Send John Paul Stevens to Prison

An excellent article on prison rape from about a year ago by the late Sam Francis.

I think that the Supreme Court Justices who vote against the 60-day segregation policy in California ought to be sent to prison themselves for a few days. Then let's see how they feel about it.

That is all.

Stop the Presses!

I actually agree with David Frum!

Yes, Social Security is layered with a lot of dishonesty.

That is all.

Proof that the New York Times is Worthless

The New York Times doesn't print critical letters.
It is a fecal matter rag.

That is all.

Supreme Court: Let the Prisoners get Raped

The idiots at the US Supreme Court have decided that "fighting racism" is more important than insuring prisoner safety.
If you want to know why I think this is outrageous, read this article by Nicholas Stix.
Particularly upsetting is John Paul Steves, who apparently thinks that if there is never a justification for segregation, and if a Black Panther and a Ku Klux Klan member were each in jail for racially motivated murders, it would be A-OK to put them together in a cell.
So much for sanity.
Oh, yeah, and I wish that Supreme Court people who put ideology above prisoner's safety get sent to prison themselves, so they have to deal with the consequences of their decisions. Especially John Paul Stevens.

That is all.

Mac-kers, be Polite

Unlike many Macintosh users, I feel no need to be mean to Windows users unless they are mean to Mac users.

I think that this sort of thing (WARNING! OBSCENE LANGUAGE) is totally uncalled for.

That is all.

Conspiracy Nut

Michael Ledeen (I'll have to change the link later when a permalink becomes available) admits that the insurgency isn't necessarily jihadists. Also, he admits that they are not all of one group with a single agenda.
But he quotes an opinion on Iraq the Model that seems to me to be the result of Mohammed believing a very propagandistic broadcast to indicate that the real culprit is the undemocratic regimes of the region (particularly Syria). Apparently, the "terror network" we are fighting against is not united based on ideology or national interest, just on a hatred of democracy.

"We are engaged in a regional war against a terror network that cannot be reduced to a simple, ethnic or religious, element. The network is bound together by a common hatred of us and our friends and allies, not by a single religious fanaticism, and the terrorists come in all shapes and descriptions."

I admit that most of the various groups that oppose us are not bound by any particular element, but I also don't think that they operate in a coordinated fashion, nor do I think that there is some Syrian or Iranian svengali orchestrating their movements. Rather, for the most part each one independently operates to kill what they see as invaders of their countries (or manipulators of their societies and governments), and occasionally there are ad hoc alliances.

I doubt that Ledeen is stupid or that he is honestly mistaken in what he says. Rather, I think that he is lying in order to rovoke us into a war with Syria and Iran. (I also belive that he really wants a military war and does not truly believe that a little American goodwill will cause the Iranians to overthrow the mullahs). whether he is doing this because of Messianic democratism or an ulterior motive relating to Israel's interests I don't know.

That is all.

Why I Don't Like Seinfeld

I never got into Seinfeld. I guess the characters were just too shallow for me to care about them.
But something more bothers me.
There was an episode of Seinfeld where, in essence, there was a big joke that Jerry was afraid that his dentist and the dentist's nurse had raped him while he was under anesthesia.
I don't find that particularly funny.
(I checked the internet, and the episode is "The Jimmy.")

That is all.

Just a Thought

Jonah Goldberg's post on the Corner is a fairly accurate description of Bill Maher.

That is all.

Call-Out to House Fans

I missed about 15 seconds of the show tonight. Unfortuantely, it was at the best part. Can someone tell me how marijuana relates to cadmium poisoning? Just put it in the comments, PLEASE!

Abu Aardvark and the Oil-for-Food Scandal

This post by Abu Aardvark highlights an important point:
A lot of neocons saw "conspiracy" written on the wall when Chalabi's ofices (or home, I forget which) were raided this summer.
They thought that the State Department wanted to get his files on the oil-for-food program because they were trying to help the UN cover up its complicity.
In reality, if we were trying to get files on Oil-for-Food, it's probably because we didn't want Chalabi to put them in his purple files (see fourth paragraph under "Government") to use later when he wanted something.

That is all.

Is Frum Blowing a Gasket?

After this celebratory anticipatory victory lap, I wonder how the little Frummer boy feels about THIS news.

That is hardly all, my friends, that is hardly all.

Condi NOT the Right Choice

For once, I am in total agreement with Joseph Farah.
A pro-choicer like Condoleeza Rice would be a terrible choice for running mate or for president.
Even forgetting the moral issue, she'd split the GOP in two. Unless, of course, big fat opportunists like Jerry Falwell (a) decided to sell out their principles to the GOP again ("who cares about abortion? Hillary! We'd have Hillary!") and (b) were able to convince their fans to follow them.

I wouldn't bet on it.

That is all.

David the Liar

I'll say it explicitly. David Frum is a bald-faced liar. He wants to pretend that the Iraqis are the ones clamoring for Ahmad Chalabi. Considering that the elections appear to have been specifically designed to force the Iraqis into voting for him (at least, those who liked Sistani couldn't vote agianst him without voting against the entire Sistani list), the idea that the anti-Chalabists are trying to thwart the will of the Iraqis is ludicrous.
There is no evidence that Chalabi is popular among Iraqis.
If he really is so popular, how about he and other andidates facing off in a REAL election as candidates, rather than as selectees on lists whose contents are to a great extent not made public until just before the election and maybe not even then?

I think that ol' Dave is suffering from Michael Rubin syndrome.

That is all.

Onward to Iran?

Gordon Prather worries that Isrrael may strike Iran in order to stop its nuclear program.
Personally, I wouldn't care either way, except that we have troops in Iraq and if a major conflagration breaks out, they could well be in the crossfire.
Yet another reason to leave Iraq ASAP, which I am beginning to think is the only solution for us.

That is all.

Oh, this Looks Good.

Apparently, the new Iraqi parliament is considering scrapping the "Kurdish veto" provisions of the transition administrative law.

Oh, yes. Why oh why does anyone worry about civil war?

Let Someone Else Handle It.

Alan Bock has the right idea about Syria.

Another Incorrect Prediction by the Antiwar Crowd

The antiwarriors worried about a civil war breaking out in Iraq.
Of course, like they were about so many things, they were wrong about this.
I mean, Iraq had elections, is on its way to democracy, and there are no signs of civil war ANYWHERE.

That, my friends, is all.

Sorry for Light Blogging

I'm finishing up the first draft of my master's thesis, so I'll be blogging light for a little while.

That is all.

Sam Francis, 1947-2005

Paleoconservative commentator Sam Francis died on Tuesday.
The obituary is here.

That is all.

Watch Out, Iran?

This could be disturbing.

Jerome Corsi's commentary is even more so, as he seems to be pushing for us to go to war with Iran and Syria - both at he same time.

This would require either a draft, or the total incineration of those countries from the air, perhaps with nukes.

Along with Paul Craig Roberts, I think that the latter is more likely.

Perhaps ol' Gary Brecher was right?

That is all.