Saturday, 31 May 2008
 

The Whine of Haughty Elitism
Contributed by Russ Vaughn

In an unbelievably elitist column in the Chicago Tribune column, Garrison Keillor shows very clearly the contempt with which many liberals hold mainstream America. Inconvenienced by having to wait for a veterans’ motorcycle parade to pass (on a street that had been closed off for their event) so that he could cross their route to visit the National Gallery, Keillor had this to say:

You don't quite see the connection between that and these fat men with ponytails on Harleys. After hearing a few thousand bikes go by, you think maybe we could airlift these gentlemen to Baghdad to show their support of the troops in a more tangible way. It took 20 minutes until a gap appeared and then a mob of us pedestrians flooded across the street and the parade of bikes had to stop for us, and on we went to show our patriotism by looking at exhibits at the Smithsonian or, in my case, hiking around the National Gallery, which, after you've watched a few thousand Harleys pass, seems like an outpost of civilization.

There stood Renoir's ballerina in pale blue chiffon and Monet's children in the garden of sunflowers. And Mary Cassatt's "The Boating Party," which I stood and stared at for a long time. A lady in a white bonnet sits in a green sailboat, holding a contented baby in pink, as a man rows the boat toward a distant shore. (Perhaps the boat is becalmed.) The man wears a navy blue shirt, he is preoccupied with his rowing, and the lady looks wan and mildly anxious, as well a mother should be. The baby is looking dreamily over the gunwales. Is the man a hired hand or is he the husband and father?

A work of art can lift you up from the mishmash of life, the weight of the unintelligible world, and the situations where vulgarity squats on you like an enormous toad and won't get off. You stroll down past the World War II Memorial, which looks like something ordered out of a catalog, a bland insult to the memory of all who served, and thousands of motorcycles roar by disturbing the Sabbath, and it depresses you for hours.

Poor baby, had to stand there and wait while all these fat men with ponytails demonstrated their support of our troops in the field. Do you suppose it might have occurred to this snotty jerk that many of those riders had once been lean and wiry with white sidewall haircuts when they were in uniform serving their country, many of them in combat? As far as the WWII memorial which he also desecrates as a bland insult, I can personally testify from having taken my octogenarian father-in-law there, it is certainly not perceived as such by the veterans in whose honor it was built. 

But, then, poor, put upon Garrison did finally get his chance to stand before great works of art and muse about the people depicted in them, people obviously of far greater consequence to his sensitivities than the real people outside on their motorcycles whose past service and personal sacrifices make it possible for pretentious twits like him to stand in national art galleries and rhapsodize inanely. I do think Keillor’s imagery regarding vulgarity and squatting toads is apt: I’ve always thought that over-sized head of his with those bulging eyes behind thick glasses had a rather toad-like aspect. And in this situation it looks like that squatting toad just dumped something rather smelly down Mr. Keillor’s stiff, snooty neck.

Russ Vaughn, Vietnam Veteran

Contributed by Russ Vaughn on May 31, 2008 at 08:31 PM in Caring about our troops, Russ Vaughn, Unclear on the concept | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Monday, 21 May 2007
 

N.Z. Bear Makes Monkeys of the MSM
Contributed by 72nd TCS

Glenn Reynolds has earned a hearty "Thank you" from the public in this post , in which he links to a remarkable achievement by N.Z. Bear.  The latter has broken out the monstrous draft immigration bill--over 300 pages--in a form that makes it readily available to any citizen who has access to the internet.  He provides a table of contents, listing topics by subsections, complete with links to every subsection and to individual pages.  The beauty of it is that the right-hand sidebar has space for comments.  The visitor can read existing comments and append commentary ad lib. 

At the present writing, one sees only a handful of comments, led off by a link to a scathing example from Mickey Kaus.  That must change, and swiftly.  Let your imagination run wild for a moment.  The Senate Majority Leader wants to ram the bill through in the absence of any serious debate.  It is unlikely that other senators will let him get away with that.  If not, the public has an unparalleled opportunity--and a unique challenge--to be heard.  Picture it: a few days into the debate, the blogosphere dumps on every senator's desk a copy of N.Z. Bear's version, marked up by us The Great Unwashed, acting as a committee of the whole, and bearing hundreds or possibly thousands of heartfelt critiques.  The Bear's achievement in making this possible is unprecedented, even world-changing.

We must buckle down to it, citizens.  It's a patriotic duty. First, go here, to benefit from N.Z. Bear's guidance on how to get the most from his effort.  Then, go there to read the bill and mark it up. Absent that effort on our part, we'll have only ourselves to blame when the D.C. sausage factory serves up a rotten, stinking mess.

Contributed by 72nd TCS on May 21, 2007 at 02:57 AM in Current Affairs, G W Bush, John "72nd TCS" Werntz, John McCain, Remember the Alamo, Unclear on the concept | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 08 February 2007
 

R J Del Vecchio: Why Can't They See It?
Contributed by Bill Faith

Del emails:

Today there was an interesting blurb on the AOL website, a video clip from an interview with Celize Theron by a CNN reporter, focused on the phenomenon of rap music in countries other than America, most specifically, in Cuba.  In the course of the discussion, it came out that the composers had to submit their lyrics to Cuban government officials for approval before they could be performed in public, and that there were severe penalties for anyone who defied the rules and presented anything the government found somehow inappropriate.

The reporter at one point said, casually, something like "So, you found there are controls on free speech in Cuba?"  To which Theron replied instantly to the effect that after all, the same thing exists in the USA. The reporter, clearly taken aback a bit by this, went on to question her basis for such a statement, and she referred to having heard that some people in media jobs had been fired for expressing antiwar views.  The reporter then went on to ask if she really saw such alleged incidents as being equivalent to the type of controls in Cuba (and to be fair, the tone of his voice and his delivery clearly expressed his own feeling that this seemed a bit over the top).  She replied without hesitation that yes, she sees no difference.

This is one more example among so many of assorted public figures, mostly Hollywood/media/academic types, freely opining that whatever defect any other society has, the USA is no better (and in some cases, worse).  It is also an example of real obtuseness, if there is no difference between a government policy of official censorship of performing artists and some individual employer imposing (fairly or unfairly) restrictions on what employees can say in public, then every society now and in history has always been equally repressive.  Ms. Theron may be quite intelligent and talented, and certainly impressively beautiful, but she's still incapable of objective, reasoned thought on some issues.

What she doesn't see, what none of the social critics seem to see, is that whether they intend it or not, they play directly into the hands of those who hate and despise us, and intend to do as much harm to us as they possibly can.  Every time any public figure criticizes this country, that gets picked up and added to the massive propaganda that washes over all of Islam and much of the rest of the world.  It's proclaimed far and wide as rock solid confirmation by enlightened Americans of the total corruption and decadence of the society, which of course fans the enthusiasm of those who want to see us and present us as the Great Satan.

When Lt. Watada makes statements that if he went to Iraq at all, he'd automatically be guilty of partaking in war crimes, Bin Laden et al. jump for joy and it makes headlines all over the Moslem world, and elsewhere. When Micheal Moore and others say the war is only about stealing Arab oil and persecuting Moslems, the flames of hatred and fanaticism get fanned wonderfully.

No, we aren't perfect, then again, who the hell is or ever was?  No, that doesn't excuse our flaws and mistakes, but it does call for some kind of balanced view rather than the orgy of self-recrimination and general ignoring of the evils of those with whom we are in conflict.  The West can self-destruct, and too much of what we see going on in the USA and other Western societies seems to indicate we're sliding in that direction.

God knows I hope I'm wrong.

Del

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 8, 2007 at 08:09 PM in Peacenik Stupidity, R J Del Vecchio, Unclear on the concept | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 10 January 2007
 

Dems' Plan for America
Contributed by John Werntz

Today's NYT front page has a long story entitled "Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Bush's Iraq Plan."  The succinct lead sentence tells it all--

Democrats hope to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war by forcing Republicans to take a stand on the issue.

No way to fault the reporters.  They are simply telling it like it is, no fudge, no sludge, no grudge.

It is lamentably apparent that the world's oldest and most prestigious political party among the dwindling few remaining democratic republics has lost all contact with reality.  In their view, the jihadist war against the West that began in 1979 with taking hostage the Tehran Embassy and has continued with mounting ferocity ever since, has never existed.  It is nothing more than a club to beat a Republican president over the head, in the context of an unpopular war that islamic extremism has thrust upon us.  "Hot damn," say they, "we can really get the bastard this time."

This writer will not sully the pages of OWD with an excerpt, aside from the brief citation above. I defy any American citizen to read that story and come away afterwards with anything but the utmost contempt for the gaggle of vile, sleazy venal pols who make up the congressional Democrats.  If you can do it, your stomach is a lot stronger than mine.

One last comment: It will be important to remember the names of each and every Senate Republican who joins the Democrats in this sickening endeavor. Their traitor names should be "seared, seared" into the brain of every loyal American.

Contributed by John Werntz on January 10, 2007 at 04:15 PM in Dem Dumbness, John "72nd TCS" Werntz, Unclear on the concept | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Friday, 22 December 2006
 

One Last Try...
Contributed by John Werntz

...to make myself understood. It seems I have managed to confuse everyone--myself included--about my thinking on this pseudo-topic of "moderate" Muslims.  In the first place, I consider the current usage of the term "moderate" to be pure Blitzer-Cooper CNN-speak, typically applied to Republicans like Lincoln Chafee or Colin Powell, whose chief aim in life appears to be to curry favor with the liberal media.  As such, it excludes itself from my vocabulary.  It seems to me that in a recent post received with the Hosannas appropriate to the season, George Mellinger exerts himself in beating the stuffing out of a straw man.  When he writes "My friend John says he 'believes or at least hopes' that he can find good moderate Muslims," his friend John is painfully aware that he has not made himself clear.

Continued...

What I tried to say was that people of Muslim family background and cullture can be valuable allies in the necessary attack on the resurgence of expansionist jihadism that we have suffered from in the past couple of decades.  A case in point--some time ago, I linked to a post by a young American blogger called Muslihoon.  Here is the brief description of himself that he posts on his blog.

Of South Asian descent, American citizen by birth, and a college graduate, I study religions and languages as a hobby. I was born a Muslim but left Islam in 10th grade. Since then I converted to Christianity. I am unapologetically a Zionist, Jewophile, patriotic, hawkish, opinionated, and with regard to international relations a systemist. My primary interests these days are Islamic militancy (which goes by many names) and modern reformed fundamentalist Islam (the Salafi movement within Islam).

Does that sound to you like a wishy-washy Muslim, a weathervane Muslim, or any kind of Muslim at all? Nor to me. The reason I recommend him to readers is that he is an ex-muslim anti-jihadist. The second link preceding the block-quote reveals a profound and intimate knowledge of Muslim culture--specifically tribalism--that I wish [oops, wishful thinking again?] formed part of the intellectual equipment of our leadership. Congressman Reyes, recently designated as incoming chairman of the House Committee on Intelligence, has created considerable buzz by an interview in which he revealed his woeful ignorance of the enemy we must combat.  I wish [there I go again...] that such lamentable lack of basic knowledge were rare among our leaders, from the White House on down, but such is not the case.  My point is a very simple one.  Politicians, generals, diplomats and the public need to know what we are facing.  I happen to believe that ex-Muslims like Muslihoon or Isaac Schrödinger or Muslim dissidents like this country's Free Muslims are a valuable source of such knowledge.

Contrary to what George seems to think, I have never advocated hope or wishful thinking as policy. But I would like to point out that Hope, along with Faith and Charity, is a cardinal virtue in the Christian scheme of things.  I think that a tendency to reject the aid of Muslim "apostates" and practicing Muslims, such as the American Free Muslims, who are opposed to Islam of the Ahmadinejad variety is not only uncharitable but downright foolish.

I share George's sympathy for the downtrodden ordinary citizen of countries such as Iran or Iraq regions such as Anbar, who have no choice but to submit to the locally dominant forces.  When I advocate alliances with Muslim dissidents or ex-Muslim anit-jihadists, I do not have some Middle Eastern Piers Plowman in mind.  Figures such as Amir Taheri or Irshad Manji are far more influential and potentially more significant.

One final note. My very good friend Gray Dog has written extensively in his inimitable style here and elsewhere on his attempts to test the tolerance level of the 910 group. Perhaps I am trying something similar in Old War Dogs?  Only the Shadow knows...

Contributed by John Werntz on December 22, 2006 at 01:46 PM in Current Affairs, Islamism Delenda Est, John "72nd TCS" Werntz, Unclear on the concept | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 19 September 2006
 

Do the French *get it* [Cont'd]
Contributed by John Werntz

Webmaster's note 2006.09.19.19:12: John encountered some sort of technical difficulty which forced him to do a continuation post containing things that he wanted at the end of his previous post. He then emailed me and asked me to try to move the contents of this, the continuation post, to the end of the original post. I've complied with his request.

Contributed by John Werntz on September 19, 2006 at 06:15 PM in Current Affairs, France, John "72nd TCS" Werntz, Unclear on the concept | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Do the French *get it* or are they going to Get It?
Contributed by John Werntz

This writer regrets that an accidental technical glitch [a familiar euphemism for "I'm a klutz"] has delayed the posting of this item by a couple of days.  However, the real issue as stated in the title is timeless.

We are all familiar with the fact that Al-Qaeda's number 2 man AymanAl-Zawahiri [or number 1, depending on how much one is impressed by the CIA's proclamation--based on videotapes--that "Osama lives!"] Al-Zawa in any event released an hour-long video celebrating the "victory" of 9/11/2001 and rehashing the usual litany of Islamic grievances against the West.  Most media reports here concentrated on his renewed threats of direct action. For example, we had this from CNN--

Al-Zawahiri says any attack on Westerners and Jews anywhere can be considered
fair, because "the reality of international politics is the humiliation and
repression of the Muslim at the hands of the idol-kings who dominate this world."             

Most European media reported similarly, but France was a bit different from the others.  The reason for "l'exception Française" was that Al-Zawa made a bit of news in singling out France for particular attention.  The sequel deals with this aspect of his rant, and the French reaction to it.

First, a liittle background, for the sake of the majority of readers who have neither lived nor worked in France.  Libération, the newspaper cited, is a center-left publication, the successor of a broadsheet that appeared clandestinely during the German occupation of the early 1940's.  It featured such soon-to-become-famous writers as Albert Camus and J-P Sartre.  With its political slant and its record of continuous publication since the darkest days, the paper enjoys considerable prestige, rivalling that of the semi-official *newspaper of record* Le Monde. The interviewee, Mme. Anne Giudicelli, is equally well-regarded.  After a 9-year stint with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as an expert on anti-terrorism, she became an investigative journalist and prolific free-lance writer.  Eventually she founded her own consulting enterprise, named "Terrorisc," which advises firms in Europe regarding economics and politics in the Middle East.

On September 14, a reporter named Alexandra Bogaert interviewed Mme. Giuidicelli for Libération regarding the Al-Zawahiri video. Brief citations follow, with headings in bold type. Al-Zawa actually makes news in the first excerpt, where he mentions the GSPC.  The acronym, in typical French word order, stands for Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, a major terrorist thorn in the side of the Algerian govenment. Salafist is loosely equivalent to Wahabi, the particularly narrow and intolerant version of Islam prevalent in Saudi Arabia. Preaching stands for proselytizing, primarily by  violent means, i.e., by Combat.

What can you tell us about it?

It's a professional document, from start to finish, presented as an interview of Al-Zawahiri that pretends to be relatively *objective*.  The interviewer, who obviously belongs to Al-Qaeda, takes the role of devil's advocate.  He asks questions along the lines of "People say that Al-Qaeda kills civilians. How do you answer?"  This permits Al-Zawahiri to deflect the criticisms.

This video is important because it was realized on the fifth anniversary of 9-11. Al-Zawahiri then brings us up to date: what works, what doesn't work, what remains to be done.  It is in this connection that he announces the integration--the Arabic also means fusion--of the GSPC into Al-Qaeda.

Note: It seems I've run out of space.  TypePad won't accept any further input.  I'll try posting this and finishing up in a second--shorter, one hopes--post.  Here goes...

Webmaster's note: John apparently encountered some sort of TypePad, Windows or ISP glitch we wouldn't be able to reproduce even if we wanted to. I've moved the contents of his continuation post to the end of this post.

Here we go again, with a new heading:

Why this coming together?

Up to now, the GSPC was begging to become part of Al-Qaeda.  But last year, Al-Zawahiri had indicated his reluctance.  Now, the GSPC has strong branches in Western Europe...In joining it organically to its structure, Al-Qaeda shows its intention to expand in Europe. The GSPC is handed to Al-Qaeda as a turnkey operation: fully formed, with capabilities and also contacts ready to fit in.  More, Al-Zawahiri's declaration sends a message to adherents of Al-Qaeda: you can get in touch with the GSPC, they're our home-boys.

And why has France been mentioned:

Al-Qaeda's pointing the finger at France as an enemy is not new. All those who support in one or another way American policy or the international policy of the UN are thought to be enemies.  But this is the first time that France enjoys such special treatment, in being singled out above all in the name of Bin Laden. I believe the GSPC asked Al-Zawahiri to pick on France. Historically, France and the Algerian regime that we are accused of supporting are the two enemies of  the GSPC.  However, since the change of management at the head of the GSPC on the 11th September of 2003, the movement has chosen struggle on an international scale.

So, what is this expert's bottom line?  She says she doesn't think France is in the bullseye, or even the 9-ring.  True, terrorist menaces against France have ratcheted up a click, but the principal enemies remain the United States, Israel and Great Britain.  Most of the readers' comments following her article in Libération Online mimic the pose of the ostrich.

After all this, which seems to peter out in denial, I hope this writer will be forgiven a slight digression into personal impressions.  The comment thread, by and large, reads as if it could have been translated from the Daily Kos.  Nothing surprising in that.  The most striking feature was the bouquet of spelling howlers, and lamentable errors in grammar, syntax, and lexicon.  It is truly sad to see the French system of secondary education, once second to none, go the way of the American public school.

Contributed by John Werntz on September 19, 2006 at 05:14 PM in Current Affairs, France, John "72nd TCS" Werntz, Unclear on the concept | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sunday, 10 September 2006
 

Justice Leaks Like a Sieve
Contributed by John Werntz

The New York Times, the country's biggest cesspool for collecting leaks from the government, is brim-full today.  You have to hand it to them.  When it comes to publishing stuff damaging to the war effort, they have no peer.  This time, my animus is directed, not toward the paper, which is only *doing its job* but rather toward our intelligence agencies, specifically the FBI and the CIA.  The story, by David Johnston: "At a Secret Interrogation, Dispute Flared..." concerns a squabble between the two agencies regarding the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, who in the end coughed up vital information, including the identity of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed.  Some Feebs thought it was just too, too, mean and rough. Some CIA officers agree, others disagree.  What everyone ought to be able to agree on is that this is precisely the sort of family quarrel that should be kept under wraps until it's settled.

Readers need no help from me to detect the hidden undercurrent: ~With these horrors taking place,   the nation is in danger.~   The real concern is the abject failure of responsible officials of our intelligence agencies to keep their dogs on the leash.  The Plame-Wilson assault on the historical record, evidently aided and abetted by elements of the CIA, clearly demonstrates that the Agency has been out of control.  This latest outbreak proves that the Department of Justice shelters its own platoon of disgruntled babblers.  The Attorney General has a dead mouse in his lunch.

The leaks that form the basis of today's story appear to be gross indiscipline, rather than lawbreaking. The same cannot be said for the nearly treasonable irresponsibility of the nameless and faceless officials who revealed the NSA program that surveilles international phone calls by known terrorists.  The law governing communications intelligence, 18 U.S.C. ¤ 798 prohibits any disclosure of classified information concerning the communications intelligence activities of the United States. It punishes such action with imprisonment up to 10 years.

In short, the Attorney General has to be aware that there are undiscovered felons out there who have done grave damage to the security of the United States. Yet he seems blissfully complacent. Why?  One can  only speculate, but the evident unwillingness of this administration to face a firestorm of media outrage in an election season is certainly an admissible hypothesis.  He could obtain John Doe indictments of the leakers, haul in reporters Lichtblau and Risen, and hold them as material witnesses until they come clean.  Reluctance to resort to such extreme measures may be understandable, but it amounts to something like dereliction. Willy-nilly, we are at war. We didn't seek it, but our enemies are dead set upon waging it, after their own fashion.  Under the circumstances, given the dispositon of the president's political rivals and media opponents, it is foolish to hope for peace on the home front.

Now, we find that the Attorney General shelters disloyal leakers under his own roof.  Some excerpts from the article in today's paper makes that abundantly obvious.

...interviews with nearly a dozen current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials briefed on the process show, the interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah was fraught with sharp disputes, debates about the legality and utility of harsh interrogation methods, and a rupture between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the C.I.A. that has yet to heal.

Some of those interviewed offered sharply contrasting accounts, but all said that the disagreements were intense. More than four years later, these disputes are foreshadowing the debate that Mr. Bush’s new proposals are meeting in Congress, as lawmakers wrangle about what rules should apply as terrorism suspects are captured, questioned and, possibly, tried before military tribunals.

[snip].

According to accounts from five former and current government officials who were briefed on the case, F.B.I. agents — accompanied by intelligence officers — initially questioned him using standard interview techniques. They bathed Mr. Zubaydah, changed his bandages, gave him water, urged improved medical care, and spoke with him in Arabic and English, languages in which he is fluent. [ed: Things get rougher later.]

[snip]

At times, Mr. Zubaydah, still weak from his wounds, was stripped and placed in a cell without a bunk or blankets. He stood or lay on the bare floor, sometimes with air-conditioning adjusted so that, one official said, Mr. Zubaydah seemed to turn blue. At other times, the interrogators piped in deafening blasts of music by groups like the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Sometimes, the interrogator would use simpler techniques, entering his cell to ask him to confess.

There you have it. Torture by Chili Pepper, the same cruel and inhumane treatment that was used by American troops in Panama to break down the resistance of Manuel Noriega.  What is more--if you can believe the Times--these and other brutal techniques were authorized by White House counsel.  No one claims that Abu Z suffered any permanent damage.  On the contrary, his captors were obviously anxious to ensure that he recovered from his wounds in time to develop into the prime witness that he eventually became.

The single certainty that one gathers from perusing this long and detailed story is that certain offiicers of the FBI seem to be inordinately disposed to blab to newspapers.  General Gonzales, where are you, not only in this affair but above all in the pursuit of the criminals who exposed the NSA program?

Contributed by John Werntz on September 10, 2006 at 05:38 PM in Current Affairs, Islamism Delenda Est, John "72nd TCS" Werntz, Unclear on the concept | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Saturday, 08 July 2006
 

Unclear on the concept -- Part 1 of thousands -- Update
Contributed by Bill Faith

Click here for some background.

Navy, Whale Advocates Settle in Sonar Suit

The Navy can use high-intensity sonar for Pacific warfare exercises, but must stay away from some sensitive marine habitat and increase monitoring for whales, under an agreement reached Friday with environmental groups.

Four days earlier, a judge banned the sonar over concerns it could harm marine mammals.

The settlement prevents the Navy from using the sonar within 25 miles of the newly established Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument during its Rim of the Pacific 2006 exercises, and also imposes a variety of methods to watch for and report the presence of marine mammals.

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 8, 2006 at 12:54 AM in Bill Faith, Judicial Stupidity, Unclear on the concept, US Navy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 07 July 2006
 

Unclear on the concept -- Part 1 of thousands
(Updated, bumped)
Contributed by Bill Faith

Federal Judge Issues Orders to Navy
Hatched by Dafydd ab Hugh

First the federal judiciary took control away from the president in the treatment of unlawful combatants; then they seized control away from Congress in the ratification and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions and for determining the jurisdiction of the federal courts -- which can now determine their own jurisdiction, and the Constitution be damned.

And now, a federal judge ("but some are more equal than others") has anointed herself the Commander in Chief of the armed forces; she has issued an order to the Navy ...

[Read on.]

***

Michelle Malkin has more here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 7, 2006 at 12:55 AM in Bill Faith, Judicial Stupidity, Unclear on the concept, US Navy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 06 July 2006
 

Re: Snarky Comment on STV
Contributed by Bill Faith

Excellent analysis, John. You might want to add Illegals Class Interest to your list of dumb WFB articles. (HT: Malkin)

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 6, 2006 at 09:40 AM in Bill Faith, Unclear on the concept | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 03 July 2006
 

Senator Stevens Explains the Internets
Contributed by Bill Faith

Read it and weep, friends. Sleep peacefully, your Senate is awake.

Update: Meryl Yourish explains it all better here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 3, 2006 at 11:08 AM in Bill Faith, Unclear on the concept | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack