk from Saddam Hussein.

Let's have a listen. (Brief but damning Wave file)

Wait ... that might have been South Park. This is definitely the real deal:

Saddam Hussein told aides in the mid-1990s that he warned the United States it could be hit by a terrorist attack, ABC News reported in the US.

The report cited 12 hours of tapes the network obtained of the former Iraqi dictator's talks with his cabinet.

One of Saddam's son-in-laws also explained how Iraq hid its biological weapons programs from United Nations inspectors, according to the tapes from August 1995, the television network reported.

The coming terrorist attack Saddam predicted could involve weapons of mass destruction.

"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans," Saddam is heard saying, adding he "told the British as well."

"In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" Saddam said.

Read the rest for equivocating context. My interpretation of Hussein's message?

"Nice country they got there. Be a shame if something ... happened to it."

*** Hugh Hewitt kicks Lawrence O'Donnell up and down the block like a meaty tin can regarding the MSNBC analyst's outrageous intimation that Elmer Cheney was drunk:

LO: I'll tell you. Let me make it clear to you. The person who suggested this question to me was not a lawyer. The person who suggested this question to me was an alcoholic, okay? That's who suggested the question to me. And then I raised the question with other lawyers, and they said oh, yeah. That's why you avoid the police after an accident. I ask you and your audience, Hugh, please tell me why did Ted Kennedy avoid the police after his accident on Chappaquiddick? Do you think alcohol and inebriation had something to do with it?

HH: Lawrence O'Donnell, I don't believe you. I don't believe you talked to lawyers who told you that Cheney was too drunk to talk. I just don't believe you.

LO: All right. Don't. Don't.

HH: Do you have any name you'll give me that we can double check?

LO: Listen, Hugh, my entire family are lawyers. Every one of them, okay?

HH: Could I talk to one of them?

LO: No, it's ridiculous. I talk to lawyers all the time.

HH: Did you talk to them yesterday?

LO: What...tell me what difference that makes? Let's pretend...

HH: Well, you wrote it. I want to know about your...

LO: Let's assume that I talked to no one. Let's say that's a lie.

HH: Okay. So you did lie about this?

It's probably worth noting that a younger Larry O'Donnell had a hot girlfriend in the 7th grade that lived far, far away ... FAR away. Like, in Montana. A SUPER-HOT girlfriend, whose name may or may not have been "K-Mart Picture Studio Sample Photo." Honest, guys. Cross his heart.

Read the rest, it's fantastic.

FLASHBACK: Lawrence O'Donnell explains it all for me.

*** Ok, between Brokeback Mountain, Dorkafork IMing me pictures of himself naked except for a cowboy hat and this, I may need to rethink Sergio Leone's entire oeuvre.

*** Colossus: The White House Press Corps Plays "Clue." This was my favorite bit as well:

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Connie.

Q Is it proper for the Vice President to offer his resignation or has he offered his resignation --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's an absurd question. Go ahead, Ken.

David Gregory, in the conservatory, wearing a chicken suit.

The Dream City of the Kurds:

In no country are Kurds closer to realizing their dream of freedom and independence than they are in Iraq. They are wrapping up the finishing touches on their de-facto sovereign state-within-a-state, a fact on the ground that will not easily be undone. And they’re transforming the hideously decrepit physical environment left to them by Saddam Hussein – a broken place that is terribly at odds with the Kurdistan in their hearts and in their minds – into something beautiful and inspiring, the kind of place you might like to live in someday yourself.

The heart of the new Kurdistan is soon to be known as the Dream City, a massive construction site going up on the outskirts of Erbil.

Sullivan Loses Last Marble

(Via Allah, who adds, "Sullivan embraces conspiracy theory. His Kos-ification is now complete.")

Ace contributes:

When he left Kos, he was but a student. Now he is a master.

But only a master of beagles.

2004 FLASHBACK: INDC "interviews" Andrew Sullivan.