Blog Fight.

Blogs fights are stupid and I usually pay no attention to them, but this one is interesting because it pits the idea of feminism against Ann Althhouse.

It all started with this picture of Bill Clinton with NYC bloggers. And I have to digress here for a moment and quote Ace on the "diversity" of the bloggers. Too funny:

"All races and creeds are represented, from "pale" to "pinkish" to "pasty."
It's a Rainbow Coalition, all right, at least if the rainbow you're thinking of is a pale, ghostly emanation on the Ethereal Plane.

Ok, well Ann Althouse made a thing about all the women standing the closest to Bill, especially the one with the striking pose and clingy shirt. Well, that blogger got miffed at that and fired back at Ann. The links are all at that link of Ann's and check out the comments!

And then even Glenn got into it by using the best quote ever to describe feminism (and it's from Maureen Dowd of all all people!):

"One might almost think that feminism has become nothing more than a subset of the Democratic Party's activist base. Actually, that has become so obvious that even Maureen Dowd managed to figure it out when she famously commented: "Feminism died in 1998 when Hillary allowed henchlings and Democrats to demonize Monica as an unbalanced stalker, and when Gloria Steinem defended Mr. Clinton against Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones."

It's always amusing to read feminists try and defend Clinton. It is to laugh.

Pope Benedict Upsets Muslims

Here is the quote of the Pope from an academic lecture that is getting many upset:

"Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

I have not seen the Pope's next line being quoted, but it explains the first:

"The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

There is not one thing wrong in this statement. Why saying that violence is incompatible with the nature of God and quoting an emperor of the 14th century is controversial I don't know. By Muslims committing violence on Churches today, they only illustrate what the emperor was saying long ago.

Read the Pope's entire paper. It is excellent.


You gotta love the irony of Iran insisting that the Pope apologize for linking Islam to violence.

Update: Great. Now they are calling for the Pope's death.

The politics of torture.

Ron Suskind, author of the book "The One Percent Doctrine," about the war on terror has an article in this week's Time magazine titled "The Unofficial Story of the al-Qaeda 14." He basically outlines why our interogation practices don't work. I seriously read this article with the attitude of "convince me." Mainly because I'm not comfortable with any kind of torture. Yesterday, McCain along with others, "rejected President George W. Bush's plan to relax standards on the treatment of terror suspects, instead backing a substitute plan offering greater rights protections to "war on terror" detainees."

The President's plan outlined "tougher questioning" of detainees while protecting U.S. interrogators from being prosecuted for war crimes." This has many conservatives angry at McCain...again.

This is the thing. I think McCain knows a thing or two about torture. I think maybe, in at least this area, we should listen to him. (yeah, yeah, I know what you are thinking.. my crush on McCain)

On the one hand we don't want to become the people we fight and on the other I am not convinced we have ever come anywhere near that. To get back to the Time's article, Suskind mentions a list of techniques, but only names one...water boarding. Is that the worse one? It must be because that is the one they mention all the time. He also kept referring to "harsh interrogation techniques." He said that in one case of the al-Qaeda 14 Abu Zubaydah, "we used him as an experiment in righteous brutality that in the end produced very little." Yet he goes on to say they did get information out of Abu, but it was by convincing him that he was miraculously saved by U.S. Doctors (after being shot 3 times) in order to help our side.

Oh really. I would like to know how this author knows this. I would like to hear that from the interrogation officers themselves. Forgive me for not having full confidence in the mainstream media when they report on things like this.

Well, I want to know exactly what "righteous brutality" is. Why couldn't the reporter disclose that? Maybe it is his view of brutality, which might be slapping for all I know. The entire article is absent any description of these torture techniques. Why is that? Could it be that many wouldn't see it as "torture?" What other explanation is there?

It seems to me that both are not being upfront on this. Tell the American people plainly. Don't say "righteous brutality," say exactly what the techniques are. We can decide for ourselves if we think it is brutal.

At least Tony Snow did outline what was NOT allowed in his press conference:

" [T]he problem we have right now is that there are no standards and anybody can do whatever they want; in some cases, maybe they are. If you lay out what's going on, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, then everybody is off the same playbook. So, no, this is -- and somehow I think there's this construct in people's minds that we want to restore the rack and start getting people screaming, having their bones crunching, and that's not at all what this is about. Torture is prohibited, murder is prohibited, rape is prohibited, cruel and degrading treatment is prohibited; all those things are prohibited, and what we're trying to do is to make clear what the prohibited list is. That's a good thing, not a bad thing."

Ok, so torture, murder, rape, and cruel and degrading treatment is prohibited. SO WHAT IS ALLOWED?? One side won't say what is brutality and the other won't say what isn't.

But that having been said, is it fair to see this headline over at a Washington Post editorial today? "The president goes to Capitol Hill to lobby for torture."

This is what it is all about as I see it. Bush worries that the CIA's techniques won't comply with the Geneva Conventions, which say wartime detainees must be 'treated humanely.' Again, I want a description......details. Can you hit them? Can you scream at them? Bush's bill says the United States complies with the conventions as long as interrogators abide by a 2005 law barring 'cruel, inhuman or degrading' treatment of captives. Bush fears that with the way things are now interrogators would be legally libel. He sees people bringing them up for prosecution in the future for their interrogation techniques. He says that if that part can't be established then the program may be in jeopardy and shut down. What interogater can risk that? Without the program, he says, American could be in danger if we can't get the information we need from the terrorists.

McCain basically says that the requirement is too narrow and that"the United States should not try to limit its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Instead, they want CIA officers to abide by the common understanding of the treaty's meaning, including a ban on 'outrages upon personal dignity.'"

Well, I finally did find a "list of cruel treatments" not allowed by the Geneva Convention, but that we would like to use:

-- 'Cold Cell,' or hypothermia, where a prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees, during which he is doused with cold water.

"-- 'Long Time Standing,' in which a prisoner is forced to stand, handcuffed and with his feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours.

"-- Other forms of 'stress positions' and prolonged sleep deprivation, perhaps akin to 'Long Time Standing.'

"-- Threats of violence and death of a detainee and/or his family."

So we aren't talking acid burns, slicing off of fingers, or the the pulling out of fingernails. Which, I think many would like you to believe.

Now, am I comfortable with these things listed? At face value.....no. And I certainly see why McCain would not be. (you can surely see his position on this, right??) But then I think of how our enemy doesn't even think of the Geneva convention much less debate it. I think of how they saw off the heads of civilians and do God knows what to our soldiers. Compared to what they do to our prisoners the above list looks like an ice cream social. But then again, should we let them be any kind of standard we go by?

Are you confused on how I feel about this? Well, you should be. Because I am. I understand both sides convictions on this. Bush wants to keep us safe and McCain wants to keep us humane.

via WaPo

McCain

This morning we are getting the cast off and other stuff. While I am gone, I want everyone to tell me why they like or dislike McCain and why. BE SPECIFIC.

Thanks!

The future of flying secure.....

via Martha

Rosie O'Donnell...Listen up.

I try to avoid blogging when I am angry. Which is why I didn't blog on Rosie O' Donnell's stupid and ridiculous rant on "The View" regarding Radical Islamists and Fundamentalist Christians the other day. I am calm now, but still upset.

Here is what Rosie said, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam.."

Michelle and MaryKatherine over at Hot Air have a great video explaining their "view," but I want to go a bit deeper on the subject.

First of all, make no mistake about it, when Rosie refers to "radical Christians" she is referring to people like me. Don't think for a moment that she was referring to the likes of Fred Phelps. She was referring to Christians like myself who don't want to see gay marriage, who are against abortion, and live our lives according to our faith.

Let me get straight to the bottom line here. FACT: If Rosie lived under radical Islam they would seek to torture and kill her. FACT: There is not a true Christian organization that would seek or condone any harm to anyone who is gay in this country, including Pat Robertson, Dr. James Dobson, and the Catholic Church.

Not only would we not harm anyone who is gay, we would stand at the gate and fight to death anyone who tried to harm, torture, or kill an innocent person who happened to be gay.

And therein lies the sad irony that Rosie lives with in her delusional leftwing world.

Let's imagine a worst case scenerio. Let's imagine a world decades from now where radical Islamics got a hold of nuclear bomb and attacked us and won. Let's imagine what the United States would look like under radical Islamic rule.

Wait a second. We don't have to imagine what it would look like, we just can take a look at modern Iran.

From Independent Gay Forum:

"Protesting the hanging of two gay teens in Iran, OutRage, a british gay group led a world wide protest on July 19th of this year. The message? “Iran: Stop Killing Gays! Stop Killing Kids!”

"During the planning of the protests, OutRage proposed five demands, which were endorsed by PGLO and IDAHO. They included ending all executions in Iran; stopping the arrest and torture of LGBT Iranians; halting the deportation to Iran of LGBT and other asylum seekers."

This message was sent by a gay young man from Iran:

"In a July 6 interview in Gay City News, Doug Ireland quotes Mani (not his real name), a 24-year-old PGLO activist living in Iran: “You who live serenely and comfortably on the other side of Iran’s frontiers, be aware that those who think and feel and love like you do in Iran are executed for the crime of homosexuality, are assassinated, kidnapped, and barred from working in offices…. Be fair and tell us what difference there is between us and you. Isn’t it time that all homosexuals around the world rise up and come to our defense?”

But that's Iran, right? And Rosie acknowledges that Iran is a danger. But what she fails to understand is that radical Islam has no border, no country. Does she imagine that those Al Qaeda that we fight and kill in Iraq are not of the same mind toward homosexuality?? Of course they are. Rosie says Afghanistan and Iraq didn't attack us. No, Al Qaeda did. And they are spread all over the region of the Middle East. Read what Bin Laden said in one of his first letters to the American people after 9-11. Remember this was before the invasion. He mentions the regions where he feels America wronged his people:

This letter to Americans from Bin Laden in 2002: (emphasis mine)

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates."

In that letter he also mentions how Americans killed Iraqis by our sanctions. But here is the part Rosie might be interested in:

"We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest."

Just to wrap this up for Rosie, here is the teaching on homosexuality by radical Islam:

"Homosexuality is unlawful in Islam. It is neither accepted by the state nor by the Islamic Society.

Quran clearly states that it is unjust, un-natural, transgression, ignorant,criminal and corrupt.
The people living in the time of prophet LOT (Nephew Of Abraham) near the Dead Sea were involved in this Act and Allah punished them severely and the whole nation was destroyed.
Muslim Jurists agree that, if proven of guilt, both of them should be killed. However jurists differ on the methadology of capital Punishment."

Rosie fears the wrong enemy. She doesn't even know who her enemy really is if she thinks Christians would like to see her harmed (or killed) like the radical Islamics do. We may disagree with you Rosie, but we would fight for your right to live free and not be tortured for who you are.

Don't continue to confuse disagreement with hatred.

My laugh for the day...

From Jeff:

"Anybody else looking forward to Al Franken’s just announced book project --Gee, I Sure Do Wish I Was That Big Fat Idiot Rush Limbaugh Right About Now, Because At Least He Still Has a Job!—as much as I am? Coming soon to fine bookstores everywhere. Except, you know, in flyover country. Where they’d do the proper thing and just ignore it until it dried up and turned to bitter ash.* "

Ann Richards...

R.I.P.

I remember thinking when she was govenor of Texas that she represented everything that was opposite of what I believed and lived. When George Bush beat her in 1994 for Governor I put a poster in the back window of my car that read "There is a God, Bush won!" I couldn't believe he pulled it off! But she was the funniest opposition we ever had. A true southern wit.

The Bully.

When I was young I use to fight like crazy with one of my brothers who was 3 years older than I was. By the time I was 10 we use to actually get into physical fights. Once he got into high school and I was in jr. high things calmed down and we were fine with each other. Luckily, we have been close all of our adult life, but back then he hated that I was the spoiled baby of the family and the only girl. We fought over everything and he never had a kind word to say to me.

One day in the midst of our angry years with each other a bully in the neighborhood went after me. I was a pretty tough cookie (I use to spar with my brothers who were golden gloves boxers and my Dad was a coach), but I was small and this guy was big, so I raced home on my bike to tell my oldest brother. But it was the one who loathed me that was standing in the driveway and he was the one I told first. Imagine my surprise when he seemed outraged. He wanted to know exactly who it was and where the guy was so he could go beat his a**. I stood there shocked as I watched my brother go get some of his friends to go find the bully. My brother may have always been angry with me, but when someone else was threatening me, then all that anger was forgotten and he went to fight for me.

I tell this story because it reminds of Republicans now in a way. We really are mad at each other in so many ways. We are angry at Bush for his immigration stance and his spending habits. We are angry that he doesn't stand up to the Democrats enough and he doesn't do a better and more frequent job of explaining the war in Iraq. We are angry at McCain for his campaign finance reform. We get angry at Republicans in Congress all the time for backing down on things and compromising with the Democrats. But we can't really fight among ourselves that much because there is a bully in the neighborhood and all he does is go after Bush. Day after day, minute after minute with unfair and below the belt hits. The relentless attacks on Bush just exhaust us. We can't get mad at him because we don't have time to. We are too busy gathering our friends and going after the bully going after Bush.

Isn't this how you guys who are Republican feel? I know I do. Unlike the episode with my brother and the bully, it's not a one time thing. It's an every day thing. It's not just constructive debate or disagreement. It's mean and it's ugly. We Republicans hardly have time to hash out our differences because we are constantly having to defend a President that is attacked unfairly almost on a daily basis. A President that never defends himself because he is quite busy running a country, keeping us safe, and fighting a war on terror. He doesn't care what his critics say, but we do.

So we fight the bully every day. Maybe one day we can work on the differences between us, but it doesn't look like that is going to be anytime soon.

Update: Speaking of Republican infighting...

An interesting race to watch.

Cardin vs Steele in Maryland.

"Rep. Ben Cardin looks to have won by 8 points over former congressman and former NAACP president Kweisi Mfume, 45.8% - 37.7%"

Michael Steele (Republican) is the first African-American to win statewide in liberal Maryland.

The Democrats rejected their black candidate and the Republicans embraced ours. It will be interesting to see how the black community, who traditionally voted Democrat, reacts.

Remember when I said the post a few posts below.....

was my last word on "The Path to 9/11?"

I lied.

Victor Davis Hanson just gives an excellent look at the whole thing ending with this truth:

"There is a final consideration. We are at war. Unlike Fahrenheit 9/11 that is referenced ad nauseam by the jihadists and still a favorite among al Qaedists, or the current film portraying the imagined assassination of President Bush that played to recent applause in Canada, but gained little condemnation here in America, The Path to 9/11 won't be popular with our enemies. And that might tell us something. If we know one thing about bin laden and Al Qaeda, they hate the truth and love the lie."

Air America goes bankrupt.

Now, who saw that coming?

Oh yeah, that would be everybody.

Can't we all get along?

Apparently not.

This reminds me of when I was interviewing protestors at "Justice Sunday" in Philly. As long as they thought I was the press they spoke freely, but there was no discussion once they knew someone was conservative.

via Not Exactly Rocket Science

"A Media Crime"

It's time we start calling it what it is: (photos at link)

"You may remember the footage: A man and boy crouch in fear. Shots hit a wall far from the pair; a final round of gunfire kicks up a dust cloud that hides father and son, who are "targets of gunfire from Israeli positions," says the voice-over. When the dust clears, the boy is stretched at the man's feet. The voice says that he is dead.

This version of the story was retold around the world — and it has figured in countless wall posters, an Al Qaeda recruiting video, an epic poem. Last June an aspiring suicide bomber was arrested on her way to a hospital — to kill Israeli children, she said, in memory of Mohammed Dura.

But, according to the Commentary article, the video is a fraud."

I often wonder how many times and for how long have we been lied to by the pictures and video we see on the nightly news.

via Ace

Last word on the Dem's hissy fit about "Path to 9/11"

What he said.

"Death of A President"

Hollywood Reporter Review:

"...But "Death of a President" uses the morally dubious tactic of mixing real news footage with staged events to create an imagined assassination of President Bush.

As convincing as the manipulated footage of the president's death in Chicago in October 2007 is, the movie cannot be more unconvincing in its approach. Does it not occur to filmmaker Gabriel Range, as he takes his bows for his clever stunt, that the very forces he warns against will use his film as propaganda? Their line will be: If the enemies of President Bush can be so crass as to imagine his cinematic murder, then what value can one give to their arguments against our great leader's domestic and foreign policies? Range has just made Karl Rove's day."

Get this part:

Festival organizers have been gleefully crowing about this film since its inclusion in the Toronto lineup was announced at the last minute. But as unpleasant as this swaggering over a failed political movie has been, it's nothing compared to the unpleasantness of watching this skilled British docu-dramatist massage real footage and sound bites to envision the murder of a person who, whether you like him or not, is still very much alive.

More:

"The movie means to show how a Dick Cheney administration, in its zeal to link the killing to terrorism, scapegoats a Syrian-born man, against whom there is the flimsiest of evidence, while ignoring an American vet sickened by the needless carnage in Iraq. The film, made to look like a TV documentary filmed many months after the fact, strongly implies that the government got the wrong man. But putting the Syrian on trail allows Cheney to push through Congress a Patriot Act III, which further enhances the American police state and broadens the powers of the executive branch.

Among the clever though ethically challenged manipulations is a real presidential visit to the Windy City, with the city's leadership occupying the dais with Bush; talking-head interviews with grieving staffers and presidential guardians; and a state funeral, presumably President Reagan's, doctored so Cheney can orate over his late predecessor's coffin.

There certainly is much to admire in the skillful blend of real and fake. One's admiration ends there."

I find it so strange that someone would be compelled to make a film that gives life to a deranged fantasy of what a Cheney Presidency would look like. Now they can hate him for what they imagine he would do.

Things just get weirder and weirder.

Ambien awakens persistent vegetative state victims

Whoa!

Jamais Cascio says:

"This story, in today's Guardian, is just mind-blowing. The common sleeping pill zolpidem, sold in the US under the name Ambien, can reverse serious brain damage and wake up patients in persistent vegetative states!"

"The hospital ward sister, Lucy Hughes, was periodically concerned that involuntary spasms in Louis's left arm, that resulted in him tearing at his mattress, might be a sign that deep inside he might be uncomfortable. In 1999, five years after Louis's accident, she suggested to Sienie that the family's GP, Dr Wally Nel, be asked to prescribe a sedative. Nel prescribed Stilnox, the brand name in South Africa for zolpidem. "I crushed it up and gave it to him in a bottle with a soft drink," Sienie recalls. "He couldn't swallow properly then, but I helped him and sat at his bedside. After about 25 minutes, I heard him making a sound like 'mmm'. He hadn't made a sound for five years.

"Then he turned his head in my direction. I said, 'Louis, can you hear me?' And he said, 'Yes.' I said, 'Say hello, Louis', and he said, 'Hello, mummy.' I couldn't believe it. I just cried and cried."
Zolpidem seems to work on PVS patients about 60% of the time, and is effective in the treatment of other brain injuries. Parts of the brain considered "dead" because of zero activity (but not deterioration or necrosis) return to life. It's not a cure -- the pill must be taken on an ongoing basis -- but it is a nearly-miraculous treatment."

"As wonderful as this is, the legal and ethical implications are unsettling. Will people who have "pulled the plug" on loved ones in persistent vegetative states in recent years read this news with the horrible realization that the now-dead partner or relative might have been saved with a $5 pill? Could a lawyer for family members opposed to the termination of care for a PVS patient sue the family members who chose to do so, and win?"

Jeff at Protein Wisdom's.....

...conversion into the light.

Text of the President's speech last night...

...in case you missed it.