But that won't stop me from throwing a bucket of wake-the-@#$%-up on Robbo the Llamabutcher, here bragging about his children's hoity-toity Montessori education indoctrination.

News for you Robbo: it's a cult; like Freemasonry, Scientology and people who do the Electric Slide outside of wedding receptions. Only more dangerous.

Stephen King wrote a book about a bunch of Montessori kids taking over a sleepy New England town and sacrificing members of the adult population who defy their edict to use Montessori-approved furniture, notable for its child-appropriate dimensions and Quaker's blood-based varnish.

King's story ("il Terrore dei Casa dei Bambini") was only marginally fictionalized.

Quoth Robbo:

Needless to say, all of the Llama-ettes are Montessori kids. Indeed, my five year old's teacher has remarked that she is one of the best Montessori students the teacher's seen in thirty-odd years of teaching.

That's akin to bragging about your child's off-the-chart "E-Meter" reading, outstanding telepathic link to the "Elohim extraterrestrials" and frequent correspondence with Charles Manson, all rolled into one.

DO NOT GO HOME, ROBBO. YOUR LIFE IS IN SERIOUS PERIL.

Olbermann's recent unhinged rant against a rather benign Rumsfeld speech is notable not so much for the display of Bush Derangement Syndrome, but for a small problem pointed out by Olbermann Watch.

Here's an excerpt from the transcript of the show:

But we begin with a big--a brief refresher on the rhetoric itself, the defense secretary's remarks before the national convention of the American Legion beginning yesterday with a history lesson, before Secretary Rumsfeld compared critics of the current war in Iraq to those who tried to appease Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before World War II.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUMSFELD: Once again, we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. But some seem not to have learned history‘s lessons.

Can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased? Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?

Any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Here's the transcript of the same section from Rumsfeld's speech:

I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today -- another enemy, a different kind of enemy -- has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons. (emphasis added)

Huh. The bolded part that shows that Rumsfeld wasn't talking about critics of the war in Iraq wasn't in the video clip Olbermann showed. How'd that happen? That's a pretty fortunate coincidence for Olbermann. The fact that Iraq wasn't even mentioned, and all the places Rumsfeld mentioned were specific to the War on Terror and not the war in Iraq, why that might have made his comment about "critics of the Iraq war" look stupid.

Even if he had not made that mistake, the rant is pretty much what you'd expect. Whereas sensible people would view Rumsfeld's remarks as "responded to critics" or "criticized opponents", to those in the fever swamps of the left they become "he somehow restrained himself from stomping audience members' faces with his jackboot." Here's some of the phrases Olbermann uses to describe the speech: "...we have only Donald Rumsfeld's demonizing disagreement...", "A reminder to Mr. Rumsfeld dissent indeed is not disloyalty..." I'm having trouble finding comments to that effect in Rumsfeld's speech. Here are some more choice Olbermann quotes:

"We end the COUNTDOWN where we began, our No. 1 story with a special comment on Mr. Rumsfeld's remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday. It demands the deep analysis and the sober contemplation of every American, for it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence, indeed the loyalty of the majority of Americans (-ed. Oops! No it didn't.) who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land.
...
Worst still, it credits those same transient occupants, our employees, with a total omniscience...
...
Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience...

And about Mr. Rumsfeld's other main assertion that this country faces a new type of fascism as he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong. So too was he right when he said that. Though probably not in the way he thought he meant.

So too was was it hard to read that. Where to begin? I could start at the end, where Olbermann directly contradicts his earlier statements about Rumsfeld crediting the Administration with omniscience by saying "he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong." (Sounds like an argument against "omniscience.") Or I could start with the fact that there doesn't seem to be anything in the speech about knowledge or about "how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong." (You'd expect at least something like: "There are known knowns, and known unknowns, but I KNOW ALL!") But I think I'll just stick with a simple snarky remark: "'Omniscience.' You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

My favorite line in his rant though, is this: "And yet he can stand up in public and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emperor's new clothes." It's the sort of thing a stupid person says to try to sound smart. I can only imagine Keith Olbermann's version of "The Emperor's New Clothes": "And a little boy said, 'But he's not wearing any clothes!' And then the townspeople cried, 'Where's our RECEIPT! We want our money back, AND OUR COUNTRY!'"

(via Hot Air)

UPDATE: The LA Times gets it wrong, too. Is it too hard to write "critics of the Bush administration" instead of "critics of US policy in Iraq"? Do I have to draw a Venn diagram?

What's really funny is going from the Olbermann rant, with his vigorous defense of his conception of free speech, to the LA Times piece which is entitled "Pipe Down, Rummy." The same people who claim to support free speech are calling for Rumsfeld to resign/be impeached because they disagree with what he said.

(via Allah.)

I'm working on a project that demands far more reading than it allows writing. Intermittent posts & updates to follow.

UPDATE: In the meantime, only "100?" (pdf file)

(Via Dean, who links a site with much more anti-Noam perspective)

... is the greatest thing ever.

Ever.

Speaking at the Edinburgh International Television Festival, South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone said US Marines guarding the former dictator during his trial for genocide were making him watch the movie "repeatedly".

"I have it on pretty good information from the Marines on detail in Iraq that they showed him the movie last year. That's really adding insult to injury. I bet that made him really happy," Stone said.

Really. I'm done blogging for the day, for I must bask in this perfect manifestation of justice in the South Park conservative worldview (aggressive foreign policy topples murderous dictator, who is then taunted with naughty, filthy (South Park!) movie).

To sweeten the mix, according to IMDB:

[South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut] was banned in Iraq, for its depiction of Saddam Hussein as a homosexual involved with the devil.

(Via AoS)

UPDATE:

(Great concept, moderately executed. Original here.)

I just finished re-reading Fareed Zakaria's essential effort, "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad." It's a must read for anyone generally interested in political science, the spread of sustainable Democracy and those concerned with the threat from and political stagnation of the Middle East. I don't endorse all of his conclusions (merely 99%), but I'd love to excerpt the entire thing. I'll restrain myself:

Globalization has caught the Arab world[*] at a bad demographic moment. Its societies are going through a massive youth bulge; more than half the Arab world is under the age of twenty-five. Fully 75 percent of Saudi Arabia is under the age of 30. A bulge of restless young men in any country is bad news. Almost all crime in every society is committed by men between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five. Lock all young men up, one social scientist pointed out, and violent crime would drop by more than 95 percent. (that is why the socialization of young men - in schools, colleges, and camps - has been one of the chief challenges for civilized societies.) When accompanied by even small economic and social change, a youth bulge produces a new politics of protest. In the past, societies in these circumstances have fallen prey to a search for revolutionary solutions. France went through a youth bulge just before the French Revolution in 1789, as did Iran before its revolution in 1979. Even the United States had a youth bulge that peaked in 1968, the year of the country's strongest social protests since the Great Depression. In the case of the Arab world, this upheaval has taken the form of a religious resurgence.

Zakaria goes on to explain how repressive societies - perfectly embodied by the regimes of the Middle East - essentially destroy the institutions that compete with the government, removing both the systemic hedges on a ruler's absolute power and the alternate vehicles for the people to exercise political power. But there is one institution with the prominence to always defy any ban and flourish despite the region's autocratic purges: religion. And the expression of Islam lacks the organizational status or coherence of historically influential institutions like the Catholic or Episcopalian churches; it's a remarkably decentralized religion, where any individual sufficiently charismatic and knowledgable can claim authority and establish a following and interpretation.

Looking at the ingredients to this political and social paradigm - failed governments that are repressive, no competing institutions or vehicles for political expression except for faith, a decentralized religion susceptible to splintered appeals utilizing charismatic populism and aggression, a massive youth bulge that correlates with the politics of protest, the natural aggression of religious fundamentalism, along with elements in Islamic scripture that buttress this aggression, and an oil welfare state that stymies the development of a business class and civil institutions that assert self-interest and provide an alternate path for young men - goes a long way towards explaining the present dysfunction and violent threat from these societies.

Essentially, the failed repressive societies are boiling the water and closing the lid to the tea pot, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is the whistling jet of steam escaping from the spout.

A couple of solutions are interesting (the first one is unserious, really used as a point of discussion):

1. Let the Islamists take power and they'll lose their appeal. In societies where the fundamentalists have gained absolute authority, they become unpopular, as the populace starts to reject a new ruling class that fails to govern effectively ("Throw the bums out!", Islamic style) and runs into the reality rather than the theory of living under conservative Sharia rule. Obviously this "solution" is untenable, as we can't wait a generation for an uncertain outcome, given the flattening hierarchies to destructive technologies and the political tensions and instabilities that would explode with a resurgence of ruling Islamists. While endorsing this option is unserious, its possibility is not - were free elections held in most countries of the Middle East today, Islamist political parties would claim the lion's share of power.

2. Scale down number one: push these countries to enact political reforms that slowly release the pressure by opening avenues to political engagment. Market economic and social reforms will stimulate the development of institutions and interests independent from both the absolute authority of the government and religious fundamentalism, and granting careful permissions for Islamists to engage in the political process - to a limited degree - may relieve the violent rebellion while forcing them to moderate or fail in the context of governance's realities. Nothing diminishes a group's romantic appeal like engaging in politics. Various commenters have noted this potential regarding Hamas's electoral success in the Palestinian territories. (Please note that a reference to engaged Islamists does not include currently bloodthirsty players like Al-Qaeda, groups lent power by the dysfunction described above)

Anyhow, I've insufficiently tried to summarize a small group of concepts from a brilliant book, so I suggest you pick it up and read the complete argument for yourself.

And if reforms in the broken regimes of the Middle East fail, given the stunning youth demographics, there's always plan B:

Trance just might save the world.

* Note that of course Zakaria understands the difference between "Arab" and "Persian," yet applies many of the arguments to Iran as well as the region encompassing Arab ethnicity. But overall, Iran is undergoing the opposite trend from much of the Middle East - its youth are now bristling against a the rule of a successful theocratic insurgency, rather than embracing theocracy to rebel against failed Arab Nationalists and dictators. The scenerio in "solution" one is playing out. Much too slowly, and with limited success.

Heh.

And note that dorkafork neglected his INDC blogging duties to shoot video for Goldstein and then edit the footage.

All for a pat on the rump and a trip to Dairy Queen.

The little tramp.

UPDATE: Man, that gets even funnier after repeated viewings.

"You've got tattoos. That used to mean something."

The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.

And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want.

We're all a little jumpy after the recent arrest of 23 terror suspects in Great Britain. The men were reportedly plotting a liquid-explosive attack on airplanes, and both the press and politicians have been trumpeting the story ever since.
...
Regardless of the threat, from the would-be bombers' perspective, the explosives and planes were merely tactics. Their goal was to cause terror, and in that they've succeeded.

Imagine for a moment what would have happened if they had blown up 10 planes. There would be canceled flights, chaos at airports, bans on carry-on luggage, world leaders talking tough new security measures, political posturing and all sorts of false alarms as jittery people panicked. To a lesser degree, that's basically what's happening right now.

Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat. And if we're terrified, and we share that fear, we help. All of these actions intensify and repeat the terrorists' actions, and increase the effects of their terror.
...
The implausible plots and false alarms actually hurt us in two ways. Not only do they increase the level of fear, but they also waste time and resources that could be better spent fighting the real threats and increasing actual security. I'll bet the terrorists are laughing at us.

Bruce Schneier is a great writer on cryptography and security issues. And here he has written a load of bunk. Offhand, one of the few accurate descriptions he wrote was "We're all a little jumpy", which happens to be several orders of magnitude different from "we're in terror". You know what terror is? It's a successful attack. It's 9/11. Terror is blood and death. Terror is not 23 people arrested before they stepped foot on a plane. There's a reason that was generally described as a "foiled plot." Incidents like the jet escorted back to Amsterdam, which appears to be a false alarm, isn't terror. Overreaction, probably, but you've gotta be kidding me if you think the terrorists think that was some kind of success. Talk about low standards for victory. "Ahmed, I just won a match of Halo online. This is a great victory for al Qaeda!"

Terrorists don't give a f&@#! about your civil liberties! Causing airline passengers inconvenience is not a victory for them. They are not members of the ACLU and are indifferent to possible violations of our civil liberties.

Here's a handy list of things terrorists might consider victories:
1) Explosions
2) Deaths
3) US out of the Middle East
4) Destruction of Israel
5) Creation of an Islamic caliphate

"Inconveniencing people trying to take water bottles onto airplanes" doesn't quite compare, does it?

Oh, and one more thing: Instapundit highlighted this comment: "What's to stop terriorists now just getting on flights and acting suspiciously on purpose. If no crime was committed (I was just checking my watch, saying my prayers, going to the bathroom etc.) they can cause disruption, create paranoia and terror at will and get off scott free." Well, they would most likely draw unwanted attention to themselves and possibly be investigated, but besides that, that's essentially defining terrorist victory down to an episode of Punk'd. "Muhammed, let's get our cell together, and all dress up as Best Buy employees and confuse the Zionist Crusaders. We will make it more difficult to find 1GB flash cards and Adam Sandler DVDs, striking terror into their very souls!"

*** If I were the author of this RNC oppo research on Markos (pdf), I'd have kept my language a bit drier, to greater highlight a difference in rhetoric. Nevertheless, Kos & the netroots may turn out to be the political gift that keeps on giving ... to the GOP.

(Via HotAir)

*** Steve Centanni and Olag Wiig are alive:

"Our captors are treating us well," Centanni said, adding that they had access to clean water, showers, bathrooms, food and clothing.

"So, just want to let you know I am here and alive and give my love to my family and friends and ask to do anything you can to try to help us get out of here," he added.

Wiig called for help to get them freed.

"If you could apply any pressure on the local government here in Gaza and the West Bank, that would be much appreciated by Steve and myself," Wiig said.

Malkin has more.

*** A stem cell breakthrough that satisfies all sides of the issue?

Scientists have for the first time grown colonies of prized human embryonic stem cells using a technique that does not require the destruction of embryos, an advance that could significantly reshape the ethical and political debates that have long entangled the research.

The new work, described in today's issue of the journal Nature, shows that even a single cell plucked from an early human embryo can be coaxed to divide repeatedly in a laboratory dish and grow into a colony of stem cells, coveted for their potential to mend failing organs.

Not so fast:

Bush offered little encouragement yesterday and, if anything, raised the bar higher, suggesting he would not be comfortable unless embryos were not involved at all.

"Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical concerns," said a statement released by the White House. ". . . The President is hopeful that with time scientists can find ways of deriving cells like those now derived from human embryos but without the need for using embryos."
...
Experiments have shown that some mammals can develop from a single cell taken from a four-cell embryo. But several scientists yesterday said no mammal has ever been grown from a single cell taken from an eight-cell embryo -- a more advanced stage of development in which each cell has already become somewhat specialized.

Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said he is concerned that such a feat may nonetheless be possible. The new work, he said, "raises more ethical questions than it answers."

Not to diminish the ethical debate over the mystical boundary that defines life, but where does this threshold rationally end?

*** Mugshots!

The best: Tom Delay's brilliant beaming was a canny photographic success. Runner-up? Steve McQueen, because he just didn't give a -.

*** Anyone noticed a certain, um, uh, aesthetic sensibility in the recent episodes of Vent? Quoth Allah:

Let me be the first to say: dear God.

Allahpundit on August 23, 2006 at 10:28 AM

I thought I was watching an oddly political toothpaste and shampoo commercial for the first 30 seconds or so.

As Goldstein admits, boy, is his upcoming guest spot ever going to wreck that trend.

Hard.

*** Some might find this graphical guide to the hatreds and alliances of the Middle East using cartoon Buddy Icons a bit flip, but I'll be damned if it isn't clear and handy.

(Via PD)

*** Stinging from my recent evisceration of his 1:1 comparison of gay marriage to polygamy, and seeking to expand his malignant prejudices beyond the fettering bonds of the human race, Steve the Llamabutcher spews more venom at the class Cestoda.

Where do the tracks for your hate train end, Steve?

*** The George Allen campaign is looking for a conservative blogger to serve as an outreach coordinator to the 'sphere. Captain Ed comments:

Will a blogger help Allen recover from the "macaca" gaffe? It might be a chicken-soup solution: it certainly wouldn't hurt. Ultimately, if candidates go out of their way to say foolish things and exhibit poor judgment, all of the bloggers in the world won't undo the damage. What would help would be a respected voice to broadcast an apology for a single misstep and to provide an explanation that made more sense than the Allen campaign's initial statements provided. In the best possible relationship, a well-connected blogger would have consulted on the response to ensure it didn't make matters worse.

I'd be willing to do it for six figures and an unlimited supply of pop tarts (the popular breakfast pastry, not the Duke Cunningham kind).

And they'd just have to accept that I'll be voting for Giuliani in the '08 primary.

Probably something like this comment left by "Rex" under dorkafork's post titled "Anti-Semitism and Free Speech," I suspect:

For people who seem to be inteligent you are all starting with an assumption that is false.You seem to think that eliminating Jews from the planet is a bad thing. LOL. If you are a Gentile, you have to be an idiot not to realize Jews are bad for you. Gentile equals riff raff. Or why do you think Jews took so much trouble to separate from you? 15 million of the elite and billions of us riff raff.Its an amazing joke that they get away with it. And get to call you anti-Semitic if you resent it. Or to quote yahoodi, (google yahoodi one of the many Jewish self centered sites) us anti-Semites would be living in the dark ages without those elite Jews.YUP!!!

I've never personally had much fear and loathing for the vaunted machinations of the "elite" Cabal of International Jewry, especially after watching several episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm; the universe-sucking neurosis of Richard Lewis has to seriously handicap any people's efforts at world domination.

Rex: Oy. What a shande, you farshtinkener. Cut the mishegas, learn some seychel and menshlechykayt. Failing any of that, kush meer in toches.

And please limit your exposure to children.

Still Missing: Day Eight

Will Franklin provides an analysis that shows military spending as a historically low percentage of GDP, demonstrating how entitlements have outpaced defense allocations from the Lyndon Johnson era to the present.

I recently had the pleasure of spending a bit of time around a few hundred young liberal activists. One refrain I heard over and over again was that the military-industrial complex in the United States was growing larger than it has ever been, taking into account the entire course of American history. Creeping toward totalitarian fascism, we apparently are.

Well, not quite. In fact, military spending is as high as it has ever been. But the American economy is also as high as it has ever been. As a percentage of the American economy, military spending today is not particularly outrageous[.]

He then displays this chart, which shows military defense spending at 3.9% of GDP in 2005:

There's one thing missing from this analysis: the 3.9% figure is based on the Defense Department's officially recognized defense spending for FY 2005, about $420.7 billion. This budget leaves out the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have fallen under a series of supplemental funding bills (pdf) that totalled $420 billion between September 2001 and June 2006. Assuming this amount was instead budgeted by fiscal year in an even distribution, the real total would include another 88.4 billion in 2005, bringing actual defense spending to $509.1 billion, or 4.7% of GDP, not 3.9%.

This quibble aside, Franklin's overall argument stays strong, as total defense spending of 4.7% of GDP remains below spending for all major wars from WWII forward, on par with allocations around the first Gulf War and below expenditures during Ronald Reagan's peacetime military build-up. Strictly as a historical proportion of the US Economy, the GWoT (including Iraq) would appear to be economically sustainable, this sustainability hinging upon growth in other aspects of the budget, including entitlements.

One caveat: limited time has perevented me from looking at whether FY defense spending includes large expenditures on weapons R&D and new systems, such as the F-22 Raptor. It's crucial to determine where those costs come into the mix. Feel free to poke holes in my assumptions.

(Via Dinocrat, who argues that the deficit as a proportion of the economy is rather small.)

(And Dinocrat link via Bruce Kesler at the Democracy Project, who suffers from "idiot fatigue.")

*** Val Prieto:

His article won't get Xeroxed or faxed. It won't get typeset and printed. His article will be read, by him, over the phone a dozen times, perhaps more, with the hopes that the person on the other end of the line in Miami or New Jersey will do justice to his work. Each call is made hoping that the person in charge of monitoring his conversation from some government office in Havana won't cut the transmission, and turn him in for a pound of rice as reward.

That is the life of the Independent Journalist in Cuba: Clandestine meetings, clandestine writing, clandestine transmissions with clandestine words of a clandestine truth.

It amazes me that certain quarters of the American left rationalize and romanticize a regime that denies these most basic freedoms.

*** I partially disagree with this post, but it's an absolute must-read:

IRAQ: QUIT OR COMMIT

Here's something I absolutely agree with:

[A]s it stands now, we are at a psychological tipping point in Iraq where drastic measures are needed in order to turn the situation around and give the weak Iraqi government a chance to gain control. There are many hands raised against this government and as of right now, they are losing any semblance of legitimacy due to their powerlessness in the face of the massive violence that has been unleashed.

I'll try to author a more comprehensive response this week.

*** Steve the Llamabutcher has been taking correspondence courses from the Santorum school of logic:

Huge pro-polygamy rally today in Utah featuring kids of polygamist families. Money shot: pre-teenage girl holding big sign "I heart all my mommies." No logical or legal difference between Heather has two mommies and Heather has eight mommies.

No logical or legal difference? Let me give it a whirl: "two mommies" is a contract between two people, "eight mommies (and a daddy)" is a contract between 9 people, where 8 have suboordinate interests and responsibility to one. From both legal and logical angles, it's certainly different. Unless by "the same," you mean that both are "different" than the current institution of marriage. And as an extension of that logic - contingent on a determination that nature can play a dominant role in sexuality - we can make an argument that "two mommies" is more similar to current marriage, in that it assigns legal partnership status to individuals in society that lack franchise because of how they're programmed, vs. individuals programmed just like every other heterosexual who are looking to expand their legal options based on a cultural preference. Of course there are serious counterarguments to everything that I've just mentioned, but the argumentative absolutism necessary for simply citing the slippery slope is sloppy, Steve. O.

*** I think we could all use some new Zero 7:

*** There is no fifth "Quick Link."

Snakes on a Plane lives up to the promise of its title. That's really the only way to describe it, by using the title as an adjective. Very Snakes on a Plane. Granted, it's possible there may have been a way to make Snakes on a Plane more Snakes on a Plane, but you watch the Snakes on a Plane you have, not the Snakes on a Plane you wish you had. I allow that it is possible, but I think it would have been hard to make a more Snakes on a Plane Snakes on a Plane. (Samuel L. Jackson could have said "muthaf*&#@in'" a little more. And Christopher Walken should have been in it: "Wow! There's a lot of... snakes... on this muthaf&^%#in plane...I can't believe it!")

That quibble aside, this is an example of Hollywood magic. The stars aligned to put Samuel L. Jackson in Snakes on a Plane. Besides Samuel L. Jackson, Snakes on a Plane's main strengths are:

1) Snakes
2) A plane
3) On

**NOT SPOILERS since none of the following is true**
The movie begins where you might expect, the super secret origin of "the Snakes" and how they got their "on a Plane" powers. There's also a flashback where we see Samuel L. Jackson's father being killed by a snake on a plane. This makes Samuel L. Jackson's frustration at being on a plane with muthaf*@#in' snakes much more poignant, and sets up a revenge angle. He still manages to save the motley assortment of characters on the muthaf%$#in' plane: a rap star, a Paris Hilton type, a kid who needs a heart transplant, Hare Krishnas, two jive-talkin' guys, the Millionaire, and his wife.
**END NO SPOILERS THERE***

Tips on watching Snakes on a Plane: First, be sure to tell the cashier at the ticket window (at select AMC locations) "I want to see the muthaf%$#in' Snakes on the muthaf%$#in' Plane." You will receive a FREE strange look (as supplies last). Be sure to stay past the credits, Samuel L. Jackson has a clip at the end where he says "MOVIE'S OVER! GET YO ASSES OUT OF THE MUTHAF%$#IN' THEATRE! YES THOSE SNAKES DESERVED TO DIE! AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL!"* Also be prepared for the surprise twist ending.**

Rating: 5 Snakes on a Plane

* Not true
** Not telling

See also the Snakes on a Plane Trilogy posters.

*** "You're a donut eater ... and you will rot in Hell."

(Via Florida Cracker)

*** Question: If a questionably talented street performer subjects me to primal caterwauling on my way into the subway, can I take some money out of his guitar case?

*** Scott Kirwin at Dean's World highlights early failures of the UN ceasefire in Lebanon, as well as two competing reviews of Israel's performance in the latest crisis.

The positive review by Strategy Page notes that Israel's agreement to ceasefire demands has merely granted the UN measure a chance to fail because of non-compliance, thus earning Israel greater political and moral authority to prosecute a future conflict. In a world that made just a bit more sense, I'd agree with this assessment. Unfortunately, the strategy has a failing precedent in UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

*** Possible causes of dementia include Alzheimer's disease, stroke, hyperthyroidism, B12 deficiency, brain trauma, alcoholism and pretty much any condition that causes inflammation to the brain. Andrew Sullivan assumes that Goldstein was referring to AIDS-related dementia in a critique of Sullivan's bizarre conspiracy-mongering about the veracity of the disrupted UK terror plot. Perhaps that's not a totally wild assumption, given that Sullivan is quite open about having AIDS, and dementia is a listed side effect of HIV infection or treatment, if not one that's commonly known. Goldstein says that he didn't mean it as a specific commentary on Sullivan's condition, nor, by contextual implication in Sullivan's rebuttal, as a homophobic attack.

Personally knowing Goldstein and his limited awareness of most details beyond his kid, his blog, 70's cinema and the bottomless saucers of corn chips, beer and red pills on his living room coffee table, I'm fairly certain that he's not lying. For the record.

Also for the record, while I've long found Sullivan's reasoning increasingly politicized and personal, it's only within the last 8 months or so that I've actually found it wacky.* Further cases in point, Sullivan's armchair (and hypocritical) analyses of Bush as a dry-drunk, and his labeling mild-mannered Karol Sheinan['s post about torture] "deranged." Can a reasonable person strongly disagree with Karol's position? Sure. Is it deranged? Nah.

* To be clear, my assessment of Sullivan's judgment as wacky has nothing to do with assumptions or intimations about any underlying medical conditions. Which is giving him more latitude than Sullivan grants Bush regarding alcoholism.

*** George Allen: damaged goods?

Virginia Sen. George Allen (R) apologized Monday for what his opponent's campaign said were demeaning and insensitive comments the senator made to a 20-year-old volunteer of Indian descent.

At a campaign rally in southwest Virginia on Friday, Allen repeatedly called a volunteer for Democrat James Webb "macaca." During the speech in Breaks, near the Kentucky border, Allen began by saying that he was "going to run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas" and then pointed at S.R. Sidarth in the crowd.

"This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great," Allen said, as his supporters began to laugh. After saying that Webb was raising money in California with a "bunch of Hollywood movie moguls," Allen said, "Let's give a welcome to macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia." Allen then began talking about the "war on terror."

Ace eats some crow after a commenter adds:

It isn't made up racism. Macaca is used worldwide as a racial slur - thanks to the French in Africa. And guess what? Allen's mother is French and from Northern Africa, but it's entirely possible that he never heard the word in his life and this is just some very remarkable coincidence. Yeah, that's it.

Somehow I don't think that this is the last we'll hear of this event, perhaps with good reason.

By the way ... Rudy Giuliani? Not a big user of racial slurs.

Just sayin'.

*** Dean Esmay:

Indeed, I think Democrats could have beaten Bush in 2004, and would certainly be better off and less angry as a party now, if they had acted more like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller and Dick Gephardt all along.

But I grow tired of trying to explain it to people who won't listen, or are (possibly) genetically incapable of getting it. They think vicious bashing and declaring the current leadership to be liars and crooks and incompetent (vicious, vicious, and more vicious) is the way to win. It's not. It's just a way to make people pessimistic and annoyed and weary and angry.

More to the point: the moment you call it "Bush's war" instead of "our war," you've already lost a huge swath of America, no matter how interested they might otherwise be in political change. Which is the real point of Cox's argument.

*** To wit: Brendan Loy quits the D's:

But regardless of all that, the hard reality is that the voters have spoken, and their message was loud and clear: there's no longer room for Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party. And alas, tonight's result will reverberate through the November elections and into the 2008 presidential campaign. It's really much more than just a single primary in a single state; it's a shot across the bow of moderate Democrats everywhere. And so, whatever further ramifications this result might have, there's one thing it definitely means, one result that is officially cast in stone, as of today:

I am no longer a Democrat.

Do you feel it, Brendan? Do you feel the power of the dark side? Let the hate course through your veins!

Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-h-*cough*cough*cough* ... *cough*

In all seriousness, I'd hope it's a trend; not to weaken the Democratic Party, rather to eventually strengthen it by wresting the power from the hard leftist netroots making a play for the reins.

(Via AoS)

*** It's easy to be an armchair strategist from thousands of miles and exponential levels of comfort away, but early indicators point to a Hezbolllah emboldened by their "not-a-loss victory:"

At stake in the standoff was implementation of a crucial provision of the U.N. Security Council cease-fire that went into effect Monday. The accord called for quick deployment of 15,000 Lebanese army troops south of the Litani River along the border with Israel. They were to take up positions under the aegis of a reinforced contingent of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL, to form a peacekeeping corps with a total strength of about 30,000.

Hezbollah's reluctance to get its men and arms out of the border zone reflected nervousness over the continuing presence of Israeli soldiers on Lebanese soil. But it also demonstrated the militant Shiite Muslim movement's increased assertiveness here after a war of more than a month during which it stood off the Israeli army while Lebanon's national army stood aside.

Over-under on number of months 'till the next invasion of Lebanon?

"I love you Mister."

An eloquent piece by Jamie Glassman, a writer for Da Ali G Show.

He went on to say how its illegal to deny the Holocaust in Austria. He has a good mind to go to Austria, stand in the street and say the Holocaust didn't happen so that he could get arrested and tell the judge he was talking about the Rwandan holocaust. Whether or not he thought there should be a law against going to Rwanda and denying that genocide, he didn't say.
...
His joke is essentially one about freedom of speech and selective Jewish control of that freedom, but he gives the lie to his true feelings by his choice of example. Of all the possible targets, of all the things he might wish to say, his complaint is that he is not permitted to parrot the greatest anti-Semitic slur of the last hundred years -- that the Holocaust never happened. As a believer in free speech, I am not convinced by the criminalisation of Holocaust denial, but that does not mean I am confused about the motives of those who wish to utter it.

It's about examples of anti-Semitism at an Edinburgh arts festival. Read the whole thing. (via the politburo diktat.)

A tall woman and a short man enter the elevator, the woman yelling to another woman down the hall, "I've got a rental car for you!" as the doors close.

The man says to the woman, "You're giving away rental cars?"

"No, I'm a travel agent too."

"Wow, you must be busy with two jobs," says the man.

"Yeah, I've got to support my kids. I have an eleven year-old who is taller than you."

The man subtly twitches, an uncomfortable silence falls over the elevator, I choke back laughter, and the woman tries to soften her statement:

"Well, but ... have you seen pictures of my daughter? She's really tall!"

A quick scan of the title and first graph of this article by Criminology Professor David Kennedy in Sunday's Washington Post let me know what I was in for ...

Iraq at Home
The Neighborhood War Zone

The United States is losing the war in Iraq; more specifically, Philadelphia is. This war is at home, in the city's 12th Police District, where shootings have almost doubled over the past year and residents have spray-painted "IRAQ" in huge letters on abandoned buildings to mark the devastation.

Oh boy. And what are the signs of this devastation? A rise in the homicide rate:

It is a story being repeated up and down the East Coast and across the nation. In Boston, where the homicide rate is soaring, Analicia Perry , a 20-year-old mother, was shot and killed several weeks ago -- while visiting the street shrine marking the site of her brother's death on the same date four years earlier. Last Tuesday, Orlando's homicide count for this year reached 37, surpassing the city's previous annual high of 36 in 1982. And in Washington, D.C., where 14 people were killed in the first 12 days of July, Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey declared a state of emergency.

Disturbing anecdotes and numbers to be sure. But how do the national trends stack up? Fortunately, Kennedy is kind enough to outline the statistical rationale for his alarmism over the modern urban apocalypse laying waste to America's towns and cities:

Not long ago, the United States was declaring "mission accomplished" on crime: Homicide rates were plunging, the crack epidemic was over, the broken windows were fixed. Now, preliminary FBI statistics show that homicides rose nearly 5 percent in 2005, and news from around the country suggests that 2006 is looking worse.

Five percent.

Some context: from a 25-year peak in 1994, the incidence of overall violent crime fell 58.79% in a decade, for an average of 5.9% per year. From 1993 - 2004 the national homicide rate fell 39.6% and the total number of homicides fell 34.93%, with more dramatic gains in notable urban areas. Washington, DC went from a high of 482 murders in 1991 to 195 in 2005, and as Kennedy later notes, New York's homicides fell "76 percent, from 2,245 in 1990 to 539 in 2005." The homicide rate in NYC more than halved, from 14.5 per 100,000 in 1990 to 7.0 per 100,000 in 2004.

In addition, nationally, we've already seen a statistical 3-year homicide bump after the dramatic fall of the 90's, a bump that reversed itself in 2004. USA Today reported on the mini-trend almost one year ago:

After rising for three years, the nation's murder rate dropped 3.6% last year, according to preliminary figures released Monday by the FBI. The nation's largest cities and rural areas showed the sharpest declines. Murders dropped 7.1% in cities with populations over 1 million, and 12.2% in towns with 10,000 or fewer people, the FBI said.

Yes, the murder rate showed a slight increase from 2001 to 2003 (about 1.8% per year), but the overall violent crime rate continued to fall (6.1% from 2001-2004). So we had a mild bump in homicides for 3 years, followed by a 3.6% reversal. What was the expert reaction then?

Even better, what was the reaction of the exact expert I'm now critiquing? Let's see:

Read More »

*** Excellent piece at Blog P.I (via Instapundit) quoting John Aravosis on the British terror plot.

Maybe terrorists haven't had much luck with blowtorches or crop dusters, but for Aravosis to leave out all previous terrorist attacks involving planes in favor of other, lesser examples of terrorist attempt or intent, while blithely dismissing those and mangling the facts, sure, it's fair to say that John Aravosis, for one, is not very serious about terrorism.

I will at least allow that he is serious about his opposition to Bush because he disagrees strenuously with his national security policy. I just don't think Aravosis has any idea what to replace it with, and he's not above sticking to bad conclusions that make Republicans out to sound as bad as possible.

An example of this, not pointed out by the author of the original piece, can be found in this statement by Aravosis:

Do I sound as if I don't believe this alert? Why, yes, that would be correct. I just don't believe it. Read the article. They say the plot had an "Al Qaeda footprint." Ooh, are you scared yet? What that really means is that they found NO evidence whatsoever that the plot had anything to do at all with Al Qaeda, but the plot simply made them think "gosh, this is something Al Qaeda would do." That's what a footprint means. Nice, but no cigar.

Here he speculates, apparently incorrectly, that the authorities "found NO evidence whatsoever that the plot had anything to do at all with Al Qaeda", and that there was just a similarity in aims. And for some reason, this is supposed to imply the alert is an overreaction. Let's simplify his statement: "I don't believe (this alert). Ooh, are you scared yet? ...the plot simply made them think "gosh, this is something Al Qaeda would do." Gosh, like maybe a major terrorist attack? Isn't that what the alert level is for? Lack of seriousness indeed.

*** What harm can do conspiracy theories do? For one woman, the effect was quite direct.

They have visited Mrs. McClatchey's office and called her at home, posting satellite maps of her property and accusing her of digitally altering her photo to insert a fake smoke plume. The bloggers have picked apart her story, highlighting inconsistencies in different news accounts and questioning her motives. Others have described her as "surly," "hostile," "irate" and "defensive." People have called her at home, accusing her of being anti-American and of "holding the photo hostage."

*** "Ahmadenijad, leader of Iran. Member of a sect that some, like the Ayatollah Khomeini, consider too extreme. But is he really that bad a guy? Mike Wallace has the questions other journalists are too smart to ask."

*** A privacy nut's nightmare. AOL releases search logs of 650,000 users. The user's names were replaced with random ID numbers, but it's still possible to track down the actual ID, especially since some of the users did searches on personally identifying information. This story is scary on several levels. If you thought you had weird Google searches in your referrers, the raw data is even freakier. A lot of disturbing searches. (If your husband likes "steak and cheese" and/or "poop", I recommend you follow that link.) Some have looked through the search logs and found some rather amusing series of searches. The NYT identify one woman through her searches; I have not confirmed if these were actually part of her search logs. (Bill, I think they've got your search logs. NSFW, obviously.)

*** Computer assisted passenger screening. Very interesting. Andy's last paragraph describe my own feelings better than I could myself. Chamomile smells great. (Oh yeah, I agree with the civil libertarian stuff, too.)

*** On a lighter note: Thinking of buying a Blu-ray HD-DVD disk drive? The first ones available are going to have just an itty bitty teensy weensy little technical problem. They won't be able to play Blu-ray movies. (Granted, this is only for a PC disk drive, not a Blu-ray player, but still...)

The "Man" has his Bruno Magli dress loafer on my neck and he ain't letting me up for air.

In the meantime, I may need to rethink my blanket assumptions about Canuckians.

(Via B5)

*** As I'm sure you've heard by now, a massive terror attack has been thwarted by UK police. Two feelings always stand out for me at news like this: relief followed by a sense of curiosity about how quickly the real implications of a foiled attack will fade from the public consciousness, or barely register in the first place.

Props to UK counterterrorism officials.

Allahpundit has a massive round-up, as does Malkin. While I disagree with some of the right-wing blogosphere's focus on the textual interpretation of Islam necessarily leading to violence, our opinions intersect on the stupidity of politically correct reporting and law enforcement that fail to identify terrorists as Muslim extremists.

*** In the World Map of Happiness, red equals happy.

Sort of tells a story, doesn't it?

UPDATE: Original link went down; alternate link here.

*** James Joyner spies a journalistic man-crush:

Mike Wallace came out of retirement to interview Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Wallace found him to be "an impressive fellow." Indeed, he might have a little man-crush on him, remarking, "He's actually, in a strange way, he's a rather attractive man, very smart, savvy, self-assured, good looking in a strange way."

I'm envisioning a spin-off of Brokeback Mountain which ends in the 13th minute, after Ahmadinejad summarily hangs Wallace for gazing at him with "the puppy eyes of the infidel."

Personally, if I were to have a man-crush, I'd probably focus my admiration on the guy that played AC Slater on Saved by the Bell. In addition to his brash confidence that made admirers of men and swooning love puppets of the ladies, AC never called for the apocalyptic eradication of the Jewish State, that I recall.

And that's attractive.

*** And now for some interesting reporting from the NYT:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 7 - The cool kids in Iraq all want an Apache, the cellphone they've named after an American military helicopter. Next on the scale of hipness comes a Humvee, followed by the Afendi, a Turkish word for dapper, and a sturdy, rounded Nokia known as the Allawi - a reference to the stocky former prime minister, Ayad Allawi.

Even more telling are the text messages and images that Iraqis share over their phones. From all over the city, Baghdad cellphones practically shout commentary about Saddam Hussein, failed reconstruction and violence, always the violence. One of the most popular messages making the rounds appears onscreen with the image of a skeleton.

"Your call cannot be completed," it says, "because the subscriber has been bombed or kidnapped."

Cellphones have long been considered status symbols in developing countries, Iraq included. But in an environment where hanging out is potentially life threatening, cellphones are also a window into dreams and terrors, the macabre local sense of humor and Iraqis' resilience amid the swells of violence.

(Via Dave Price)

The New York Times: "Busted."

Flashback: "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

... and always "Remember the Maine!"

Marble envisions a "successory" motivational poster for the NYT.

*** This opinion piece on "the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle" is getting a lot of attention. But what stuck out for me is this part:

Moreover, the support he gets from these haters should not be attributed to Mr. Lamont--nor should he be blamed for their extremism, bigotry and intolerance. But he ought to denounce them. He hasn't as yet.

That's certainly true for the random commenters the writer quotes in the piece, but doesn't the fact that Lamont appeared in a commercial with Markos "Screw Them" Moulitsas and had another commercial directed by Jane "Fuckity Fuck Fuck Fuckers" Hamsher factor into that equation somehow?

*** 2 million reasons why grammar is important. (via the commissar.)

*** Early signs of Mel Gibson's anti-semitism. (via Florida Cracker.)

*** Space age ant farm.

The AP put together a good video segment on Val Prieto, though he assures me that "the best stuff got cut."

No one wants to see your Ricky Ricardo impression, Val.

*** There seems to be a building consensus that Hezbollah is punching above its past and projected weight:

The incident is just one among dozens of examples of an enemy that has proven more resilient and better-equipped than Israeli military forces anticipated. After nearly four weeks of air attacks and ground combat, Israeli military officials say that they have killed only a small fraction of Hezbollah's fighters and that the group still has hundreds of launchers and thousands of rockets at its disposal.

"What we face is an infantry division with state-of-the-art weaponry -- night-vision gear, advanced rifles, well-equipped -- deployed along our border," said Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, who until last month was director of analysis for Israeli military intelligence. "They have some of the most advanced antitank missiles in the world."

There are many potential competing narratives here: Hezbollah's actual capability, the media's obsessive focus on the difficulties of any Western offensive, the media's love affair with the power of guerilla warfare, the complaints and descriptions of hardship by the men on the ground, the desire of Israeli senior officers to downplay the perception that Israel is using disproportionate force against a weak enemy, and the truth - which may or may not be accurately encapsulated in some or all of those narratives. But cutting through the clutter is the idea that Hezbollah - despite their tendency to use civilians as shields and targets - is fighting more like a trained, regular army. Bill Roggio:

We began discussing Hezbollah's military capabilities on July 21, after it became clear during the ambush of the Golani Brigade forced the unit to retreat near Maroun al-Ras that Hezbollah was not your average militia. On that date we noted "Hezbollah also possesses mortars, RPGs, anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, anti-tank missiles and possibly surface to air missiles.... Hezbollah is using infantry tactics and fighting at the squad and platoon level." The IDF's slow advance (over two days) into Bint Jubayl and the ambush on a tank unit were clear indications of Hezbollah's abilities to stand up to the IDF as well as the IDF's cautious nature on the battlefield. Yesterday we confirmed Hezbollah is fighting at the company level, has specialized units (mortars, antitank, logistics, etc.) in its combat units and is using sophisticated communications equipment, body armor and other gear.

This is not to say the IDF cannot defeat Hezbollah's army on the battlefield; the IDF can, and has done so at Maroun al-Ras, Bint Jubayl and elsewhere. But this comes at a cost in casualties, a cost the Israeli government seems unwilling to pay.

*** A must-read analysis of Iraq and the wider war from Grim at Blackfive: "Where Are We Going?"

I suspect that we will one day speak of the war in Iraq the way we speak of the Spanish Civil War -- that is, rarely by comparison to the greater war that followed it. Peace is not in the cards. Things are going to get worse. Our enemies are glad to employ terrorists, who will try to bring the war to our homes. The wise man will prepare his sword, and the arm that may wield it.

Read the rest for the presumptions that led to this depressing conclusion.

*** Switching gears, the addition of Dennis Miller almost just might possibly maybe make me tune in to Hannity and Colmes.

Nah.

(Via AoS)

*** And just to avoid leaving you with dire predictions of WW III and a mental image of Alan Colmes' basilisk gaze, a congratulatory INDC Journal Announcement:

Dorkafork has joined the Denver Rodeo.

dorkafork adds: Thus proving that a trained monkey could write for INDCJournal.

"... and they will always exist on the periphery of any endeavor that requires selfless service for loyalty. They are not worthy of your concern."

Now this is a Hell of a speech:

A notable bit:

The most complicated battlefield in the history of warfare awaits you. An asymmetric "3 Block War," if you will. You'll engage in vicious close combat on one block, protect children as they attend school on the next block and restore water and power on the third, all of this simultaneously. You will, on a daily basis, make life or death decisions with only the time it takes to blink one's eye to process, decide and take action.

You will find yourselves as part mayor, district chief, police chief and arbitrator of disagreements amongst ethnicities and tribes as varied as our 50 states. You will personify, daily, the euphemism of the "strategic corporal." A decision that you make under duress, with little time for reflection or thought, may quite literally impact the actions of policy custodians in our nation's capital.

(Via Blackfive)