Saddam Letter Exclusive

From our vast army of paid Imperial informants, comes news of an intercepted letter from Saddam Hussein. Military censors have blacked out all but 17 words. Using a secret Sith mind trick, Rusty Shackleford has been able to piece together the missing 9 lines.

Uncensored quotes are in bold. Data gleaned from the dark-side of the force are in italics:

In the name of God the Merciful,
What up G-Dawgs?
Did the crime, doing the time. I can handle it. I'm hard.
The food is aight, but what's up with all the pork?
As a new disciple of Elijah Muhammad, I no-longer eat the White Devil's food.
This one gaurd tried to get a piece of my action. When she pulled out a dog leash,
I was like, "Yo-yo, step back girl before I go Halabja on your ass." Jew Bitch.
To my small family and my big family, salaam alekum.
How is Bufay's diet coming along? Atkins might help.
How is al-Zarqawi doing with my plans? Operation Ichabod Crane?
Anyhoo, at least we have my buddy in-Laden-beh (wink) to keep things moving.
As for my spirit and my morale, they are high, thanks to greatness of God.
And say hello to everyone.
XOXOXO-Saddam Hussein
________________________________________
On a serious note, James at OTB makes a good point that needs to be reemphasized:

Certainly, that fact that he’s able to write letters indicates that he’s being treated far better than he deserves.

Indeed.

Germany edges out Arkansas in per capita GDP

I'd say this calls for some cowbell, only this other dude has the market cornered. (hat tip MikeO)

Korean Kim Sun-il Beheaded

UPDATE: 10 More Hostages Face Innevetable Death.

News from our Religion of Peas desk: Kim Sun-il Dead (hat tip Backcountry Conservative)

This Post to be Updated Frequently:

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - An Iraqi militant group has beheaded its South Korean hostage, Al-Jazeera television reported Tuesday.

From the WaPo:

Kim was shown in the videotape kneeling, blindfolded and wearing an orange jumpsuit similar to those issued to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The tape showed five hooded men standing behind Kim, one reading a statement and gesturing with his right hand. Another captor had a big knife slipped in his belt.

The video as broadcast did not show Kim being executed.

Al-Jazeera said the video claimed the execution was carried out by the al Qaeda-linked group Monotheism and Jihad.

Lest you forget, Monotheism and Jihad is the group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man who brought you such beheadings as Nick Berg....

Kim's kidnappers had initially threatened to kill him at sundown Monday unless South Korea canceled a troop deployment to Iraq. The Seoul government rejected the demand, standing firm with plans to dispatch 3,000 soldiers starting in August.

South Korea receives the prestigious "We're Not Spain" Award for not caving in to terrorist demands.

Kim Sun-il, may your soul rest in peace and may your killers rot in hell.

James Joyner has links to the blog reactions. As always, the Command Post will bring you news as it breaks. Jeff Quinton is also a good resource. When the pictures surface, I'm sure Kevin at Wizbang will be first to notify us.

From Jeff Quinton: U.S. forces have found his body west of Baghdad per Fox News.
From LA's Channel 7 website:

The man's body was found by the U.S. military between Baghdad and Fallujah, west of the capital.

Is it just me, or could this be seen as evidence that al-Zarqawi had killed Kim previous to the deadline they gave the South Koreans? Also, many have speculated that Kim was held hostage in Fallujah. Yes, let's negotiate with these people.

Retaliation update: Possible Good News

The United States launched an airstrike Tuesday in Fallujah on a safehouse used by followers of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi-- the second strike against the terror network in three days, the U.S. military said.

Don't Blame Islam Mmmm-kay Update: Amanda Doerty writes one the stupidest things I've ever seen written by someone I'm linked to:

But I do hope we all remember that the people who did this do not represent the beliefs of Islam or of all people in the Middle East. Most of them are probably just as apalled as us--they're just more used to seeing it happen to people they know. There are extremists in most every religion or belief system out there. The problem is not any particular ideology; the problem is any version of any ideology that does not respect life and individual liberties, and would have those who hold it use physical force against others to make them adhere to it.

Yes, that's why those extremist Buddhists are always...wait a sec.

Perhaps she should read this Religion of Peas and Beheadings Update via James at OTB:

Afghan soldiers beheaded four Taliban fighters after guerrillas cut off the heads of an Afghan interpreter for U.S.-led forces and an Afghan soldier, a government commander said on Tuesday.

Hmmm, let's see....that's, what, 6 heads cut off in one day?

Or how about this poll as translated by the folks at the World's Most Alarmist Website:

22 June 2004 - IslamToday.net poll shows 91% support and approve of the Johnson beheading

Of course, that is an unscientific poll....mind you.

Bomb Al Jazeera Now Update: From their English website which is notorious for toning down their rhetoric:

A South Korean translator working for a company that supplies equipment to US occupation forces in Iraq has been executed after a deadline set by his captors passed.

Notice how Kim Sung Il is linked to the US occupation, thus justifying him as a legitimate target?

In a videotape received by Aljazeera, the resistance group Jamat al-Tawhid and Jihad said it was fulfilling a pledge it made yesterday that the 33-old-year South Korean translator Kim Sun-Il would be beheaded if their demands were not met by South Korean government.

Yes. They wrote 'resistance group'.

Why You Need to See & Hear Update: Misha say's it well:

His Imperial Majesty was unfortunate enough to hear a soundtrack of Mr. Sun-il pleading for his life while his cowardly, ragheaded follower of a pedophile captors were threatening to saw his head off.

In our opinion, that recording should be played over and over again to remind us all of the nature of the pigs that we're fighting, but it won't happen.

Amen, brotha. Amen.

Please see my Discurssive of Terrorism: Or, How Chomsky Killed Paul Johnson for a more thorough explanation of why I think you should see these gruesome images. You think you're mad now? After you see you will feel worse. Rage is the appropriate response.

Why Putin Loves Bush

Q) Why did Putin endorse Bush? A) Chechnya. Putin Orders Military to Find, Destroy Chechen Insurgents

Do you think it only a coincidence that this offensive comes only a week after Putin reveals information that bolsters Bush's Iraq claims? Bush sees Chechnya as part of the larger War on Terror, Kerry does not. Speaking from first-hand experience, Chechnya is a big deal in Russia.

Countries do not have friends. Countries have interests.

Misleading Adjectives Watch

Misleading adjectives watch: a brief guide (with apologies to Bill at INDC).

Gordon, the Cranky Neocon, reminded me of the endless possibilities created in yesterday's post. And even though BRD would like to see the adjective mounting used to it's fullest potential, other words also come to mind.

Feel free to add your suggestions. As per EEOC rules, adverbs and nouns accepted.

1) casualties mounting - No Lazarus effect. Total casualties increase by definition.

2) national debt rising - What, no chapter 11 for the Feds? Even if the deficit was $1, the national debt would increase.

3) costs increasing - And if you add 1 + 2, you get 3. Genius.

4) firebrand cleric - Jerry Falwell, right? (from Cranky Neocon)

5) moderate cleric - eg, Mussolini was a moderate fascist.

6)presumptive nominee - Because 1/1,000,000,000,000 is still a chance. (from Cranky Neocon)

7) hardline regime - Doesn't using the word regime to describe a country's government pretty much say it all?

8) moderate regime - Same as #7--only they're our SOBs.

9) Bush regime - Saddam...Bush...six of one, half a dozen of the other.

10) al Qaeda links - Bush regime lying that Saddam planned 9/11.

11) al Qaeda ties - No links to Saddam as the Bush regime would like you to believe.

12) rogue regime - See, #7--only any country that is not the UN's biyatch. (idea stolen from Ace of Spades)

13) executed hostage - Prisoners are executed. Hostages are murdered. (idea stolen from Balloon Juice via Backcountry Conservative)

BS Alert

When is a phrase stupid? When the phrase is a truism that is used to bolster a spurious argument.

Here's what I mean.

Pat Buchanan in today's WND (hat tip Grimey):

Yet, now we have 138,000 soldiers there, with casualties mounting, the cost rising and the hostility to America's presence growing

Ok, am I the only one to see the problem here? I have noticed the same phraseology used over and over again in the unbiased press.

What is wrong with this? casualties mounting

Unless people are coming back to life, then by definition casualties always mount.

The way the phrase is used is to imply that things are steadily getting worse, but the phrase itself means nothing of the sort. For instance, if 599 people died last year but only one died this year I could rightly say, "Casualties are mounting."

Why/ Because 600 is greater than 599, even though there may be a dramatic decline in the rate of casualties. If we are looking at total deaths, this is true.

The same is true of this phrase: cost rising

Costs always rise. If we spend one dollar this year, and 500 billion last year, the costs rise. If we are looking at total dollars spent, this is true.

Rising and lowering all depend on one very important assumption: the baseline used for comparison. Depending on which baseline you choose, you will get very different outcomes.

So, next time these types of phrases are used to describe any one of the following, please, put your BS detector on and be careful what you believe: budget deficit, debt, casualties, support, hostility, trade imbalances, employment, inflation, etc.

APSA Panel on Anti-Semitism

It's funny, because it's true. The thing is, I think I went to a panel just like this at the last American Political Science Association meeting I went to. I once had to sit through one paper on how the Earth Liberation Front was the vangaurd of the coming revolution. No joke.

Chomsky kills Paul Johnson, Part Deux

You think my earlier rant on the use of language was whacko?

*sigh*

From the I hate being right department comes this news (via Drudge). Notice the words used to describe Johnson, not as a non-combatant, but as a man involved in the murder of children. Noam Chomsky believes the same thing:

In an article posted Sunday on a Web site used by Islamic radicals, Abdulaziz al-Moqrin called Johnson "an infidel, a warrior of the military."

Johnson, who had worked on Apache helicopters for Lockheed Martin in Saudi Arabia, "works for military aviation and he belongs to the American army, which kills, tortures and harms Muslims everywhere, which supports enemies (of Islam) in Palestine, Philippines, Kashmir," al-Moqrin wrote.

The article, posted on the Web site "Sout al-Jihad," or "Voice of Holy War," was written after the kidnapping but apparently before Johnson was killed on Friday.

Al-Moqrin replied to critics urging the release of Johnson, saying: "Do those people want to see this infidel carry on the killing of the children and the raping of the women in Baghdad and Kabul?"

The thing is, I think it is reasonable to assume that al Moqrin actually believes this. If you watch al Jazeera, if Edward Said was the source of your information, or if you read 'moderate' Arabic newspapers than you would also believe this. The American military kills, rapes, tortures, and oppresses everywhere they go.

Mickey Mouse on Al Jazeera

From the better late than never file come two notable posts that my crazy wacko theories on the value of propaganda during war are starting to gain an audience.

First, according to Allah there was a time when working for the Disney corporation meant more than enjoying the benefits of gay-marriage. My own thoughts on the video were posted here a couple of weeks ago. Why should you buy the collection of Disney WWII propaganda films?

All in all, worth getting. If only to remember a time when Hollywood took sides during a war.

I think I have been saying this, since, um, like my very first real post here:

In a real war, against real enemies, we need some good old fashioned, sweet down-home, funny, bigotted propoganda. Tell me, what would the "greatest generation" think of liberal wusses cringing at words like "kraut" and "nip"? Remember all those great bugs-bunny cartoons demonizing the Nazis? "Nazis is zee craziest people!" Rip-roaring fun with a message: the enemy is real and we are better than they.

Second, James Joyner points out that my literal calls for blowing up al Jazeera are beginning to get some attention in the mainstream press. According to James:

The mere fact that al-Jazeera calls itself a news organization does not make it so. Stopping them from broadcasting enemy propaganda isn’t the same as trampling free speech.

I have been saying since day one that al Jazeera must be treated as an enemy, however on one major point James gets it wrong. Stopping al Jazeera is trampling on free speech. It is the very definition of trampling on free speech. But that's just it. Free speech cannot exist in a time of war.

When we declare war we are declaring an end to all the niceties of peace. If we can legitimately take away our enemies lives in combat, then certainly we can take away their right to speak out against us. See this post for a more lengthy argument see my post 'State of War'.

Deepest Sympathy

Thomas, the force behind Rumcrook's Tavern, has some very sad news. His wife passed away. All I can say is that I'm sad. Very sad. My heart goes out to you and yours.

Please include him and his family in your prayers.

The Discurssive of Terrorism: Or, How Noam Chomsky Killed Paul Johnson

Images matter. Words matter. Context matters.

Words create the context by which we interpret images.

Have you seen the pictures of Paul Johnson? I urge you to grit your teeth and look. It will affect you emotionally. It will fill you with righteous indignation.

Have you seen the pictures of the dead Abdulaziz al-Moqrin, the man who killed Paul Johnson? I urge you to grit your teeth and look. It will affect you emotionally. It will make you happy.

Two photos of two dead men. One makes you angry, the other happy.

Why?

Context.

Now imagine the photo of Paul Johnson again. You know nothing of him, nothing of the events surrounding his death. You are also a Muslim. Under the photo is the following caption:

Enemy of Islam killed for his role in the murder of Muslims by Apache helicopters.

Would that make you feel differently about his death?

Now imagine the photo of Abdulaziz al-Moqrin again. You know nothing of him, nothing of the events surrounding his death. You are also a Muslim. Under the photo is the following caption:

Holy warrior murdered by Imperialist forces.

Would that make you feel differently about his death?

Context makes a world of difference in your emotional response to the same events. Context is intimately connected to the words we use.

So how does any of this relate to Noam Chomsky? You can't really believe Noam Chomsky is responsible for Paul Johnson's murder, do you?

No. Noam Chomsky is used here as a symbol of a discourse. This is a discourse, a way of speaking, in which terms such as imperialism, neo-colonialism, and crusaderism are used to describe America to the rest of the world. It is a discourse which suggests that Israel is a colonial puppet of America in the Middle East. It is a discourse which suggests that the Middle East is under attack from America. It is the discourse that is to blame.

Noam Chomsky is only to blame for that portion of the discourse which he propogates by the language he uses. The discoure is much larger than Noam Chomsky.

The words we use matter. Via Allah (hat tip Cameron Wood) comes this bit of context from CNN:

Almost half of all Saudis said in a poll conducted last year that they have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden's sermons and rhetoric

Osama bin Laden and the discourses of the Left have many differences. But in the language they use to describe the world, we find striking similarities. Take out all the stuff about Allah, and you find that the differences become relatively meaningless.

This is from bin Laden:

Our nation [ed note: umma meaning the collective of Muslims and Muslim countries] has been tasting this humiliation and contempt for more than 80 years.

Its sons are being killed, its blood is being shed, its holy places are being attacked, and it is not being ruled according to what God has decreed.

Secular translation: Muslim nations are under attack by imperialist forces and suffer under the brutal hand of colonialism.

See Chomsky's view of US colonialism here. Are there major differences in the language they use?

How brutal is the US, according to bin Laden?

One million Iraqi children have thus far died in Iraq although they did not do anything wrong.

Why did they die? The cause is the US.

Tell me how Noam Chomsky fundamentally disagrees with this? Here is his view of who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.

On the Palestinian question? Bin Laden:

Israeli tanks and tracked vehicles also enter to wreak havoc in Palestine, in Jenin, Ramallah, Rafah, Beit Jala, and other Islamic areas and we hear no voices raised or moves made.

An interview posted at "USCRUSADE" with Chomsky. Are there major differences in outlook?

Now, suppose all the images you see of dead terrorists in Palestine are juxtaposed with the words used by Chomsky or by Islamic fundamentalists like bin Laden. Would you agree with this statement from bin Laden?

The least that one can describe these people [Americans] is that they are morally depraved.

They champion falsehood, support the butcher against the victim, the oppressor against the innocent child.

May God mete them the punishment they deserve.

If the world was as the Left described it, wouldn't it be just to attack America?

In WWII the US routinely bombed factories engaged in the production of war material. This was just.

If the Saudi government is a tool of American Imperialism, if helicopters are used by that government to oppress Muslims, if Paul Johnson was working for the forces of imperialism to oppress Muslims, then why should his death be seen as anything more than just recompense? Here are the words of the terrorists who killed Paul Johnson, as posted at Talk Left:

This infidel [Paul Johnson] received his fair punishment in this world before moving to the other world. He got to taste some of what the Muslims suffered from the Apache American helicopters that grilled them with their fire flames, embers, and missiles. The American infidel was one of four people in charge of the maintenance and system development of those helicopters.

If this is your worldview, if these are the words you use to describe the world, at best you will say you disagree with the means, but not necessarily the ends. You will claim that Paul Johnson's death was tragic, but no more tragic than that of Abdulaziz al-Moqrin.

From bin Laden:

As for the United States, I tell it and its people these few words: I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed

The Left is in fundamental agreement with bin Laden. The US is an imperialist force. The US is the great oppressor of our age.

The discourse runs deeper, though. Much deeper. Describing the US as an Imperialist aggressor permeates all aspects of Muslim discourse. It is prominent even in quarters that reject bin Ladenism. From an article in Islam-Online, on the recent announcement to launch another Islamic satellite station:

The scholar said the project is part of efforts to counter the "colonial war" against Muslims, bearing in mind its economic, social, military and religious repercussions.

For an even deeper account of the narrative used by both the Left and Terrorist sympathizers, scan this website. Do you think it a mere coincidence that an image [see left column] of a Middle Eastern man, sword in hand, is stomping on an American flag is right next to a promotion for Michael Moore's new movie?

The reason that so many Leftist intellectuals are cited is because there is a community forged when the same words are used to describe the same events. Even when one rejects terrorism as an unjust means, the language which shapes the context of conflict in the Middle East is the same. There is a reason Noam Chomsky is routinely cited as a source of authority for those that oppose the US presence in the Middle East. It is the same reason why Americans find it difficult to gain cooperation from the Iraqi population, or that Saudi Arabia finds in gaining the cooperation of it's own citizens. There is a shared view, between the Left and between terrorist sympathizers, of the Americans as oppressors. This view is the product of images plus a dialogue that describes those images in such a way as to produce an emotional response akin to what I felt when I saw what happened to Paul Johnson.

Saudi Arabia is mounting a campaign to reduce support for terrorists: (via the Commissar):

The Saudi government's intense public relations campaign to discourage people from supporting extremists isn't swaying some of its citizens, who still consider the militants heroes despite appeals from Muslim religious leaders.

But how can the Saudi government simultaneously try to discourage support for barbarisms against Americans while simutaneously propogating a discourse that describes the American occupation of Iraq as leading to the death of 13,000 innocent civillians? If America is guilty as charged, if America is the cause, then why not fight Americans wherever they may be found?

The words we use matter. The words we use create context. Context matters.

The next time you hear an academic use words like colonialism or imperialsm, the next time you hear an intellectual use words that suggest America as the cause of so much suffering in the world, the next time a Leftist speaks of the death of children at the hands of America, don't let them go unchallenged. Remind them of the consequences of their words.

Loose lips may not always sink ships, but they do create the context in which it becomes easier to justify sinking ships.

Loose lips create context. Context, may indeed, sink ships.

Islamic Debate

(Scroll to next post for Paul Johnson updates)

As an update on my earlier post Al Falluja Squadron 'Violates Islam', Beheads Paul Johnson, I offer the following moral dilemma: Should Muslims make the entire Arabian Peninsula infidel free? Or should they just kill all who dare enter the region around the two holy cities?

Hmmmm....this is a toughie.

From the Religion of Peas desk comes word via Jihad Watch of this debate in the Strait Times. As a sidenote, there is a deafening silence coming out of leading Christian seminaries on just how we ought to expel all non-beleivers. Also, the Dali Lama continues to avoid the pressing issue of how best to force all non-Buddhists into submission:

The fatwa [see two posts down] was attacked by a number of readers who said all foreigners came to the kingdom with bad intentions, acting as the vanguard for the US military.

'Whoever gives them security is an apostate,' read one posting.

Others scoffed at the idea that an official visa somehow bestowed legitimacy on visitors.

'Who gave them the visa? It is the infidel agent regime,' read one posting in part.

'So I tell the mujahideen to keep killing them until the Arabian peninsula is cleared of the filth of the crusaders.'

Others suggested that the militants try to convert Westerners to Islam rather than killing them, because that way they would be spared from going to hell, and the image of the faith around the world would not be so tainted with blood.

One religious leader, identified as Abdel Rahman bin Saleh al-Mahmoud, said Prophet Muhammad's followers had commanded that all non-believers be expelled from the Arabian peninsula.

But it has never been clear, he wrote, whether that includes just the holy city of Mecca or some larger area. In addition, foreigners visited at the time of the Prophet, he noted, it was just the idea of permanent communities that was abhorrent.

Oh...My...God....Yes, Anger is the Appropriate Emotional Response

UPDATE: Why do you need to see? Because there is something in the human psyche that requires visual confirmation. There is something emotionally real about seeing. Remember Abu Ghraib? It wasn't until after the photos were released that a back page story became the outrage of the nation.

You 'remember' 9/11, but you do not have the same emotional response that you once had.

You need to see because you need to be reminded of the emotions you felt on 9/11.

Pics (Scroll down page) of Paul Johnson here (via M.H. King).
|
|
|
|
OUTRAGE!

Look at the images.

Force yourself if you must.

Think about what you are seeing.

Feel the anger.

This is what justified anger feels like.

This is the appropriate emotional response.

Remember this feeling.

This is why we fight.

UPDATE: Backcountry Conservative is keeping a running list of blog responses to the news. Good resource.

James at OTB is also running updates on the story

UPDATE: Drudge has pics.

UPDATE: Drudge seems to be slow. Kevin at Wizbang has backup photos 1, 2, 3 (Warning: clicking will take you directly to pics)

6/19 UPDATE #1: GOT ONE!!! I would have slept much better last night had I heard about this before I went home for the evening. Via Grand Vizier:

Saudi security forces killed the kingdom's top al Qaeda leader Abdulaziz al-Muqrin and two other militants on Friday shortly after the group beheaded U.S. engineer Paul Johnson, a senior security source said.

6/19 UPDATE #2: Via the incredibly talented Joe Gandelman who is guest blogging over at Dean's World, comes this link to a new site on my radar screen. Betsy Newmark says what a lot of us have been thinking:

Is it just me or does it strike you that the fact that Saudi Arabia could so quickly kill the lead Al Qaeda terrorist in their country? Do you think they could find these guys so quickly is because they know exactly who they are and have tolerated their presence in the country until now when it is finally dawning on them that it is not good for their own economy to have foreigners scared to be in the country? Just wondering.

Media Dhimmitude Watch

OUTRAGE UPDATE: There is a fifth column in our midst. NY Times characterization:

The militants holding Mr. Johnson threatened on Tuesday to put him to death within 72 hours unless the Saudi authorities released hundreds of their comrades being held in jail

Why did the 'militants' kill Paul Johnson?

Resentment toward the United States has intensified in the Middle East in recent weeks with the disclosures that Iraqi prisoners were mistreated by American jailers.

DOUBLE OUTRAGE UPDATE: Or, why we need to bomb al Jazeera. I'm not kidding:

Johnson was seized last weekend by Saudi dissidents who promised to kill him by Friday if the kingdom did not release its al-Qaida prisoners...

The statement said al-Qaida had killed him because of "what Muslims have suffered from American Apache aircraft and their rockets".

"This act is to heal the hearts of believers in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula."

Al Falluja Squadron 'Violates Islam', Beheads Paul Johnson

RIP Paul Johnson. Two stories which show the inherent contradictions embedded in Islamic culture.

CNN story via Dean's World. Notice the name of the cell that killed Johnson:

Three chilling photographs on an Islamist Web site appear to show the beheaded body of American hostage Paul Johnson, who was kidnapped a week ago by Islamic militants connected with al Qaeda.

Abdel Aziz Al-Muqrin, the self-proclaimed military leader of al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, claimed responsibility for Johnson's kidnapping and the death of another American on the same day on behalf of a group called the Al Falluja Squadron.

Now juxtapose what was done vs. what is said. Will a fatwa be issued against the al Falluja squadron in the same way that fatwa's are routinely issued against secular Muslims?

Notice, from the following article about a letter from a Muslim friend of Johnson condemning the kidnapping, that killing Johnson is only bad because 1) he was under Muslim protection 2) he apparently hated the US. I guess there's nothing wrong with killing an infidel who loves America? From the Guardian:

In the letter, posted on several Arabic-language websites, the colleague quoted a saying attributed to the prophet Mohammed: "If they were granted (Muslim) protection, then killing them or taking their money or harming them is forbidden."

"I declare that I pledged to protect this man," the colleague wrote, warning that if the kidnappers violated the prophet's injunction, "I will never forgive you. I will curse you in all my prayers."

The writer of the letter, identified by a pseudonym, al-Mu'min ("the believer"), described himself as a colleague and close friend of Mr Johnson, who worked for the US defence corporation Lockheed Martin in Riyadh.

A Saudi-owned TV channel, al-Arabiya, told Associated Press yesterday that it had been in contact with al-Mu'min, apparently by email. In the letter, al-Mu'min said Mr Johnson had expressed opposition to US foreign policy and was interested in converting to Islam.

"I swear to God that once he said to me in public - in a popular restaurant in Riyadh: 'I hate my country's politics. I am interested in Islam. If I convert, I will go and live with my wife in East Asia," al-Mu'min wrote. Mr Johnson's wife is from Thailand. Al-Mu'min said he often invited Mr Johnson home for a family meal and gave him books containing translations from the Koran and Islamic preachers...

Statements attacking al-Mu'min's letter also appeared on websites yesterday. In one, a writer using the name Hael Spring urged the kidnappers to kill Mr Johnson and "send the beefy head of this infidel to the one who wrote this letter".

UPDATE: Jane has a good discussion of the intra-Islamic debates on just how infidel free the Arabian Peninsula ought to become.

The Ivory Tower

Fun with real IM conversations. From my buddy who teaches at a semi-decent private university on a book he assigns to his class:

buddy: it's way long with a tiny font. I used it to cap off my year-long freshman seminar.

mypetjawa: sweet. wait. you read books in class?

buddy: yeah, it's honors so they buy the books and then I read it to them

Letter from Osama bin Laden...

...from the mouth of Cooper for President:

Hi. I'm Osama bin Laden. You may remember me from such terrorist attacks as 9/11 or the USS Cole. And who could forget the way I manipulated the press and got Hillary elected to the Senate? Oops, you weren't supposed to know about that.... Just forget I ever mentioned it.

I knew it!!

Religion of Jailing Rape Victims

Coming soon to NBC Law and Order:Islamabad SVU

In the criminal justice system of Pakistan,
some crimes are considered so heinous
that the victim must be locked up.

These are their stories...

Via Robert at Dhimmi Watch comes this news on changing Pakistan's Sharia based laws specific to women. Based on Sharia law (Islamic law), Pakistan jails women who cannot produce witnesses to testify in rape cases.

Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali on Tuesday declared in unequivocal terms that the government will not make any un-Islamic amendment to the Hudood Ordinance under external or individual pressure....

He said the proposed amendments to the Hudood ordinance would first be sent to the Islamic Ideology Council for its advice before taking them to parliament's debate and approval.

He said that in a parliamentary democratic dispensation any amendment could only be brought about through parliament and the parliament itself was not authorized under constitution to pass any law repugnant to Islam

Dr. Chaos' Plans Foiled

You can't make this stuff up. From SPI (Hat tip: Bill Dauterive)

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin (AP) -- A man who admitted hiding deadly cyanide in a Chicago subway tunnel in 2001 was sentenced to nearly 21 years in prison Thursday for conspiring to knock out power lines, burn buildings and damage computers in Wisconsin.

Joseph Konopka, 27, who calls himself "Dr. Chaos," will serve the first 11 years of the sentence at the same time he finishes the 13-year prison term from Illinois. He will serve about 23 years in prison.


Above: 'Professor Chaos' and sidekick 'General Disarray' plot 'Operation Mayhem'

Prosecutors said Konopka was the self-appointed leader of a loose affiliation called "The Realm of Chaos," which recruited youths to engage in property damage.

Does Bennigans deliver to prison?

The 'C' Word

This blog is now #2 when you do a Google search for the 'c' word. Thank you Elizabeth Hoffman, you're a total c**t!

Simon Says

Go read Simon. Please. For the children. Think about the children!!

Theory Rant v. 5.3--Null Hypothesis and 9-11

From fellow theory ranter-in-arms, Scott Talkington, comes this excellent post. Note the gratuitous use of the words null hypothesis. And for your information, there is nothing sexier than a falsified null hypothesis! Doesn't the sound of it just get you all tingly? Null hypothesis.

For my own discussions on why Type I and Type II Errors really matter in every day life, see my post on Acting Under Conditions of Uncertainty. For my thoughts on causal assumptions, see my post on the Logic of Destroying America.

Here's what Scott has to say:

I've been saying for some time that the evidence that Atta met with IIS on the day in question was far from conclusive, and essentially not strong enough to reject the null hypothesis that no meeting took place. But a word of caution about the recently touted conclusions of the 9-11 Commission is probably in order...

First, the claim that Atta was in Florida, if based on cell phone records and ATM withdrawals, doesn't seem conclusive either...Bottom line, unless there's a photo record that Atta was in Florida, or something equivalent to a photo record, we don't yet have conclusive evidence that he was here and not in Prague.

That does not mean that we can reject the null. We still assume that the meeting in Praque did not take place... because the consequences flowing from that assumption being in error are minimal. [ed. note: Type I error]

I suppose it's impossible to prevail upon the left to recognize the essential difference between an absence of evidence and evidence of absence, but the 9-11 commission statement below amounts to the former, and not the latter:

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

And note that they do NOT claim that there's any evidence whatsoever that, Saddam rebuffed the request for weapons and training-camp space. Here's the unvarnished status of what we currently know about a Saddam/Qaeda link:

We currently have insufficient evidence to falsify the null hypothesis that no operational link existed.

And that's it. It's not very sexy, is it? [ed. note: Yes, it is!]

What does the statement mean, and what doesn't it mean?

1. It does not mean that we know conclusively that no operational link existed, which is clearly what the left would like it to mean. And they're apparently not above selling it as communicating such a meaning....

2. As I said above we have no proof, of any nature, that the request made by Al Qaeda for assistance was rebuffed. We can make that inference, because it's a component of the null hypothesis that has not been falsified... but that's vastly different from a claim that the null hypothesis has been proved...

I'm going to repeat this one more time, just in case anyone has missed it:

We currently have insufficient evidence to falsify the null hypothesis that no operational link existed between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

Of course, you might ask, how can you prove a negative? And that is a great question in abstract, but it's always a bad question in practical application. Why? Because unless you are 100% sure of something (which is borderline impossible) you must make an operational assumption about the consequences of being wrong.

Assumption 1: There was an operational link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. If it turns out that the assumption is wrong, what is the worst case scenario? 600 lives and billions spent on a wasted effort (making a further assumption that the war was only based on this premise, which it was clearly not).

Assumption 2: There was NO operational link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. If it turns out that the assumption is wrong, what is the worst case scenario? Nuclear holocaust or other 9/11 scale terrorist attacks on American soil (making a further assumption that WMD existed pre-war).

Clearly, the risk error is greater if assumption two is wrong. I don't think there was an operational link between al Qaeda and Saddam, nor do I think that Iraq had WMD. [For a great case that WMD were there and have been moved to Syria, see MB²'s post Guns and Morons.] However, I still think the war was justified based on those premises alone. Why? Because I might be wrong! And if it turns out that my hunches are wrong--if we fail to act because I claim 'innocent until proven guilty'--then the consequences flowing from that are horrendous to say the least.

Can you imagine if John Kerry were President and it turns out he was wrong?

NY Times Headline: Thouseands die in chemical attack on Washington!

President Kerry's response: "Oops, my bad."

Michael Jackson Trial Secret Evidence

Screenshots of Michael Jackson's Moonwalker video game here and here. (Warning: not pr0n, but offensive)

The prosecution rests it's case. (Found via Dean Esmay)

Gay Gene Discovered, and It's French!

Canadians in the Francophone Province are over twice as likely to identify themselves as gay as those in the rest of the Great White North:

Just 1% of Canadians say they're homosexual....Quebec reported the highest number of homosexuals or bisexuals at 2.3 per cent

Loyal Minion Bill Dauterive has another take:

What do you call the other 99%? Liars.

Oh Bill, you 'mo-pho. Wait, aren't you French.....?????

[Sith bow to Bill Dauterive and Cameron Wood)

Gratuitous OJ/Hasselhoff Watch

Kevin at Wizbang asks:

What where you doing when you heard about O.J.'s infamous slow speed chase?

He then answers the much more important question, what was David Hasselhoff doing:

Heir Hasselhoff was rocking Atlantic City on Pay Per View and no one was buying. According to Hasselhoff, right after coming off stage he ran into Donald Trump watching O.J. and said, "tell me that's not live!"

[Note to Kevin: shouldn't you add quotes to "rocking"?]

What was Rusty Shackleford doing?

My wife and I were over at a friend's house eating dinner. It was Japanese food. Our wives asked us to turn the TV off. We said, "but that's the Juice"

--blank stare

-"OJ."

--blank stare

"Heisman Trophy winner."

--blank stare

"The guy from those Avis commercials"

--blank stare

"He was in the Naked Gun movies."

--blank stare

--TV off

*sigh*

Women.

[Note to Jeff Goldstein: What was your deadbeat neighbor doing?)

Ace on Andrew Sullivan

Yes, I said Ace 'on' Andrew Sullivan. Lest anyone doubt that Andrew Sullivan cuddles a pink elephant stuffed-animal when he dreams of luscious young Republican Hill staffers at night, Ace reveals the myth of the 'independent' Andrew Sullivan. Notice in his first post who got him started on this whole thing? *cough* *a-hem* [note to Brian B: I think that deserves, say, a 5 spot? *wink*)

Start in order 1) Here 2) Here 3) Here 4) Here.

Preemptive strike: Yes, Rusty Shackleford is a 'mo-pho.

Update: Also 5) here 6) and here

Allah also decided to get in on the action here [Note to Allah: What will Andrew Sullivan's virgins look like?]

....it's been a busy day.

Yawho?

Yahoo mail is down again. *sigh* Sorry about not returning e-mails.

truth vs. TRUTH

This is true. And by 'true', I mean 'made up'. And by 'made up' I mean TRUE. The 'words' of John Kerry as imagined by Scrappleface:

"If you examine my 16-year record in the Senate, you'll see that I'm just as effective when I'm not there as I was when I was there," said Mr. Kerry. "The major legislation on health care, energy and homeland security that I didn't introduce then, I'm not introducing now. The colleagues who I didn't rally to my causes then, remain unrallied."

This is also true. And by 'true', I mean 'not made up'. And by 'not made up' I mean not-quite the truth. From the Boston Globe (via James at OTB):

Kerry brushed aside the Republican attack, saying that his absenteeism in the Senate is a necessary part of his presidential campaign effort, which is aimed at ”serving the citizens of Massachusetts and the country in the proposals I’ve laid out.”

”I’m running to provide responsible leadership, and I intend to continue to do that,” said Kerry...

Theory Rant v 5.2 beta--the Logic of Destroying America

Jane has an excellent post. Go read it! What fascinates me most about her observations are the implications they have on social science theory in general. It also reveals the logic of terrorism and of America hating in general. Commenting on a Nicholas Kristof piece in the Times:

So the NY Times is finally addressing the slaughter in the Sudan with an oped by Nicholas Kristof and how is it described? Not as a jihad against Sufi Muslims. Not as a failure of the UN. Not as a failure of the non-Western International Community (the Arab League, the African regional organizations). Not as negligence of the EU. The title is Dare We Call It Genocide? Its Bush's fault from the opening sentence....

Kristof does not assign any responsibility to the Sudans neighbors, the Arab League, the UN or the EU. If people are dying, it must be the US's fault- this time as a failure as global policeman, a role vigorously opposed by the left.

Jane points out that Kristof makes a causal assumption. The implications are profound because understanding underlying assumptions reveals a person's world view. Perhaps a very brief review of scientific theory is in order.

1) We observe some phenomenon. This is the effect. Statistically we call this the dependent variable. In this case, the effect/dependent variable is genocide in the Sudan.

2) We come up with possible causes. Statistically, we call the possible causes independent variables. In this case, possible causes/independent variables include: US foreign policy, UN policy, Arab League policy, EU policy, Sudanese policy, Islamist policy, etc.

3) Theory links a cause/independent variable to an effect/dependent variable. Theory explains how some change in the cause affects some change in the effect. In this case a theory could be constructed for how changing any of the aforementioned causes/independent variables would change the effect/dependent variable: genocide in Sudan.

This is why the Kristof piece is so revealing. Because he assumes that if the US would simply declare what is happening in the Sudan to be 'genocide', then the genocide would end. Thus, what is causing the genocide? US foreign policy. He does this with no real explanation, no real theory, of how changing this one independent variable is supposed to end the genocide. It is simply taken for granted if the US does something, then of course the desired outcome would inevitably follow. Of course, for the UN to declare something a 'genocide' you would need the support of the Security Council--France, Russia, China....See the problem here?

If one makes the case that every bad phenomenon (effect/dependent variable) has the same cause then we have a serious theoretical problem. What you are then proposing is not a theory of causation of a particular isolated thing, but rather, a general theory to explain all things simultaneously. And when two outcomes/effects/dependent variables are different, yet the cause/independent variable remains constant that's when the fit hits the shan and biases are revealed. Look, if the US has the same foreign policy (the proposed cause) yet we have two different outcomes (the effect) then how could you possibly believe in the credibility of the theory? It makes no sense!

The leftist intelligentsia proposes a general theory of global affairs. For lack of a better term, I call it the 'America is bad, mmmm-kay' theory of global politics. This theory proposes that everything that is bad in the world has one source: America. The reason why America causes all the bad things in the world changes from one leftist to another. For some it is 'dependency', for others it is 'global hegemony', still for others it is the 'imperialist imperative'--but in any case these are all variations on the same theme: trying to explain the link between the US and all the bad things that happen in the world. We cause all ill effects. In other words 'America is bad, mmmm-kay'.

It is bad theory. It is based on bad assumptions. It is based on dangerous assumptions.

Why dangerous? Let us assume for a moment that leftist theory is correct. Let us assume that 'America is bad, mmmm-kay'. America is the cause of all the problems in the Middle East. America is the cause of genocide in the Sudan. America is the cause of world-wide environmental catastrophe. America is the cause of slums in Southeast Asia. America is the cause of the AIDS crisis in Africa.

Now that we have identified the cause, we can identify a solution.

If America is the cause of all that is ill in the world, the solution is obvious: destroy America.

Makes perfect sense.

The impulse to destroy America is not the product of simple madmen with delusional minds. The impulse to destroy America is the logical outcome of a theory which blames America for all that is wrong with the world. Terrorism or the call for the destruction of America, then, is quite sane and perfectly reasonable--IF the underlying causal theory is correct.

Our war is not just against individuals. Our war is with a theory. Such wars cannot be won by arms alone.

Haggis vs. Heinz-Kerry

I'm conflicted. Bill at INDC links to Haggis pics. Iowahawk elaborates on Mrs. Kerry's sex life. Which is worse? I may never eat or 'sleep' again.

To Russia With LoveHoney

Two chicks. Pink racing suits. A trunk full of dildos. A drive across Europe to Russia. Fundraising for Breast Cancer.

The ingredients for a hot blog.

Wonkette to negotiate book deal?

Silence. That is the sound of jealousy coming from KGB Headquarters.

Wonkette on Michael Moore

Yes, I'm linking her. Shut up already! I already told you I like Wonkette, who I think is funnier than me and looks better in a thong. She's a total c**t in my book!

From Wonkette comes this little tidbit on Michael Moore's apparent photoshopping off himself at least 100 lbs in a promotional flyer for his new 'documentary':

So now, by "controversy," we are of course referring to how he lost all that weight. Pills? Stomach stapling? Voodoo? Because we know he must have lost it. It's not like Michael Moore would ever manipulate an image to make a political point or anything.

Good eye Wonkette.

I know, I said "Wonkette ON Michael Moore."

The "C" Word

Censorship? You can find my thoughts on that in this post or in this one. The other "C" word? I've no idea what your talking about. I call everyone I like that!

ZOP: Zionist Occupied Parks

The tentacles of the ZOG knows no bounds. I think there is an entire chapter in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' about the National Park Service. Somewhere in the back.

Cameron sent me this Citizen Smash link:

SALT LAKE CITY— The American Civil Liberties Union plans to sue the National Park Service in Federal Court if it does not change the name of Zion National Park in southern Utah. The ACLU expressed concern that the name is offensive to many Arab-Americans.

“The word Zion is intimately associated with Judaism,” explained Sarah Jacobsen of the ACLU. “And this is a particular sect of that religion that advocates the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from the region of Palestine. The park’s name could hardly be more inflammatory.”

I used to live very near Zion National Park and have been at least two dozen times. I can say with some certainty that no Palis have been ethnically cleansed from the area. However, I hear the Joos have kicked out more than a few Paiute Indians and have built a 'security fence' to protect the Zionist settlements in occupied 'West Gaza' (the so-called state of 'Utah').

Supreme Court Raises Taxes

While many bloggers were busy pontificating about the Supreme Court's ruling on the Pledge, a much more important case made the back pages.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court openned the floodgate of litigation for taxpayers to sue state governmentments in Federal Court over the use of tax credits for religious schools. From the WAPO:

The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 yesterday that taxpayers can use federal courts to challenge state taxes, a defeat for Arizona and its tax break that helps fund private religious schools. The decision could leave tax credits in more than 40 states vulnerable to federal court challenges...

I'm sorry. This is much more troubling than removing the term 'under God' from the Pledge. Remember, we are talking about tax credits here, not write-offs. That means that every dollar given to these private religious schools is given back to the tax-payer in the form of a credit against taxes paid. To put this in perspective, this is what is happening in just one state of 40 that have the credit (from Tucson Citizen):

At issue is an income-tax credit that helped raise 58,122 donations totaling $29.5 million for scholarships and grants last year, most of it going to religious groups.

The tax break, enacted in 1997 at the urging of school-choice advocates, allows a dollar-for-dollar bottom-line tax savings of up to $500 for an individual and $625 for a married couple.

The Atheist lobby is trying to raise taxes in Arizona by almost 30 million dollars! Between $500-$625 dollars per family, per year!

Are you at risk? If you live in these states, be afraid. Be very afraid. From Newsday:

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

UPDATE: Linked by James "I have a great job and you don't" Joyner in the Beltway Traffic Jam

Yahooooooooo!

Good News: My Yahoo mailbox went from being 70% full to only 3% full thanks to the pressures of G-mail. 100 MB is now standard for Yahoo's freebie account. I love the pressures of the market.

Bad News: Yahoo obviously didn't prepare well enough for the upgrade. Their site seems to have slowed down considerably, and is up and down.

UPDATE: This explains it:

A domain name outage Tuesday morning left many popular Web sites such as Yahoo, Google, Microsoft.com and Apple.com temporarily inaccessible, according to a Web research company.

The Psychiatry of Blogging

My name is Rusty Shackleford, and I'm a blogoholic.

I don't know why I feel compelled to blog. I'm married so I don't get any chicks this way. Is it just narcisism? Probably. Look at me! Read me! Love me!

Man. Am I really this pathetic? Yes.

Time for some self-therapy. First, identify the root of the problem. Ok.

Why did I begin to blog? It all started many moons ago when me and three friends from graduate school were arguing over whether or not Noam Chomsky really believed the stuff he was writing, or if he just hated America. So, picture this: Three guys on the right and one guy on the left sitting around yelling about Chomsky, but with the occasional reference to "pulling out" being giggled at in the appropriate Beavis and Butthead, "you said" voice.

One guy was a down the line Republican, but in the closet (about being Republican you mo-phos!). One guy was a paleo-con with more than a little love for Pat. One guy was a religious libertarian, which made him the only guy at libertarian gatherings not fascinated by the many marvelous uses of hemp. The other guy was a leftie, but unlike most lefties he was pretty pleasant to be around--except when you brought up Chomsky.

Which brings us back to Chomsky. Yes, give Noam Chomsky the credit for my initial forays into blogging. No, it had nothing to do with East Timor. It had everything to do with shutting our friend the hell up. Look, when you think about what Chomsky says it can really be boiled down to one thing: America is bad, mmm-kay.

Why do I say this? Well, a theory is supposed to tell you why something happens. Theories explain the connection between cause and effect, between X and Y. In science we call that thing which is effected the 'dependent variable'. The things which affects, or causes some change in the dependent variable, we call the 'independent variable'. Pretty simple if you think about it. The problem with Chomsky's theories, in my mind, are that if you take any dependent variable the independent variable is always the same: US foreign policy. This is problematic because it is no longer a 'theory' in the strictest sense, because a theory needs to explain differences. But if you ascribe the same cause to every phenomenon you have a serious problem.

Imagine, if you will, if I ask you why an apple falls? Well, gravity you say. Bingo. Now what if I ask you why an airplane flies? You say, gravity. See the problem? If I ask how come East Timor was invaded and you answer because Nixon was complicit I might say, well, ok. But then if I ask you how come Israel occupies the West Bank and you say, because of US foreign policy I begin to think, "broken record." Why did China invade Tibet? US foreign policy. Etc. If the same thing causes every effect then we no longer have a theory. What we have is a 'framework' or a 'world-view.' At a minimum, a theory must be able to produce falsifiable hypotheses. If a theory is unable to be falsified then you ought to begin to question the motives of the author of the theory.

Which brings me back to this: Noam Chomsky hates America.

So, what does one do when he wants to prove that Noam Chomsky hates America? Google. And why did I want to prove that Noam Chomsky hated America? The most important reason why a man does anything: spite.

So I found a great website. A website that I had forgotten about. Leftwatch.com. Let me tell you something. If you ever want to win an arguement about how Noam Chomsky is a so and so who hates America, check out that site. Well researched and well written.

Wait. Hold on. I thought this post was about blogging? Easy! You can go back to looking at pornquotes in a minute. I was getting there. '

So, it turns out that Brian Carnell, the author of Leftwatch also has a blog. See how this works? So from there I start clicking around. Then I come across a blogspot account which advertises "free blogging." The rest is blogging history, so to speak.

I put up my first blog. Nope, My Pet Jawa was a later creation. My first blog is long gone. I must have put up, what? Like at least 15 posts. It was actually a group blog. Me and one other guy. Most of the posts, if memory serves me, said stuff about how the French should die and how America ruled--oh, and lots of giggling references to body parts.

So, let's get back to the initial question. Why did I begin to blog? Spite and Noam Chomsky. Big props go to Brian Carnell, though, now that I think about it.

Then. Just as it began. It ended. The blog sucked. Lost interest. Whatever. But, I continued to read blogs.

Pretty soon I clicked on to LGF. From LGF I found Allah, Misha's Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, and Aaron's Rantblog. From Allah I found an advertisement for The Politburo Diktat and a link to Jihad Watch.

Grad school was over. My buddies and I all moved on, but one of my friends and I started an instant message thing. Compulsively. So instead of us sitting around and making jokes about Chomsky to piss our lefty friend off, we would sit around our respective offices and IM back and forth the newest ideas for pissing off our friend via e-mail. But now our conversations were less and less about Chomsky and more and more about the 'Clash of Civilizations'. We sounded a lot like Huntington, only with more references to male genitalia than is usually thrown around Harvard.

It was one day, I think in early January, when my friend started a blog back up. He was using a blogspot account to coordinate readings and stuff for a class he was teaching. He had also decided that maybe he needs to have a place outside academia where he could write polemics rather than peer-reviewed type junk. So he messaged me and suggested I start the blog again, too. Yup, I'm a copycat.

I had just been reading Nicedoggie.net (Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler) and had just seen the episode of South Park about Osoma bin Laden. If you remember the episode, you would have noticed that the subtext of it was a tribute to WWII propoganda cartoons. There was considerable debate buzzing about Cartoon Network's refusal to show some films that were patently offensive to Asian-Americans. I was so pissed. Of course they were offensive! They were supposed to be offensive! Numbnuts. You think it is easy to kill people who are just like you? You think you will support a war when memebers of your family die just to kill some loveable fuzzballs who are 'misguided'? The WWII generation understood the value of propoganda. We do not.

So, it was in this context that my buddy and me were messaging back and forth about how we were a bunch of pussies and that we lacked the backbone to truly paint our enemies in the worst light.

So, what is the most offensive thing you can call Muslims? Hmmm...let's see...oh, yeah, Jawas. Or as Cartman says, "Jawas. You know, sandpeople." Whoa. Pretty damn offensive. A good start.

But there is something worse than being called stupid biggoted names. It is to be patronized. What could be more patronizing than saying something like, "Sit jawa sit. Good jawa!" Not much in my book. Hence, the first version of this website is Nice Jawa (apologies to Misha!). That website lasted all of five minutes. There had to be a better name. Something that was equally offensive....hmmm, my pet jawa! Nice. My buddy and I both liked the ring to it. Offensive? Check. Patronizing? Check. Over the top? Absolutely.

Check out my first real post here where I said:

So far I have ellaborated two assumptions that go into writing this trifle of a blog:
A) The war against Islamists threatens the short-term security of the US and the long term survivability of Western culture.
B) The root cause of Islamism is Islam. Not poverty. Not oppression. Not Zionism. Islam.

Last, and really the gist of this blog is this:
C) In a real war, against real enemies, we need some good old fashioned, sweet down-home, funny, bigotted propoganda. Tell me, what would the "greatest generation" think of liberal wusses cringing at words like "kraut" and "nip"? Remember all those great bugs-bunny cartoons demonizing the Nazis? "Nazis is zee craziest people!" Rip-roaring fun with a message: the enemy is real and we are better than they.

So, poke fun at Islam. Make fun of Muhammed. Paint our enemies in the worst light possible. Tell jokes about them. Create art that ridicules them. Sing songs not suitable for prime-time. Offend people that need offending.

We will have no WILL to fight if we do not beleive that are cause is right and no STOMACH for the horrors of war if we do not beleive that our enemies are real.

Ah, to be filled with youthfull idealism again!

Since this isn't a history lesson, but rather an online effort to pshycho-analyze myself won't you get to the point! The point? Oh, I had rather forgotten about that. Let's see...what was the point. Oh, yes! Why do you blog? Chomsky. Spite. Carnell. South Park. Misha.

Whew. That wasn't so hard, was it? Now that the first task is finished what do you propose to do to end this addiction? Hmm. How a bout a 'Chomskyesque' solution? You know, get at the 'root problem'. So, kill Chomsky, Carnell, Misha, and Parker and Stone. Buy any book recommended by Oprah to get rid of spite.

Whoa, hold on a second fella! Let's not go to extremes. There's no need to resort to reading anything that Oprah recommends. Calm down buddy.

Ok. Calm.

Now what do you intend to do to stop this thing? Hmmm. You know, it has been the Commissar who has been my biggest supporter. He, more than any one else, has given me the most encouragement over the past several months. Maybe what is needed is not a Freudian model of discovery, but rather a behavioral modification program. I'm in a mutual dependency cycle!

You know, who cares what the root causes are, what enables you to continue with the behavior now? The answer: All the bloggers who continue to support me in my bad habits. Biggest enabler of them all? Commissar.

Solution? Kill Commissar. Great idea. Two-birds with one stone, really, what with the whole 'kill a commie for mommie' thing and all.

Still a little drastic. Why don't the enablers get together for a blogging intervention? Hmmm. Interesting. But how will that work online? Commissar, MB², Iowahawk, Ace, Jane, Grand Vizier, Maximum Leader, BRD, Bill, Simon, Rum Crook, Iron Bear, Cameron, and the rest--all the blog-enablers....all of them get together for what, a teleconference?

"You know Rusty, we think it would be in your best interests to stop blogging...."

"Me stop blogging? Me? What about YOU GUYS? How about getting me a Pepsi? All I want is a Pepsi!!"

You're right. Never work. Could turn ugly. Sigh.

I have a better idea. Keep blogging. Neglect all your academic work. Get fired. End up working at McDonalds. No time to blog anymore. Cured.

Yeah. That's much better. I like that one.

No, this isn't denial. This is a 'long-term solution'.

All Your Penis Are Belongs to Us!

Iowahawk has the goods on the media.

Look for the Commissar's Abu Ghraib prison stuff on e-Bay. While you're at it, don't forget to pick up your limited edition Rasputin dong.

MB² forgets that getting your pony-tail trimmed doesn't count as a 'haircut'.

Simon says that some in North Korea chant 'Leader' to the tune of Batman.

Kevin makes me rethink my stance on gay marriage. [Note: This is good gay]

Religion of Peas update:

Jeff Quinton on the religion of Mall Rats.
Douglas of No Pasaran notices a possible break in the Nazi-Islam alliance.
Religion of the WWW.
Zionists trying to kill Palis with second-hand smoke.
Pakis nail 55. Captain notes one in geting 'nailed' in particular.
Religion of Please Don't Kill So Many Infidels.
Aaron on the Religion of Van Gogh.
Religion of Lyndon LaRouche.
Religion of Brotherly Love.
Religion of All Your Adjectives Are Belongs To Us.
Michelle on the Minority Who Want Us Out. Keep dreaming babe.
Religion of Europe.

Hayek the Homophobe

Q: What do F.A. Hayek and Rusty Shackleford have in common?
A:They are both confirmed 'mo-phos!

Via Vodkapundit comes this link: Objections to These Unions: What Friedrich Hayek can teach us about gay marriage.

I have been pondering my own political stances of late. I have always thought of myself as both a Burkean and a libertarian. Which seems patently absurd, because one can't simultaneously argue the merits of tradition while being in favor of radical reforms. But, not so fast. There is a common philisophical assumption in both libertarianism and Burkean conservatism: no one person has a monopoly on knowledge. So, for the libertarian, the market becomes the place where collective wisdom is displayed; but for conservatives, that collective wisdom resides in institutions and cultural norms. In either case, "truth" is the product of the interaction of individuals in a social setting. Hence, as Rauch puts it:

No expert or political leader can possibly have enough knowledge to get up every morning and order the world from scratch: decide whether to wear clothing, which side of the street to drive on, what counts as mine and what as yours.

It seems odd, then, that Rauch would come to the conclusion that Hayek would probably be FOR gay marriage. His arguement seems to boil down to this: gay marriage is NOT a radical departure from our cultural norms. It is simply tweaking it's boundaries.

But to argue that letting two men marry each other isn't really that radical an idea is to miss the entire evolution of mankind from the swamps to West Hollywood. It is completely ahistorical. It is radicalism in its purest form. Even more radical than Communism, because at least with Communism we had some historic link to societies with communal notions of property. Polygamy and polyandary is much more rooted in history than gay marriage. Marriage has always been between men (however numbered) and women (however numbered).

Before you go pointing to Greece, let us remember that Greek society (even in Sparta) did not tolerate homosexuality as it is presently practiced. It was much more like jailhouse society. Men could have bitches (usually young boys), but as the old saying goes, "it is better to give than recieve." Adults who got as well as gave were seen as deviants.

The collective wisdom of history is that homosexuality is deviant behavior. It seems to me that forcing radical social change on this magnitude is something that would frighten Burke and give pause to Hayek. Five justices and Aaron Spelling productions notwithstanding.

Dawn of the Morning In America

(Via Allah who's recent return from the dead makes us wonder who's brains he's been eating): New Endorsement

Make that 27...

and climbing!

Wish I was there..

but Bill at INDC makes me feel like I was with his photo-essay. He also points to more pics of the Reagan funeral procession at Mark the Pundit and Calico Cat.

My buddy, who was there, had this to say about the event: "It was much more than I expected, and totally fitting for a man who resurected our country." Amen. Goodbye Gipper.

Bishop on Islam and Clash of Civilizations

Robert, over at Dhimmi Watch, posts this interview with Cesare Mazzolari, Bishop of Rumbek, Sudan. Need we remind you that the Religion of Peas is responsible for genocide in that country and that up to 1 million non-Arab Muslims are on the brink of starvation (link via Jane)? The original interview can be found here. This is one Catholic who doesn't pull any punches (note: if you read the original transcript of the interview you will also notice this Bishop is a leftist in the truest sense of the word, so this is not coming from some right-winger):

Q. – Is it exaggerated when people talk about a clash of civilizations, as between the West and Islam?

A. – “No. This is just the beginning. The Church has defeated communism, but is just starting to understand its next challenge – Islamism, which is much worse. The Holy Father has not been able to take up this challenge due to his old age. But the next pope will find himself having to face it.

What is this "Clash of Civilizations" that the interviewer mentions? "The CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE REMAKING OF WORLD ORDER" by Samuel P. Huntington is required reading for all Sith Paduans. Huntington's argument was first made in this article which is good if you can't get hold of the book. The full article is posted at this website. Foreign Affairs summarizes Huntington's thesis:

World politics is entering a new phase, in which the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of international conflict will be cultural. Civilizations-the highest cultural groupings of people-are differentiated from each other by religion, history, language and tradition. These divisions are deep and increasing in importance. From Yugoslavia to the Middle East to Central Asia, the fault lines of civilizations are the battle lines of the future. In this emerging era of cultural conflict the United States must forge alliances with similar cultures and spread its values wherever possible. With alien civilizations the West must be accommodating if possible, but confrontational if necessary. In the final analysis, however, all civilizations will have to learn to tolerate each other.

Huntington summarizes his central claim:

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

Robert Spencer over at Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch does a great job informing us of the ideological roots of our present problems. In his view, Islam as an ideology is the problem. To some extent I agree, especially because culture is informed by ideologies. However, read how Bishop Mazzolari answers this question:

Q. – Recent statistics say that only 20% of Muslims in Italy respect the Koran’s teachings, just as only 20% of Catholics go to Mass every Sunday. Hence they are Muslims, but in name only.

A. – “But their Islamic culture remains. Religion is only a part of their civilization. No one can erase their belonging to the umma, the community of Muslim believers.”

This is a remarkable observation on the part of the Bishop. Islam is not only a religion, but a cultural identity. The umma is the "community of Muslim believers," so non-Muslims are outside the community--kind of like being outside 'the family' so to speak. This is worrying, if true, because it implies that it is not just radical Islam or Islamists who we need to fear--but the vast majority of Muslims who see themselves first and foremost as "Muslim", part of a larger "nation". That is, we should not be surprised that many Muslims find a Jewish state so offensive, that they recoil at our occupation of Iraq, and that they hate our dominant position in the world--while at the same time they ignore genocide, brutal dictatorships, and all sorts of interstate conflict. Why? Because we are OUTSIDERS. We are the OTHERS. And not just 'we Americans'. The 'OTHERS' are all non-Muslims--even those living in Islamic societies. If you doubt that being a religious minority in an Islamic society is bad, then how do you explain this?

And, what's worse in the Islamic world than in any other civilization is that Islam explicitly teaches its own superiority. Of course, ALL religions teach their own superiority. The reason I belong to the faith that I do is that I think that it's right and that the others are wrong. But that's just the point. Islam isn't just another religion. It is a civilization. It teaches civilizational superiority. And not just in the same way that you might say Westerners think of their commitment to individualism superior. What some might call 'Occidentalism'. No, they think of their civilization, the umma, as THE nation chosen to RULE over all other nations. It seems to me an inherently fascist worldview.

Of course, only a minority of Muslims advocate violent jihad as a means toward that end. Yes, when I clicked through this page (via the Grand Vizier) I was dumbstruck by the means with which some will employ. In my book, though, it is not just the means that suck but also the end! I don't know about you, but I don't want to be 'tolerated' by a moderate world-wide Caliphate.

Another interesting remark from Bishop Mazzolari came in response to a question about the feasibility of exporting democratic institutions to the Islamic world

No. This is idiotic. Islamic people base their decisions only and exclusively on the umma. They don’t even know what individual rights are. It’s absurd to teach them the first amendment of the American Constitution, which says Congress can make no law to prohibit freedom of worship or to limit freedom of speech or the press. They have absolutely no comprehension of this.

Not a good sign. Hopefully he turns out to be wrong, and that Muslims can find something in their culture that can lead them to liberalism. Articles like this give me some hope that we can find many Patrick Henry's in the Islamic world--people devoted to individualism. Of major concern to me, from this quote, was the Bishop's emphasis on the umma. Again, in his view, this sense of putting the community interest beyond self-interest is a challenge for those of us who would like to see liberalism thrive in the world. How can one talk of the individual right of religious preference to a whole civilization that has no concept of individual rights? And if you think I overstate the case, check this out:

Q. – Are there Catholics who convert to Islam?

A. – “Yes, unfortunately. Pushed by hunger, at least 3 million have headed north and have had to profess the shahada, the public profession of Muslim faith, in order to find jobs. These converts are then fire-branded, literally being stamped on their sides like cows so as to distinguish them from infidels...

It should noted that these converts need to be firebranded because they are black, which in the Sudan generally means "not a Muslim." See, that tattoo on my ass? Stop calling me kufr! Perhaps these unfortunate dhimmis ought to head over to the Spoons Experience for a brief lesson on how to 'pass'.

Oh, and is being a dhimmi really all that bad? Come on, you know, I thought Islam 'tolerated' Christianity and other non-believers?

You should note that my hair has turned white. The greatest punishment Arabs can inflict is oppression, a sense of falsity. If they can fool you, they do it with will all their might. They are proud of their ability to trick you, to behave like liars and compliment you. Al Turabi [Islamist leader in Sudan] will take Bush for a ride, wherever and whenever he wants. And he could do much worse things. I, rather than being tricked and playing the fool, prefer being slapped in the face. Muslims fill you with fear, they keep you in a permanent state of uncertainty. It’s a continuous psychological affliction, worse than torture.

Tonight's homework: Read Huntington's article! If you cannot read the whole article in the next few days, I suggest you ruminate on Huntington's ending remarks. Do you agree with his policy prescriptions? Does he get it wrong in believing that peaceful coexistence is possible? Is this, perhaps, an option with Confucian civilization, which does not seem overtly expansionist, but not with Islamic civilization, which I have argued sees itself in messianic terms? Is he empirically wrong when he concludes that the relative military strength of the West will decline in comparison with other civilizations?

As I was reading IMAO today, I couldn't help but 'feeling' that Frank's policy prescriptions are dead on right, but that this is exactly what Huntington DOESN'T want us to do. Huntington wants us to treat this new threat in much the same way that we treated the Cold War. But as Frank notes, this "is not a cold war." You decide.

In the short term it is clearly in the interest of the West to promote greater cooperation and unity within its own civilization, particularly between its European and North American components; to incorporate into the West societies in Eastern Europe and Latin America whose cultures are close to those of the West; to promote and maintain cooperative relations with Russia and Japan; to prevent escalation of local inter-civilization conflicts into major inter-civilization wars; to limit the expansion of the military strength of Confucian and Islamic states; to moderate the reduction of Western military capabilities and maintain military superiority in East and Southwest Asia; to exploit differences and conflicts among Confucian and Islamic states; to support in other civilizations groups sympathetic to Western values and interests; to strengthen international institutions that reflect and legitimate Western interests and values and to promote the involvement of non-Western states in those institutions.

In the longer term other measures would be called for. Western civilization is both Western and modern. Non-Western civilizations have attempted to become modern without becoming Western. To date only Japan has fully succeeded in this quest. Non-Western civilizations will continue to attempt to acquire the wealth, technology, skills, machines and weapons that are part of being modern. They will also attempt to reconcile this modernity with their traditional culture and values. Their economic and military strength relative to the West will increase. Hence the West will increasingly have to accommodate these non-Western modern civilizations whose power approaches that of the West but whose values and interests differ significantly from those of the West. This will require the West to maintain the economic and military power necessary to protect its interests in relation to these civilizations. It will also, however, require the West to develop a more profound understanding of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying other civilizations and the ways in which people in those civilizations see their interests. It will require an effort to identify elements of commonality between Western and other civilizations. For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with the others.

UPDATE: Jane has her own thoughts on the Clash of Civilizations. Must read.

Playing with my 'light saber'

In Sith training today. My hands are full, what with trying to keep Boba Fett's force off my ass. No bloggie-bloggie today.

Will the Last Straight Blogger Please Stand Up!

What is going on in the world? Am I the last straight blogger?

Let me explain something: there's "good gay" and there's "bad gay."
This is good gay.
This is bad gay.
Good gay.
Bad gay.
Really bad gay!

Capitol Being Evacuated!!!

IM from my buddy in DC, who lives a couple of blocks from Capitol Hill:

the capitol is being evacuated and I'm hearing sirens

Developing...

Update: Fox News: U.S. Capitol Being Evacuated

Update: "Sources" tell Matt Drudge Rusty Shackleford that a plane had entered restricted airspace...probably just flew off course.

Update: "Sources" tell Rusty Shackleford to stick to his usual schtick and not to try to out-drudge Drudge. At least I'm not writing posts on outting Boba Fett!

Terrorist Plot Foiled, Eyes Saved

Above: Newly appointed Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, left, and newly appointed Iraqi President Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer foil an attack by known terrorist, Mo Howard. Luckily, the pair had just been trained by Coalition forces in the classic "Larry Fine" defense.

How many bullets does it take to free 3 Pollacks?

Zero.

Sitemeter Shiites

Is it just me, or is sitemeter acting kinda funky? Possibly taken hostage by angry Iranian students?

Morrissey Gets Confused, Kills a Horse

I'd like to wish you an unhappy funeral.
I'd like to wish you an unhappy funeral.
because you're evil
and you lie
and if you should die
I may feel slightly sad
(but I won't cry).

Loved and lost and some may say
when usually its Nothing
surely you're happy
it should be this way?

I say "No, I'm gonna kill my dog"
and: "May the lines sag heavy
and deep tonight XXX"

I've come to wish you an unhappy funeral.
I've come to wish you an unhappy funeral.

because you're evil
and you lie
and if you should die
I may feel slightly sad
(But I won't cry)

Loved and lost
some people say
when usually its Nothing
surely you're happy
it should be this way?
I said "No"
and then I shot myself
so, drink, drink, drink
and be ill tonight
from the one you left behind
from the one you left behind

Religion of Piece...

So while 1 million Sudanese are threatened with imminent starvation, what are the headlines over at al Jazeera?

• American shot dead in Riyadh
• Israeli ministers quit over Gaza pullout
• Israel develops new cruise missile
• Hizb Allah hits back at Israeli targets

"By their fruits ye shall know them." I think that's in the Koran...somewhere...um, near the back or something.

Mickey Mouse on the NY Times

Lileks has a great review of the Disney wartime propoganda films. Who is behind all the war-time naysaying? Hmmmmm, could it be HITLER?!?


Above:NY Times circa 1943? (via Lileks)

With friends like these...

Egypt raids bookstores, confiscates un-Islamic materials. Don't worry, they're OUR Jawas.

Minimum Security Caves?

US pounds them in the ass. No conjugal visits here.

Serbian Jew Double-Talk

Think I've found the new logo. Kind of Vader meets WWII propaganda. What say?

Uncle Ronnie, A Leftist Tribute

I am sad. Very sad. I even cried.

What are other bloggers saying? The Commissar has the run-down. Check it out. What more can be said than to you he hath said? I have nothing to add.

Listening to NPR this morning, though, you'd have thunk everybody loved Reagan. Perhaps it is people's sense of propriety that keeps them from saying nasty things when a person dies. But as various libs and lefties pay homage in the coming weeks, we should never forget what they said when he was alive. We cannot judge what people think of a man by his funeral oration.

So, what did the lefties in the US and abroad really think of Reagan? The following is a photo-grab essay of the man's life--according to the left:


Reagan's Policies



Warped Perception of the World



Liar!



Big Tobacco Lackey!



Genocidal Maniac



Cowboy



Warmonger



Cowboy Warmonger



Oblivious Homophobe



Fascist



Ist Faschist



Le Fascist



B Movie Actor



Did I mention Liar?



Freudian Slip



Greedy & Dangerous



Divorced Filanderer

Let's not be fooled by the left's platitudes. We know what they really think?

PS-Insert "W" in any of the above. Has anything changed?

Linked at the Beltway Jam. Jam on it. What can I say? Even in my bloglight mode I'm a link whore.

McLaughlin Leaves Group, Joins CIA

From our vast army of paid Imperial informants comes news that John McLaughlin will be named interim chief of the CIA. Mr. McLaughlin is best known as host of the syndicated program "The McLaughlin Group", a low rated yet highly influential show among inside the beltway movers and shakers. He gained cult-like status in the early 1990s when Saturday Night Live began running parodies of the McLaughlin Group, featuring a Dana Carvey in an uncanny impersonation of the new CIA chief designate.


Above: John McLaughlin, new CIA chief
News of the appointment flashed through punditry circles like a bolt of lightning. Talking head, member of the McLaughlin group for the past five years, and long time Presidential wannabe Pat Buchanan appeared physically distressed. "What qualifications does John have? I mean, I worked for Nixon and Reagan, and I've been in syndication a lot longer than John. I should be CIA chief. Also, I am not a Jew."

Tony Blankley, Editorial Page Editor at the influential Washington Times, and also a member of the Group, was more optimistic in his judgment for the prospects of a revamped CIA under John McLaughlin.

"John is the right man at the right time. The problem with the CIA," said Mr. Blankley in reference to the past five years under George Tenet's oversight, "was an institutional culture in which nobody questioned the fundamental assumptions of the intelligence gathering process. It was one big happy family, with one of their own in charge. John will definitely shake things up."

In a My Pet Jawa exclusive interview, the CIA chief designate sat down with Undersecretary of Domestic Propoganda, Rusty Shackleford:

RS: Congratulations on your new appointment. The news has been quite a shock inside the beltway. Do you care to comment or do you have anything to say to those who question your qualifications for this post?

JM: They are wrong! I predict I will do a fantastic job, John Paul II will finally pass on, and that an American Cardinal will take his place.


The correct answer is three!
RS: Er, ok. What about George Tenet? What do you think of his performance?

JM: On a scale of one to ten, one being the equivalent of the Carter plan for energy independence and ten being the reincarnation of HarryTruman--Eleven!! The buck will stop here.

RS: Much of the pressure in Washington pushing for Tenet's resignation surrounded various intelligence failures on WMD in Iraq. If the President had asked you if there were WMD in Iraq, how would you have responded?

JM: Wrong! On a scale of one to ten, one meaning we're as certain of WMD as Noam Chomsky is of the existence of God and ten being metaphysical certaintude in the form of a burning bush on Mt. Sinai--the correct answer is three.

RS: Three? What exactly does that mean

JM: Wrong! Predictions. You have five seconds, Mort the Mouth Kondrake, Go!

RS: Um, who are you talking to?

JM: Wrong! Washintonienne will be revealed as none other than Senate Judiciary Chair Orrin Hatch's secret alter ego and occasional lover.

RS: Er. Ok, well thank you.

JM: Wrong! The DNC will reveal that it took secret campaign contributions from the Chinese mega-shipping firm, COSCO, and then diverted said funds to build the already sizeable war-chest of Presidential hopeful John F. Kerry...

All Your Fish Are Belongs to Us

Went fishing yesterday. Score? 5 bass (16 pounds worth!), 1 catfish, and a turtle. Dinner? Fried bass, black-eyed peas, and fries.

Life is good.

The Blog Days of Summer

As part of my ongoing effort to simplify my blog life for the summer I decided to join the syndication revolution and get an RSS reader. Since the fascists here won't give me administrative access to my own computer, I'm relegated to using a Bloglines account. Don't get me wrong, I've been using it for the last, what? 30 minutes? And can see the advantages right away!

What pisses me off, though, is that so many of my blog buddies aren't syndicating their sites! Come on, help a brother out. Syndicate. Syndicate. Syndicate.

UPDATE: I just found out for us lame Blogger users that if you have your syndication preference set to "Yes" you just add "atom.xml" to the end of your url extension for the feed. Easy. For instance, mypetjawa is syndicated at : http://mypetjawa.blogspot.com/atom.xml

All Your Gifs Are Belongs To US

Sad day at the Imperial Ministry of Propoganda. It looks like the Vader for President campaign website is down for good. In the short-term this means I am without a logo, since I had grabbed my banner image from their server. In the long-run this doesn't really affect the Vader campaign. I mean, you can either vote for Vader or for Kodos, either way the election is simply a way to reduce the need for a bloody takeover. What are you going to do, vote third party?

In the mean time, any suggestions for a new theme banner? Something I can rip-off from some unsuspecting server out there would be preferred.

Update: MB2 asked that I join him in electing Tyler Durden president (see banner on right). What do you think?

Switch to Glenn Reynolds Mode

Yes, dear reader (Mom) and other Imperial lackeys (those paid by Mom) it is time, once again, to switch to Glenn Reynolds mode. The Imperial Undersecretariat of Domestic Propoganda hears the faint echo of academia calling (publish something or get fired, loser!). It is time to take off my "Blogger" t-shirt sent to me by my friend (singular) and Vans tennis shoes-- the distinct robes of the blogging community-- and put back on a faded Nader/La Duke T and three strap Berks--the distinguished mantle of the sacred ivy tower.

So, expect blogging to be light for the rest of the summer. Posts will probably no more than a sentence or two. Acronymns a plenty (IMHO, FETE, RoPMA, etc.). The occasional musing when necessary.

I'll be around, but other priorities call. Later.

Wonkette Naked

The Commie-Pinko-Bastard has an 'interview' with Wonkette. Don't drink milk while reading. Was the Jessica Cutler interview too expensive for your proleterian tastes?

The Birds Is Coming!

John "F" Kerry promulently displays his middle finger to Vietnam Vet:

Democratic senator - and certain presidential nominee - John F. Kerry gave the middle finger to a Vietnam veteran at the Vietnam Memorial Wall on Memorial Day morning, NewsMax.com has learned.

What does the "F" stand for again?

WWII Propaganda Poster Tribute

Both of my grandfathers fought in WWII. I never met my mother's father. He was Marine killed in action in the Pacific. My mother was only 4 years old when he died. My father's father was in the Army Air Corps and flew bombers. He never saw action. He later went career and retired to Colorado Springs after serving in the SAC for many years. My father was a Marine. He served between Korea and Vietnam.

I'm proud of them. All of them. On this memorial day I wish I had the chance to know my grandfather, to thank him. I wish the Japs hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor. I wish the Nazis hadn't decided to conquer Europe. I wish Communists hadn't tried to dominate the world. I wish Islamofascists weren't out to subjugate me and my family to sharia law. But I will never forget that it is THEY who are to blame. My parents generation were told never to forget December 7. We should never forget September 11.

How did they maintain their will to fight through four tough years? The following is a tribute to them. The originals can be found here. We might learn the hard lessons of war from these images.


Avenge September 11


We Are All in the War On Terror All the Way


Poke Fun of Thine Enemy


Deliver Us From the Axis of Evil


This Means You Chomsky


I Said Shut Up Chomsky!!


I'm Serious Chomsky, Shut Up!!


Yes, This is a Threat Chomsky!!


Read #2 Drudge


The "G" Word


Jawas Execute Nick Berg-We'll Get You Jawas!


Boohoo! What About Prescription Drugs?


Why We Fight!


When the UN was an Ally to Freedom


CNN Infobabe?


Al Sadr is Watching You

Events start wars. People win wars. Never forget, never surrender.

Update: Shamelessly linked at the underemployed PhD's Beltway Jam

Freedom Of Stupid Speech

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi, in exile from Iran where she is wanted for blasphemy, uses her new found freedom of speech to say this:

...terms such as "Islamic terrorism" should not be used....

Right, perhaps Zen Buddhist terrorist would be more to her liking?

Ebadi also told the audience not to believe in the theory of a clash of civilizations. "That is used to justify war," she said

Insert head in sand.

Quote of the Day...

...or, what are they putting in the Kimchi these days?

I became a Muslim because I felt Islam was more humanistic and peaceful than other religions.

More on the Religion of Peace here and here. But don't worry, no tautologies here.

Libertarian or Conservative?

I have often asked myself this question. Thanks to this little quiz (via Ian at Inoperable Terran) I am closer to answering it:

16: A cup with that only contains half a cup of water is...

CONS[ervative]: half full.

LIB[era]L: half empty.

L[i]B[e]RT[arian]: an example of shortages caused by government control of our water supply.

COMM[unist]: an example of inequitable wealth distribution caused by the inherent social injustice in free enterprise.

A: Libertarian.

No Wife and No TV Make Rusty A Something Something

Mrs. Shackleford is out of town, along with Jr. Shackleford and Little Miss Shackleford. The TV is out. What's a heterosexual to do? Blog. The only good thing to come out of the crisis is that I didn't have to watch the humiliating defeat of the Lakers Saturday night.

So, in my dull-boy state I have been relegated to surfing the old blogosphere. These are all blogs I actually read on a semi-regular basis. Here's all the news that's fit for Jews (except Rick James)!

If I was to vote for a Democrap, it would definitely be this 'tard who confirms that Al Gore was a recent victim of a bioterrorism attack. I think I just rented that movie starring Awana Suckdiqui, Coop.

It looks like Allah may be back. I've missed him. Mostly 'cause I like to troll around his site hoping to hook up with one of those virgins that constantly surround his posse.

BRD hooked me up with P.J. O'Rourke's musings. Did I just say I hooked up with P.J. O'Rourke? Yeah, I know MB2, you were 'into' O'Rourke long before it was cool.

Speaking of gay Freudian slips, his Grand Maximum Flashness over at Nakedvillainy has the goods on that film, based on this screenplay written by Homer Simpson, about this guy, dressed in a skirt, who has this hot wife, who sleeps around, and her name was Washingtonienne or something, and her face was so hot that the dude launches a thousands ships, so that he could fight USC....I think it's called "The Bus That Couldn't Stop." Fight On! (Doh!)

What can you say about a guy who lives in a country that doesn't celebrate America's Memorial Day? Commie! P.S.-Can I get a loan?

And since it's Memorial Day, you better have a gander over at what Eric the Slightly Neurotic Monk has to say. Note the lingo of 1868 and the gratuitous use of the word "traitor." Fascist Andrew Johnson administration!

How does a Jew celebrate Memorial Day? He does exactly what the ZOG wants him to do, biyatch! Evil is as evil does.

And speaking of the ZOG mouthpiece, pretender to the throne Misha I waxes poetic in defense of the homefront. Not the usual diatribe, but the post is 99.9% free of all non-puppy meat (except Rick James)!

Need some poetry for this Memorial Day picnic? Jeff Goldstein will not be invited to the annual shin-dig up at Chappaquiddick. I guess since I'm an octoroon I'm off the list too.

What will Al Gore be doing on his weekend pass from the "farm" in Camarillo? Iowahawk suggests he will be meeting with his lawyer, Rusty Shackleford, and his other lawyer, Rusty Shackleford.

I think "they" will discuss a woman's right to terminate her mongoloid fetus, especially when Timmy becomes inconvenient. Also on the agenda: 52nd trimester abortions and the pros and cons of the Atkins Diet. Just remember, your not a Nazi for supporting eugenics IF your a Democrat.

Laurence seems to have the same problem I have. But how does an Amish heretic spend his time at an isolated Colorado hotel? Tracking flights from Florida. I got $20 on flight #2213 from Vegas being delayed!

Speaking of Vegas, thanks to MiB for the invite. Why do I have the feeling, though, that the only thing we would agree on would be a quick trip to the Bunny Ranch.

And those are all the links fit to dump (except Rick James).
[Note to self: Get a Life]

All Your Terrorists Are Belongs To Them!

Via the Grand Vizier I found this "interesting" statement from Crown Prince Abdullah:

Those who keep silent about terrorists will be regarded belonging to them

*giggle* *snort* *cough* Who needs Comedy Central when you have Abdullah!?!

Does Dershowitz Sanction Killing al Jazeera Reporters?

From the Miracles Never Cease to Happen File comes word, via James over at OTB, that Alan Dershowitz may be cogent after all:

The time has come to revisit the laws of war and to make them relevant to new realities. If their ultimate purpose was to serve as a shield to protect innocent civilians, they are failing miserably, since they are being used as a sword by terrorists who target such innocent civilians. Several changes should be considered:

First, democracies must be legally empowered to attack terrorists who hide among civilians, so long as proportional force is employed. Civilians who are killed while being used as human shields by terrorists must be deemed the victims of the terrorists who have chosen to hide among them, rather than those of the democracies who may have fired the fatal shot.

Second, a new category of prisoner should be recognized for captured terrorists and those who support them. They are not "prisoners of war," neither are they "ordinary criminals." They are suspected terrorists who operate outside the laws of war, and a new status should be designated for them - a status that affords them certain humanitarian rights, but does not treat them as traditional combatants

Third, the law must come to realize that the traditional sharp line between combatants and civilians has been replaced by a continuum of civilian-ness. At the innocent end are those who do not support terrorism in any way. In the middle are those who applaud the terrorism, encourage it, but do not actively facilitate it. At the guilty end are those who help finance it, who make martyrs of the suicide bombers, who help the terrorists hide among them, and who fail to report imminent attacks of which they are aware. The law should recognize this continuum in dealing with those who are complicit, to some degree, in terrorism.

Fourth, the treaties against all forms of torture must begin to recognize differences in degree among varying forms of rough interrogation, ranging from trickery and humiliation, on the one hand, to lethal torture on the other. They must also recognize that any country faced with a ticking-time-bomb terrorist would resort to some forms of interrogation that are today prohibited by the treaty.

The third point is especially well-taken. We are in a war with not only the fish, but also with the sea in which the fish swim. I saw on CNN, a couple of days ago, a guy trying to estimate the number of al Qaeda operatives. His estimate? Between one and two-thousand. Obviously he was trying to downplay the recent ISS report that estimated about 18,000 al Qaeda world-wide. The policy implication from the talking head on CNN was that the al Qaeda threat was not nearly as grave as widely believed. But how did he count "al Qaeda" members? He included in his estimate only those who had completed actual military training in Afghani camps, and who then had been formally invited into the ranks of the organization. In this man's estimation, only those who were shown the secret handshake, given the ritual spanking, and given the keys to the secret cabal cave are "al Qaeda." This definition seriously distorts the nature of the WOT and of terrorism in general.

Muslims and their dhimmis have a vested interest in narrowing the definition of "terrorist" precisely because so many have deep sympathies for those engaged in jihad. Using Dershowitz's definition automatically puts a whole bunch of people in a new category that is no longer "civilian" and presumably means that they are legitimate targets of military action under some conditions (what those conditions are, Dershowitz doesn't really say). But he is exactly right, and this has deeper implications than I believe even Dershowitz foresees.

For instance, certainly al Jazeera is quite up front in their animosity towards the US and in their support of killing non-Muslim non-combatants. Further, they intentionally incite Muslims to kill the "occupying forces" in Iraq. Under Dershowitz's definition could we finally take military action against al-Jazeera? Would we be justified, under this new international law, in bombing al Jazeera's headquarters? Would the rules of engagement be changed so that open season could be declared on those reporters giving al Sadr the bully-pulpit he needs to incite his ranks to kill? If so--then brace yourself--I think such a move would be a good thing. As I have said on numerous occasions, people believe what they see on TV. The propaganda put out by al Jazeera is so odiously bad that it leads directly to the death of American soldiers and civilians. If America was as evil as it is portrayed in many Islamic media, then wouldn't you also feel justified at trying to bring about our downfall? Even if that means intentionally killing a few civilians in the effort?

James makes a minor point, though, in his post which I feel needs some commentary:

I essentially agree with Dershowitz on these points, although I would note that legal accountability and popular sentiment don't always go hand-in-hand.

Of course he's right. However, it seems to me that there is a significant portion of the population that believes that what is legal is that which is right. I'm sure this applies to none of my readers, but I know a lot of idiotspeople who think they are compelled to defend abortion simply because it is legal. That is, the law has at least some effect on people's perception of the morality of actions.

Further, there is significant propaganda value for our enemies in maintaining the Geneva convention in its current form. As bad as the images coming out of Abu Ghraib were, the charge of "breaking the Geneva convention" carries a grave and deep connotation. "See," they said, "the US does not live up to its International obligations. Cowboy Bush is a renegade. The US is outside the world community, etc. etc." I'm sure that if we had footage of other tactics that we routinely apply in the WOT that the charge of the US being an outlaw in the family of nations would carry even more weight.

Changing the status of what we de facto already do to a de jure recognition that some tactics in the WOT must be different than those of past wars would give us significant propaganda value. As I have reiterated over and over again, events may galvanize us to war, but it is propaganda that gives the populace the fortitude to see it through to its bloody end. As we are already seeing, many have been convinced that our actions in Iraq are immoral and therefore unworthy of popular support. If we are to maintain support for the broader war, then we ought also give legal sanction to the tactics necessary to win it.

Imperial Propoganda

Known Imperial lackey Victor Davis Hanson has a friend, and he's an excellent writer. From this post over at VDH's website, Bruce Thornton makes these keen observations:

But if the media are really, as they claim, merely "objective" recorders of the facts, then surely they would at least cover the negative and positive facts equally. Indeed, one could argue that in the context of war, civilian deaths or abuse of detainees isn't really "news" but an unfortunate constant of war. What is really "news" in Iraq is that the U.S. military has taken remarkable steps to minimize civilian casualties, and is attempting an unprecedented task: to destroy an enemy and rebuild a society simultaneously. Certainly that wasn't the tack taken in WWII, when Japan and Germany were literally destroyed before the task of rebuilding began.

The "news" in Iraq, then, isn't the behavior of the prison guards, for such brutality occurs every day in every prison in America. If there had been a cover-up, then that would be newsworthy, but the only reason the media know about the story is because the military initiated an investigation. What the whole sorry episode shows is not the failure of the military or the administration, but rather the constant reality of evil in human hearts, an evil that war has always provided an excuse to indulge. That out of 150,000 troops in Iraq a dozen would be sadists should not surprise us.

Amen brother. When was the last time the national media even mentioned the deplorable conditions in Attica or Chino? What makes us different than the Baathist thugs is that torture was an institutionalized norm in the former regime. People were paid to torture. That was their job. In our military, soldiers are arrested for doing things that only resemble torture. Go read the whole article.

Fun With Search Engines

From our vast army of paid Imperial informants comes the latest and greatest in search engine referrals. You can't make this stuff up!

From a Norwegian search engine: female handjobs [Note to self: never tell a bawdy joke in Norwegian in a post again]

Top Google/Netscape referrals: "Jessica Cutler", Adam Yahiye Gadahn, senator jessica cutler nude pic [Google India], real number "mind tricks" [Google UK] [Note to Self: write post about how Senate aid Jessica Cutler used real number mind tricks to have a nude love affair with terror suspect, and lead singer for Ratt, Adam Yahiye Gadahn]

[Note to AOL user who keeps searching for "my pet jawa" & "Rusty Shackleford": If you are trying to 'out' me by revealing my true identity feel free to e-mail in private where I'll tell you my real name. You know, it would only kill any chance I had at getting tenure, ruin my life, and cause Mrs. Shackleford to run off with her homo-native-American-new-age-healer. So, no problem. I'd be happy if you outted me!]

Blogging for Freedom

Asher at Dreams into Lightning and Jane over at Armies of Liberation are on a crusade to end slavery and genocide. No, not "neo-colonial wage-labor slavery" Chomsky. Real slavery. You know, where you can be bought and sold as Chattel. And what nation still tolerates slavery? Sudan. Not only do the Sudanese keep slaves, they are also responsible for genocide against Black Africans in the South.

The good news is that thanks to a massive letter writing campaign the dhimmis over at the U.N. are finally admitting something ought to be done. Let's keep the coals burning under the feet of the Rebel Alliance, shall we? Here is the e-mail. Please help if you can:

Thank you all for your efforts in attempting to forestall another civilian genocide. It is gratifying that at least the bloggers have learned the lesson of Rwanda.

From CNN:

"A spokeswoman for Kofi Annan said the U.N. secretary-general will focus on stemming the fighting in western Sudan, where the lives of hundreds of thousands of people are threatened. Annan has been flooded with requests from people across the world beseeching him to provide emergency assistance to end the killing in Darfur, spokeswoman Marie Okabe told reporters Thursday."

Over one million people are currently in the desert without food, water, shelter, medicine, or protection from Sudanese militias. Several hundred thousand are estimated to die within months through direct slaughter, and starvation and disease as the Sudanese government continues to block food, medicine, monitors and the media. They each have a face and a family.

This link sends emails to:

Consul General of France Richard Duque
Consul General of Italy Pierluigi Squillante
Consul-General for UK Sir Thomas Harris KBE CMG
Minister of Foreign Affairs for Norway Jan Petersen
Minister of Foreign Affairs for Uganda Hon. James Wapakhabulo
Secretary-General Kofi Annan
Sudanese Ambassador to US Khidir Haroun Ahmed
Swiss Ambassador to US Raymond Loretan
US President George Bush

For more information go HERE

Please keep in mind that the recent peace deal ending the civil war has no impact on the Darfur region which is a separate conflict. The one million people dying in the monsoon will gain no relief from the peace deal. Hopefully they will gain relief from us or gain it a day sooner.

Thanks, from Jane

With Thanks to Asher

WW Conspiracy Revealed!

Der Commissar has the goods on Jessica Cutler and Wonkette and he makes a compelling case for collusion. Perhaps an anti-trust lawsuit is in order? Since the get-go you may recall that I wasn't buying. The blogosphere seems to be lining up for or against the Commie-Pinko Bastard's theory anyway. In Oliver Stone's corner we have: Bill at INDC, Michael at the Calico Cat, and Seldom who seems more Sober than usual. On Carl Sagan's side:Tom at The Media Drop, David at In Search of Utopia, and Wizbang's Kevin who spends far too much time looking at National Geographic centerfolds.

Anyway, there is an even more compelling reason to believe a great deal of Miss Cutler's trists are at least partial fabrications: she writes like a man. A close textual analysis reveals her writing style is no different than all the "ladies" who write into Penthouse Forum. Or at least, she writes like a man pretending to be a woman--or a woman who is a charicature of a woman pretending to be a woman so she can intrigue a mostly male audience--or something along those lines.

Does this sound familiar?

Dear Penthouse Forum,
You'll never believe this story, but I swear it's true!

RS called last night. He had a visitor flying in from NYC who was stuck in a holding pattern over DC for an hour...He was bored, so he picked me up and took me back to his house. His friend arrived around 11:30pm, and was exhausted from his hellish plan ride. So Rob and I went upstairs and got ready for bed...So I get into bed and by then, it's midnight.

"What time is it?" RS asks.

"Midnight," I reply.

"Do you know what that means?"

"Uh...no."

"That means it's your birthday." And he pulls out this pink and green package, and I just know it's a new Lilly dress.

Etc., etc., etc. [Insert lurid details here, unless this is a "treatment" in which only a synopsis of the lurid details are revealed pending a book deal]

Ratt Lead Singer Wanted on Terrorism Charges

From our vast network of paid Imperial informants comes news that former lead singer of 80's glam-rock band Ratt, Stephen Pearcy, is wanted in connection for plotting terrorist attacks in the U.S.


Above: "Adam Yahiye Gadahn" wanted by FBI
After the short-lived Ratt revival of 1994, following the tragic death of Milton Burle, Mr. Pearcy began a spiritual journey that eventually led him to the Islamic Center of Orange County (CA). It was here that he renounced his slave name (he was 1/64th African American) and became known as Adam Yahiye Gadahn. Mr. Gadahn is considered Armed and Dangerous and should be approached with extreme caution.

File: Don't Blame Islam. Ever.

From our vast army of paid Imperial informants comes this news U.S. charges radical Muslim cleric:

Abu Hamza al-Masri, the fiery Muslim cleric whose shuttered London mosque was linked to Zacarias Moussaoui and shoe bomber Richard Reid, was arrested Thursday in Britain, accused in a U.S. indictment of trying to establish a terrorist training camp in Oregon and providing aid to al-Qaida, officials said.

Al-Masri, 47, also is charged in the 11-count indictment with hostage-taking and conspiracy in connection with a December 1998 incident that killed four tourists in Yemen.

What can I say? I'm stupified. This comes as a total shock to me.

Shhhh....I'm blogging from class!

Really. I'm serious. The great thing about having computers in the class is not the fact that there's porn and stock-quotes (or even pornquotes) it's that while waiting for students to finish I can waste my time blogging. Little do the students suspect that yours truly, Dale Gribble Rusty Shackleford is the force behind this wingnut site that he treats as his Pet Jawa! Or that, under another name, he runs the Most Popular Site on the Internet. Or that in his spare time he goads the God of the Blogosphere into returning. Hey I'm only going to His mountain, until the mountain comes to Rusty.

Oho, Bide your time Rusty. There will come a day when tenure is bestowed on you, then all your crazy opinions can be aired publicly. Patience, my precious.

Hmmm. One student finished, the rest looking annoyed at the click-click of the keyboard. Switch to stealth typing mode.

Here's a question from the bonus point section of the test:

Q) Who was the first woman on the Supreme Court

A) Earl Warren.

Yes, trick questions are par for the course on bonus points. Live with it. What? Unfair? But you don't get penalized for missing it? A joke at your expense? Hmmm, yes, it is. What? Ugh. Would you like some wine to go with that cheese?

More time to kill. Let's see what is going on around the blogosphere, shall we my precious? Yes, yes, see what those nasty bloggers are saying. Yes, yes, nasty bloggers.

Jane says I'm done with the Sudan, They treat Christians like a ragdoll...She hides The blogovision, says Rusty don't owe her nothing...

The interesting thing about this post is that I just lectured yesterday on how Hitler would be a great dinner party guest. Just think of the conversation!

Aaaaarg! Kevin photoshops his way into getting 72 virgins, proving he's got THE FUNNY.

Four more students left...how much more surfing can be done?

Let's go see what Aaron is up to. Oops, it looks like he's on Shabbatical.

Iowahawk proves, once again, why I suck and he rules. I think I heard this speech last week at commencement dude! I'm not joking. I'm being totally seriously. You should have called patent pending.

The Grand Vizier is back, little Greeks, and it seems Mrs. Grand Vizier has a bun in the oven. Congrats! Did I mention that Mrs. Shackleford is in the family way too? I hope this one takes more after the Shackleford side of the family. All the rest of our kids kind of look like my wife's gay Indian licensed New Age Therapist. Did I mention he was gay?

Two more students to go. How much more can be surfed?

What is Misha up to these days? Ah, the "bad news" keeps getting worse out of Iraq, eh Mish? Nice rant, near perfect. A- (for lack of commentary on how this will affect Jessica Cutler's career).

One more student to go...here he comes. Back to work. (apologies for any grammatical mistakes)

Terrorists in the US -- Jessica Cutler Unavailable For Comment

From our vast network of paid Imperial informants comes news not related to the libido of female bloggers in DC, US says al-Qaeda ready to hit "hard":

Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda is poised to stage a new strike on the United States, Attorney General John Ashcroft said as authorities launched a public hunt for seven "armed and dangerous" suspects.

Jessica Cutler was unavailable for comment on how this would affect her much discussed sex life.

The Justice Department released the following pictures of suspects wanted in conjunction with plots to commit terrorist activities in the US.


ABOVE: Jessica Cutler not among suspected terrorists
In related terrorism news, Terry Nichols convicted of murder:

Nearly a decade after the Oklahoma City bombing, Terry Nichols was found guilty of 161 state murder charges Wednesday for helping carry out what was then the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil. He could get the death sentence he escaped when he was convicted in federal court in the 1990s.

Miss Cutler's publicist, Wonkette, also had no comment on the Nichols situation.

Disgusted! Horrified! Sickening! Give Me More

There is a word that I've been searching for lately...hmmm...what is it? Oh yeah, ironical. It's the only word that really gets the whole Washintonienne/Wonkette vs. Jealous Bloggers thing that's going on. If all you bloggers are so disgusted by her exploits (which I still doubt the veracity of!) then why do you continue to post about her?

Kim du Toit says that the duo "revolt [him]-- both our blogging hooker, and the hits whore." Obviously revolted to the point of silence on the blogging hooker and the hits whore. No intrigue? None?

Ace calls her a "blogger-slash-Senate Aid-slash-dirty, filthy whore." But why do I get the feeling he wouldn't mind some blogger-slash-Senate Aid-slash-dirty, filthy whore action?

Captain Ed thinks "it's a shame ... that so much attention is wasted on two young women" then proceeds to waste a thousand words on these two disgusting young women.

Say Uncle "tend[s] to not comment on these blog controversies" and then proceeds to comment.

Bill "Not Gay" from INDC says that "AT LEAST ONE OF THE TWO SHOULD BE SHUNNED, NOT CELEBRATED." Nothing like a good post to start the shunning their Bill! Well, at least he sort of admits he's titilated by the whole thing, so he's not 'all the way gay' I guess. [Apologies to Kevin Smith]

I'm sure none of these posts have helped the traffic at this website, found via Calico Cat.

The Commissar is right:

The blogosphere is bigger than it was a week ago, thanks to two Washington chick bloggers who "take it."

If Jessica Cutler disgusts you as much as it does me and all of the aforementioned bloggers, you definitely will not want to go to this site which has some pics of the disgusting woman in question and her partner in crime. Also, you won't want to go there if none of this intrigues you, disgusts you, sickens you to the point that knowing the identities of those cryptically mentioned in Jessica's weblog. Oh, and if you aren't jealous of "RS" (even in the darkest recess of the worst part of your psyches) then don't go here to find out who he is. And if you hate looking at her disgusting face in staged quasi-lesbo poses with Wonkette, then don't go here. Homos.

(Disclaimer: If all of this is very intriguing, titillating, interesting, etc., yet you know that it is WRONG to allow yourself to dwell on Jessica/Wonkette for too long--never fear! The aforementioned "Homo" accusation is not directed at you. Enjoy eternal life.)

Perspective Please

From our vast army of paid Imperial informants comes the news that we are about to cross the 800 casualty level in Iraq. A tragic number indeed! But James Joyner of OTB has this to say:

Certainly, 800 deaths is substantial. It's four times what I had predicted beforehand (I was low for the regime change phase but didn't anticipate the scope of the insurgency/terrorist aftermath). Each one of these deaths is a personal tragedy, leaving behind a lot of mourners.

But let's have a little perspective, shall we?....

We lost many times 800 in both the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War, the rationales for which are long forgotten by most.

Indeed, there are perhaps dozens of battles in American history in which we took more than 800 deaths.

Go see the numbers yourself. It's an excellent post.

For Strenth and Valour in putting it all into perspective the Emperor elevates James to the level of Sith Master. May the Dark Side of the Force be with you. Always.

Cameron from Way Off Bass makes a similar point in a post from yesterday:

more men die each year by falling down stairs or walking off cliffs than die in the military under the current administration's Evil Plan to wipe out the Healthy American Male.

For Extreme Insight into the ironicalness of leftist perception, Cameron is declared Padawan Sith apprentice.

What's the deal with blogging?--by Jerry Seinfeld

From our vast network of paid Imperial lackey informants comes this guest editorial by comedian, and noted Joo, Jerry Seinfeld:

Hey, what is the deal with Blogger?

I mean, you build up a huge following on your blog, and then suddenly they change their URL coding so that links with a WWW prefix don't work. So your all surfing through somebodies link list and then all the blogspot addresses come up with an error message. Like, I'm surfing around the Commissar's new post hoping to see the great bargains $400 bucks will get you at the Bunny Ranch and instead of Jessica Cutler pics I get a 404--just because it's a link to a blogspot account!! What is the deal with that? I thought the whole Google buyout thing was going to be good for Blogger?

And while were speaking of Blogger, have you noticed the new template look they've got going now? Could it be any more obvious that their ripping off basic MT? It's like--"Hey, look at me with my Kelvin Klein Jeans writing my 'not-MT MT template' blog!" What is the deal with that?

And who uses Bloogger these days anyway? Except for the Imperial Lackey and known traitor, Rusty Shackleford, only a few other self-important types think they can resist the Dark Side of the Force--also known as MT. I mean, how long did it take Ace-O-Spades to jump ship? I'm telling you, Ace jumped ship faster than Leo on a Grande Latte Double Frapacino after a British nypmpho at a rave!

And the Maximum Leader at Naked Villainy? Come on. Does he really think were buying the whole made by Blogger but not on a Blogspot account thing? I mean, could it be any more 2002? It's like, "Hi, I'm the Maximum Leader, I listen to all the greates hits of 2002 in perpetuity and I create posts about my favorite drinks all on Blogger, but then FTP to another server! Carry on." What is the deal with that?

And speaking servers, what is the deal with the whole migration to mu.nu URLs? I mean, what is the catch? How can a web-host make money by offering free blog hosting to everyone from the Big Brother of He Who Must Not Be Named to the hawkish BRD? It's like, "Hi, I'm mu.nu and I make money by giving it away for free!" Kind of like the blonde prostitute in Vegas who thought she would get rich by giving free handjobs in the back alley behind the Flamingo. Her pimp walks up to her and asks, hey, how do you think were going make money that way? "Volume!" What is the deal with that?

The previous post was solely the work of the Mr. Seinfeld and in no way represents the opinion of Rusty Shackleford, My Pet Jawa, My Pet Jawa Enterprises, or any of its subsidiary holdings.

UPDATE: Thanks to Bill over at INDC for 'turning me on' to the Llama Butchers who also noticed the damn problem. According to them:

Blogger has rerouted all the connections without bothering to tell anybody, in effect dropping the "www" from our web addresses.

Oh the pain of redoing all of my links! To quote Jerry Seinfeld (supra):"I thought the whole Google buyout thing was going to be good for Blogger?"

Jawa School Invaded by Imperial Forces!

The Commissar has done it again with another map. This time I find myself comfortably situated half a click North of Mudville, between the Quando Canal and Emigre University, along the Esmayilia Road just West of Right Monument. Will the Blog Shia Holy City of Kablogh ever be rid of the Zionists and their Crusador lackeys?

Last Word on Mr. "C"

Wow, your network goes down and you get a record number of comments. The real surprising thing is that a good number of them made interesting challenges to my post on the dreaded "C" word (that's censorship, and it starts with "C" and it rhymes with "T" and that stands for "trouble"!). So many comments that I need to do a whole other post on them. So here goes nothing!

First off, let me thank Jane from Armies of Liberation for rushing to my defense in my prolonged absence. If you haven't gone to her site yet, well, what are you waiting for? Go.

Let me respond to MIB who was first off the mark to make this challenge, one that is pretty good:

The writer [yours truly, Rusty Shackleford] here believes that freedom of speech is a privledge, and not a right.

A right, by its nature, cannot be impinged on for any reason whatsoever. A privledge can be impinged on for any reason - or any set of guidelines can be used to impinge upon it (ie, a time of war.)

Ah, now that is the kind of level-headed challenge that is both theoretically coherent, deeply insightfully, and completely wrong. I teach my students in my Intro. to American Government class almost the same thing when we try to define a "right" to them. The unfortunate truth, though, is that it is a really pathetically simplistic definition.

Rights, under every theory of government I've studied, may be breached depending on the circumstances. For instance, if a right means what MIB thinks it means then government may never, under any circumstances, take this right away. Empirically, though, we see that this is not the case. A right to life is spoken of in the Declaration of Independence and in Locke's Second Treatise of Government. So what exactly did Jefferson and Locke mean by a "right to life"? If they meant what MIB thinks they meant then they were a rather inconsistent lot as both were the great justifiers of bloody revolution. That is, they both wrote of a "right to life" and then found ways to justify taking away one's "right" to life in battle.

Both authors also spoke of a right to "property". But this right to property was not so absolute to the Founders that property could never be taken away for any reason whatsoever. This is why the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says that property cannot be taken "without just compensation."

Another good example is the right against the government arresting you for no particular reason. In the Constitution this is enshrined in the gaurantee of the "writ of habeus corpus." That is, you would think that the government ought to be able to justify why it is holding a person in jail. However, in Article I, Sec. 9 the Constitution is clear:

The Privelege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

So, when can the government completely forego the judicial process and jail people at a whim? In times of war. Which, I think was my original point all along. The Founders uderstood context, and they enshrined it in the Constitution. In normal times certain rights trump government interests, however, in times of war, certain social interests outweigh the interests of individuals. Rights, therefore, cannot be thought of as absolute. This is why Jefferson wrote that rights were "unalianable" and not "inalianable."

In conclusion, MIB I know that you think my:

misunderstanding of the difference between a right and a privledge is disturbing.

But I would respond by saying that I find your lack of faith in the Force...disturbing!

The only other comment, that I think deserves a long response, is from my good friend Bull by the Horn--who isn't such a bad guy once you get through all that suppressed homoerotic lust for Chomsky that he's been denying for years. I know, at least your not all the way gay! First, BBTH, good luck in the job interview. Second, a few of your comments miss the point of my earlier post. I guess I wasn't that clear--which seems pretty much par for the course. I didn't want that kid kicked out of school because the context doesn't justify it. But just because the context doesn't justify the action, doesn't mean the action (in the abstract, not in this instance) is always wrong per se. Censorship in this case was bad, not necessarily the idea of censorship in general.

There is a specific point I'd like to bring up, though, that he makes:

Support for WWII throughout the conflict was very high, international in nature, and the goals, enemies, and stakes were very clear.

A) Why was support high throughout the conflict? I maintain that a good deal of this support can be attributed to censorship and propoganda. That is to say, propoganda caused support (or at least what I perceive to be a high level of it) to be maintained throughout the war.

B) We don't know that support was high. Do you have polls to back that claim up? No. All we have are censored newspapers and propoganda films designed to bolster the very support that you claim was had. I do believe that there was high support at first, but for how long would Americans tolerate thousands of troops dying every month? Censorship was imposed not only to keep vital information out of the hands of the enemy, but to bolster public morale and support of the war at home. It worked.

C) What does the fact that the effort was international have to do with anything? It's a non-sequitor. The Axis effort was also international in nature. The invasion of Poland was international in nature. The Thirty Years War was international in nature.

D) Were the stakes clear then or only now, after the end of the conflict? Prior to Hitler's backstabbing of Stalin the left-wing in the US was in lock step with the isolationists of the right. Only after the Comintern declared Hitler an enemy did the hard left in America begin to utter disgust at what was going on in Europe. Further, why did we even fight in Europe? It was the Imperial Japanese that bombed us in Pearl Harbor. What stakes were clear to whom? The stakes only seem clear now because the historical record is biased by the propoganda of the time as well as the short-lived lovefest of convenience the left had with war when it suited comrade Stalin. It is clear to me that the war was indeed the good war, but take away censorship, propoganda, and Communist (and fellow-traveller's) support then I think real disagreement over that war's morality would still be in debate.