Right Wing Nut House

As host of the Carnival of the Clueless, I can tell you that putting on a Carnival is hard work. You have to put out a call for submissions. Then you have to read all the entries, come up with something interesting to say about each of them, and finally physically place the links on the blog post. For my little Carnival (about 30 links), I usually spend 3-4 hours painstakingly going through the process. The reward is a few links, a few laughs, and some eye opening glimpses into how human beings can be so screwed up.

As most readers of blogs are aware, there are literally dozens of carnivals out there. But until now, there was no carnival for the radical-progressives among us.

That’s because this cheeky fellow has, in the best traditions of American capitalism, seen a need and filled it. The very first “Carnival of the Radical-Progressives” is off and running, to a rather auspicious beginning. Carnival lover Glen Reynolds linked to this blockbuster which means the guy will get thousands of readers anxious to sample words of wisdom and outrage from the far left.

I hope they’re not too disappointed that there is a grand total of two - that’s right - 2 entries in the inaugural Carnival of Radical-Progressives.

And one of them is from the guy hosting it.

Perhaps his problem is in the way he defines a “Radical-Progressive:”

Welcome to the first Radical Progressive Carnival, a place where people who self-define as feminist,anti-racist,queer,or who dedicate themselves to progressive politics in any manner and who hold a sincere and firm respect for humanity in all its forms.

Pretty tame for a radical. No bomb throwers? Whatever happened to good, old fashioned, socialists? Or commies? Christ almighty, my Aunt Mildred would qualify as a “radical progressive” with this fellow!

And as far as holding a “sincere respect for humanity in all its forms,” this would probably let me out because as far as I know, there is still only one form of human life - at least on this planet. Do the radical-progressives know something I don’t? No doubt their expanded consciousness allows them insights that even just plain old vanilla progressives are not privy to.

I suppose it is mean and cruel of me to make fun of someone who is obviously sincere in his beliefs (misguided though they may be) and who seeks to use the internet to spread radical progressive thought far and wide. But somehow, when the stars align so perfectly and all the universal tumblers click into place, galactic justice demands that it be noted and commented on that the very first “Carnival of the Radical Progressives” drew exactly one entrant.

Now maybe if he changed the name to “Progressive-Radicals”…

Via Michelle Malkin, we find out that what the Anti-War Movement really needs is a…a…CATALYST!

With new polls showing that more than half of Americans believe the war in Iraq is going badly and that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, you might think that anti-war groups in the U.S. would be trumpeting their influence.
Instead, the groups appear to be caught in their own brand of civil war, criticizing each other for management styles, sympathizing with Communist dictators and pandering to the media. They have bickered over alleged racism and even over issues like who would get more microphone time and pay for the portable toilets at anti-war rallies.

The feuding appears to have precluded any kind of nationally coordinated anti-war rallies from happening on March 19, the third-year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Now, I’m not one to say “I told ya so,” but way back last summer, I pointed out that despite all the publicity Mother Sheehan was getting about her “vigil” in Crawford, Texas outside of the President’s ranch and all the breathless, prayerful, homage being directed her way by lefty blogs, that St. Cindy being a catalyst for the anti-war movement was in fact a myth. She and her crusade were as manufactured a “phenomena” as last year’s American Idol winner Carrie Underwood.

The failure of the anti-war movement to be anything except a formless, shapeless mass of 60’s holdovers, New Age dingbats, Hollywood air heads, drug-addled dropouts, and netroot nincompoops is a direct result of a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the vast majority of the American people to align themselves with groups who see Haliburton behind every tree, dicatorship behind every Presidential smirk, and theocrats under every bed.

A couple of days ago, the moonbat who was behind the original “Storm the White House” protest left a comment on this site. Darrow Boggiano was, if nothing else, predictable:

Thanks for all the publicity. I was even invited on the radio. Sorry, I don’t state my case against legalized torture and theft of other people’s oil and poppy for heroin distribution and corporate profit, more eloquently. I actually get so freaked out about what has become of our government, that I don’t know what to say sometimes. But believe me, I’m not the one who’s nuts – it’s those of you who can sit around pretending that we have the right to allow our corporations to kill thousands, and what is even more stupid, is that you don’t even get any of that money – it all goes to a few on the top, and you idiots back them up. We could be saving lives and doing so many smart things. At least you can proud that you never had to say “I made a mistake, I voted for a stupid redneck, who thinks that killing is fun, especially when you can steal stuff”. I many not have figured out the perfect solution, but I do know the first step – putting bush, his daddy, cheney, rumsfeld, and rice behind bars where they belong. Too bad we couldn’t see the milosevich trial – it would have been a perfect practice for what is coming.

People are pretty upset with President Bush and the way the Iraq War has been prosecuted. But criticizing Bush for his handling of the war and being against the war are two different things. And as I pointed out a couple of days ago, with American casualties dropping, terrorist attacks going down, and the Iraq government about ready to take some very important steps toward organizing a democratic government, there is reason to believe that we are finally on the right track to victory. The only people in America who are anxious for a defeat in Iraq are the far left moonbats who wanted to “storm the White House” today but never quite got around to it. Their disorganization is indicative of a group of people with superior egos and inferior minds.

My buddy Jay over at Stop the ACLU has more.

In a continuing effort to prove that Americans are not anti-Arab Islamaphobes, the government has announced that day to day operations of the passenger rail carrier Amtrak will now be in the hands of a state owned company run by the Palestinian group Hamas.

The deal comes on the heels of an agreement to allow the state owned Dubai Ports World(DPW) to manage ports in the United States.

It is believed that the Hamas-Amtrak deal - worth an estimated $2 billion - will be bankrolled by a consortium of European governments, Russian mobsters, and members of the Saudi Arabian royal family who, it is rumored, joined in on the deal because they were denied toy train sets when they were children.

One unidentified Saudi member of the takeover group speaking on the condition of anonymity said that he couldn’t wait to get in the engineer’s car and “sound the horn of the choo-choo” as the train speeds through the towns and villages of the Midwest.

“This is a dream come true for me and my 41 cousins,” he said. “Do you think I can wear one of those funny little hats while blowing the horn?”

The Department of Transportation dismissed security concerns raised by the deal by saying that DPW, owned by Dubai’s leader Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, has an excellent security record at other ports around the world. A spokesman pointed out that if the government could give such a lucrative and sensitive ports contract to a company whose owner went hunting with Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban’s Mullah Omar, then there was no reason to deny the Amtrak contract to the “alleged terrorists” of Hamas.

“We believe Hamas when they say that they can make the trains run on time,” said a DoT spokesman. “We are informed that they plan to use the Italian management system that proved so successful under Benito Mussolini,” he added.

“And as for security, whose gonna mess with those guys?”

Mussolini, an Italian dictator from 1922-1945 was famous for keeping a tight schedule on Italy’s rail system as well as shooting people who disagreed with him. It is unclear which aspect of the dictator’s rule Hamas is more enamored.

Hamas has already announced several changes, some of which may prove controversial. There are plans to offer discount rates to people wearing suicide vests who promise not to set them off until after disembarking. And a spokesman for Hamas seemed surprised when informed that the company would have to follow US laws regarding equal accommodations.

“No cattle cars for the…um special passengers?” he asked rather plaintively?

Passengers at the Glenview, Illinois Amtrak station seemed unconcerned.

“Anything would be an improvement over the (expletive deleted) mess they have now,” said Walter Raymonds of suburban Mount Prospect. “Maybe they’ll bring back the smoking cars.”

Mary Lewis of Glenview was taking a wait and see attitude. “I’d like to see Amtrak run more professionally, of course,” she said. “But I’d like to wait and see how they redecorate the bathrooms before making any final judgments.”

The backlash against the incompetent and cavalier manner in which the Bush Administration has handled the DPW port sale imbroglio has spawned its very own hysterical opposition - much of it from those who should know better. And I can assure these holier than thou hysterics that the way to make friends and influence people is not by calling them bigots or questioning their patriotism.

I don’t like waking up in the morning and discovering that I’m an “Islamaphobe” or “Un-American” for calling the Administration a bunch of rabbit heads for the way they’ve managed the unveiling of this idiocy. To tell you the truth, I resent it. It bespeaks a certain kind of intellectual laziness when the best one can do to counter an argument is to indulge in an orgy of name calling and finger pointing. Better to have the facts at one’s disposal and try and counter an opponent’s argument in a logical and rational manner.

The funny thing is, no one is disputing the basic facts that the Administration is using to justify the sale. Nobody is claiming the DPW isn’t competent enough to handle the management of the six ports in question. No one is arguing that the UAE isn’t a friend of the United States. Nobody is making any grandiose claims that our security will be compromised although dismissing security concerns out of hand reminds me of a pre-9/11 outlook on defending the homeland more worthy of the mindless mouthings of the John Kerry’s of the world. Nobody is saying that the deal doesn’t make good business sense.

What those of us who oppose this deal are criticizing is the way in which the decision was reached in the first place and that the decision has to be looked at in the much broader context of the cavalier way in which this Administration has handled some - not all - key homeland security issues that call into question whether or not we are doing all that is humanly possible to prevent a repeat of 9/11.

September 11, 2001 is the elephant in the room that refuses to get up and leave. The left has tried to sweep that date from the historical record because it disadvantages them politically. The date reminds voters (and they need little or no help from the Administration to have their memories jogged) that there is a difference in the way the two parties have responded to the challenges posed by the attacks on America: One party has responded by taking down two murderous thugocracies, pursuing the perpetrators of 9/11 all over the planet, attacking their financial infrastructure, and generally making life miserable for terrorists everywhere - even in this country.

The other party has whined incessantly about the Administration using the attacks to gain a political advantage and resurrect the Third Reich . Outside of that, there have been no concrete proposals for fighting terrorists save arresting them after they’ve committed a crime. The unspoken denouement to that little scenario is, of course, lots of dead voters which may explain why the majority of Americans trust the left with our national security just about as far as they can throw that elephant in the room.

But some of the critiques on homeland security from the left have been spot on. And one of their more prescient arguments is that our ports are wide open to attack because the Administration has failed to adequately plan and fund a comprehensive security program that would inspect more than the 10% of the 9 million containers that arrive by ship in this country every year as we do currently.

Yes, much has been done especially in upgrading our capability to detect nuclear materials and some bio threats. And we have also done much in concert with our trading partners to increase security generally at ports around the world. But more than 4 years after that awful September day, the Republican Congress and Administration have failed to give our ports the attention they deserve and have left us vulnerable to the kind of WMD attack that would make 9/11 seem mild by comparison.

And lets not even get started on illegal immigration. The attitude of the Administration and many in Congress toward the flood of lawbreakers who cross our borders with impunity is maddening. It isn’t just the illegals themselves. The megatonnage of drugs that cross our borders every year could someday be matched by a similar megatonnage in a nuclear blast effect given the ease with which both drug dealers and terrorists can enter the United States.

That’s why this argument is not taking place in a vacuum. And to accuse those of us who see this deal as one more piece of evidence that the Bush Administration is not doing enough to protect the homeland of ethnic hatred or betraying the “values” of America is pure bunk.

Is Michael Ledeen an Islamophobe:

This is the foreign-policy equivalent of the Harriet Meiers nomination to the Supreme Court, isn’t it? Just as her wit and wisdom were beside the point, so Homeland Security’s careful negotiations with the new owners have nothing to do with the main issue, which is that only a tone-deaf bureaucrat would turn over the operation of our ports to a company from Dubai. Not only does it add new security burdens to an agency already overwhelmed by its impossible mission, but it puts one of Iran’s closest partners in a most sensitive position inside the United States. As I’ve had occasion to note over the past few years, Dubai is home to billions of mullahdollars, and the black market through which all manner of illegal arms shipments and money-being-laundered have passed. I’m sure it will have the same outcome as the Meiers fiasco. Faster, please.

As I mentioned briefly in my post yesterday, Dubai has been a major financier in the export of the Saudi brand of Wahhabist Islamism to the west.

Alex Alexiev:

From the very beginning in the 1970s, the UAE has been a key source of financial support for Saudi-controlled organizations like the Islamic Solidarity Fund, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), World Council of Mosques, and the Muslim World League (MWL) as documented in The Muslim World League Journal, an English-language monthly. The IDB alone, for instance, spent $10 billion between 1977 and 1990 for “Islamic activities” and at least $1 billion more recently to support terrorist activities by the Palestinian Al Aqsa and Intifada Funds.

One of the most successful Islamist operations in the U.S. early on involved the Wahhabi ideological takeover of the Nation of Islam after the death of its founder Elijah Muhammad. Of the $4.8 million “presented” to W. D. Muhammad, Elijah’s son and successor, in 1980 alone, one million came from UAE’s president Sheikh Zayad, according to the August 1980 issue of the MWL Journal.

Why is this important? Could it be because DPW is a state owned company? I am puzzled when I read the argument made by those who downplay the security angle to this deal that other countries have terrorists operating inside their borders but we don’t penalize them for it.

Jim Geraghty:

“Much of the operational planning for the World Trade Center attacks took place inside the UAE.” Well, the Hamburg cell planned a lot in Germany. Are we to distrust German companies? Does this fact outweigh the fact that our military leaders credit the UAE for cooperation and help in the war on terror, and call them “very, very solid partners”? Do we suspect that Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace are lying, and putting American lives at risk because they really want to see this deal go through?

First, German companies are not under the thumb of their government like DPW is with Dubai which is ruled by a Medieval autocrat named Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum. Sheik Mo rules the Rhode Island sized city-state with a combination of “hail fellow well met” casualness and a draconian application of Middle Eastern thuggery. His cronies and, more importantly, his family owns and operate all major businesses including most of the locally owned banks that coincidentally handled much of the financial arrangements for the 9/11 hijackers. To this day, those banks are conduits for terrorist financing. Also, it has been charged but never confirmed that Sheik Mo participated in one or more of those famous “hunting trips” with Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar prior to 9/11.

What we do know is that the Sheik bankrolls the “hate the west” religious instruction taught in the Madrasses set up by the Wahhabi sect all over the world, including America. For that reason alone, the state owned DPW should be denied the contract.

But Geraghty brings up a good point about Rummy and Pace. Of course they don’t want to put American lives at risk. But perhaps Geraghty would like to explain why those two esteemed gentlemen were never briefed prior to the CFIUS Committee giving the go ahead on this deal.

While he’s at it, maybe he could include an explanation as to why President Bush himself was kept out of the loop.

This is the point of my critique. I asked yesterday, “How could DPW being in charge of the management of our ports facilitate a terrorist attack on the United States? Do you want to find out?”

It’s never been my contention that this deal is bad on its face. The problem I have with it has been that in the Age of Terror, from the bureaucrats who sit on the CFIUS all the way up to the President himself, there have been several blind spots relating to our security. By not engaging the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the outset on this issue, it is one more indication to me that there is too much business as usual, too much bureaucratic inertia that makes it appear that too many in the Administration take our security for granted.

In short, I just don’t trust them.

UPDATE

After having her site criminally hacked and put out of commission, Michelle Malkin is back this afternoon - with a vengeance.

Malkin’s post starts much as mine did - castigating the tone and language of supporters of this deal. She then rips their arguments to shreds with devastating clarity and without calling them nasty names:

Many retreating politicians, pundits, and bloggers are all too eager to overlook the dubious business-as-usual approval process that supposedly vetted the deal’s risks thoroughly. The supporters of, and retreaters on, the deal are also silent about the unprecedented, Islamic law-compliant funding scheme that allowed state-owned Dubai Ports World to force its more experienced rival to drop its bid for P&O. (The underwriters of Dubai Ports World’s $3.5 billion Islamic financing instrument called a “sukuk” –Barclay’s and Dubai Islamic Bank–were both cited as probable conduits for bin Laden money.)

Read the whole thing.

My House was down for almost 7 hours this morning.

It’s a long boring story about server crashes and transfers here, there, and everywhere. And whole lot of frustration, anger, gnashing of teeth, and throwing things.

I was barely able to save my American Thinker post this morning and had to finish it up on my Notebook.

The hosting company has made arrangements that satisfactorily compensate us for the downtime.

I hope some lefty troll comes by or I see some rot thrown up by a liberal about the Saddam tapes. I’m in a rather combative mood today.

Don’t cross me…

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

There is a new line of attack on Republicans undertaken by the liberal netroots that has the online “Reality Based Community” nodding their heads in agreement and patting themselves on the back for being so very clever.

It’s a variation on the theme that all Bush supporters are unthinking automatons who blindly follow the President no matter where he leads and any opposition to “Dear Leader” is criticized as coming from leftist traitors. The variation being that Bush supporters have no ideology, they’re not conservatives themselves in any real sense, and that it therefore become easy to equate opposition to the President with a kind of apostasy that would be familiar to supporters of the Spanish Inquisition.

Having come under attack several times myself from the right and had my conservative manhood questioned on a host of issues, this theme is one that I feel more than competent in addressing. Because at bottom, this is an argument that reveals one of the major differences between the Republican and Democratic parties; in the intraparty struggles to determine which ideas are ascendant, Republicans are the only ones arguing among themselves.

Conservative critics of the President certainly have a lot to complain about and one could write a book cataloging the Administration’s Crimes against the Right. The litany of deviation by the Administration is as familiar to most conservatives as the Baltimore Catechism was to me and my classmates in my youth. Mortal sins against sound fiscal policy. A slothful prosecution of the War on Terror. An indolent and wasteful reconstruction effort in Iraq. A gluttonous new prescription drug plan. And a prideful approach to judicial nominees, although the President’s last two picks for the Supreme Court have redeemed his efforts somewhat.

But beyond that, criticizing the President is bound to draw considerable fire from the right. A case in point is conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan whose daily writings now appear on the Time Magazine website. Sullivan was at one time one of the most eloquent defenders of our liberation of Iraq. But following the release of the first batch of Abu Ghraib photos (and some would say Bush’s support for the anti-gay marriage amendment) Sullivan turned against the President with a ferocity that was startling in its intensity.

The reaction on the right was predictable. Sullivan was called every name in the book and then some. He has even been tarred with the moniker “liberal” for his echoing Democratic talking points on the war. Some questioned his sanity. And that was before he endorsed John Kerry for President.

Clearly Mr. Sullivan has major disagreements with the Administration. But is Andrew Sullivan still a conservative?

I support almost all of Bush’s tax cuts (I support the estate tax) but also believe in balanced budgets and spending restraint (heretic!); I oppose affirmative action; I oppose hate crime laws; I respect John Kerry’s military service; I believe all abortion is morally wrong and that Roe vs Wade was dreadful constitutional law (but I do favor legal first trimester abortions); I support states’ rights, especially in social policy, such as marriage; I oppose the expansion of the welfare state, as in the Medicare prescription drug plan; I supported John Roberts’ nomination and Sam Alito’s; I believe in a firm separation of religion and politics.

Sullivan’s protestation that he is still a conservative rings true. His major sin then appears to be that he is not a good Republican. Or is he? As far as I know, Mr. Sullivan never claimed to be a “party man.” His principled opposition to the war then is based on an independent view of the President and his policies.

His many and vociferous critics are not all hero worshipping Bush minions. Many are harsh critics of the President themselves. To say that Sullivan’s substantive critics have no ideology is absurd and reflects a superficiality and shallowness of thought that seems endemic on the left these days. The broad brush strokes used to paint those who criticize Bush critics as simpletons does not reflect the spirited debate going on in conservative circles about both the nature of conservatism and how its tenets can be applied to governing a 21st century industrialized democracy at war.

Those arguments have no parallel on the left. Their debates deal with tactics, not ideology. The left took care of its rebels a long time ago, consigning them to the outer reaches and making it clear that orthodoxy was more important than ideas.

Of course, there is a certain amount of party discipline that needs to be enforced when talking about the fate of Bush critics. With a fanatical opposition that hates the very name of the President coupled with a rabidly hostile press corps, any major deviation from the party line is likely to result in wails of betrayal by the party faithful. My own experience with going against the grain has taught me that for the most part, these criticisms can be ignored simply because they are the product of emotionalism. There are far more conservatives who respect and appreciate other points of view - even if they disagree vehemently - than there are blind partisans. For instance, no one that I know would ever accuse Pat Buchanan of being a liberal even though he is one of the Administration’s harshest critics. Buchanan and the so-called paleo-conservatives have been marginalized not because they are Bush critics but because they are out of step with the rest of the conservative movement.

Then there is the case of former Reagan Administration domestic policy aid Bruce Bartlett whose forthcoming book on the Bush Administration entitled Impostor: Why George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.” is sure to be a big hit on the liberal cocktail circuit. Bartlett was once senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a research group based in Dallas. In an interview with Elizabeth Bumiller of the New York Times, Bartlett avers that he was fired from the Institute because his outspoken criticism of Bush made it difficult for the think tank to raise money from Republican donors.

Bartlett insists he’s still a Republican despite calling Mr. Bush a “pretend conservative” among other things. He believes that like Richard Nixon, Bush uses the right to pursue a decidedly unconservative agenda. There are some conservatives who would agree with that assessment although no one doubts the President’s heartfelt devotion to social issues that are near and dear to the hearts of many conservatives.

That said, Bartlett is complaining because no conservative think tank will hire him. Is this an example of slavish Bush supporters marching in lockstep to deny an Administration critic a livelihood simply because he criticized “Dear Leader?”

Posh! Bartlett refers to himself as “radioactive” since he began to voice his criticisms of Bush. There is a difference between criticizing Bartlett’s ideas and not doling out one’s hard earned cash to anyone who would employ him. I’m sure Mr. Bartlett is still a good Republican and conservative. But for anyone who would hire him, he would certainly poison the well as far as contributors were concerned. In the marketplace of ideas, Bartlett is running into the reality that his thoughts aren’t very popular among conservatives. Why this should be a surprise to him is puzzling.

When all is said and done, the Republican critics of the President come in all shapes and sizes with some attacking him from the right and others, like Senator Chuck Hagel, coming at Bush from the left. To try and argue that these critics aren’t for the most part still Republicans or have changed their conservative beliefs is wrong. For myself, as someone who voted for Ronald Reagan three times, carefully writing in his name in 1976, to call me anything but a loyal Republican and true blue conservative would be laughable.

Which is what most liberal critiques of Republicans end up as anyway.

The site was down for about an hour due to unknown server issues.

Since many of the blogs that use my hosting company are conservative political blogs who have published the Mohammed cartoons, I certainly hope that the server was not subjected to some kind of denial of service attack.

Then again, I may be paranoid and will start to see 6 foot tall rabbits who wear bowler hats and are dressed in tuxedos.

I’ll let you know…

I will be appearing on the CBC’s “High Definition” show this morning at 10:30 AM Central time. You can catch the streaming broadcast here:

Click on “Ottawa” to listen.

The show is about the impact that “24’s” Jack Bauer has on American society and also features MSNBC’s Craig Crawford.

The show was taped last week and I have no idea how it will turn out. The host, Don McKellar, is a Canadian actor and liberal activist. Mr. McKellar was nice enough during the taping as was Craig Crawford who was a good sport about my article fisking him about his “24″ comparison with the Bush Administration.

Tune in and let me know how much of an idiot I made of myself…

UPDATE

The show was great - I was so-so. McKellar did a great shtick with the recorded voice of Jack Bauer making it appear as if he was talking to him - and being tortured by him. Great stuff!

I understand it will be broadcast several times on Sirius Radio this week. If someone can let me know, I’ll be glad to post the times.

You might notice that I am now officially a member of the conspiracy to undermine the blogosphere.

If you look over to the right, you will see an ad for WHAT HAS TO BE THE BEST INTERNET JOB SEARCH COMPANY IN THE UNIVERSE! MONSTER.COM!

Pay no attention to that tingling at the base of your brain. It is the ultra-sophisticated mind control ray developed exclusively for PAJAMAS MEDIA by some of the more scientifically inclined members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The ray enters your brain through the Medulla Oblongata, snakes its way into your Temporal Lobe (language), and ends up right smack dab in the middle of your Amygdala . This is the reptilian part of your brain and is responsible for certain autonomic functions like breathing and swallowing as well as reflexive and instinctive reactions like hunger, sex, and the “fight or flee” decision.

Do not be frightened. In a little while, you will hardly know it is there. You WILL however, get an overwhelming urge to have H & R BLOCK do your taxes as well as become instantly dissatisfied with your job which will cause you to immediately place an ad for a new job at MONSTER.COM.

And you will suddenly develop an overpowering and unstoppable urge to pledge your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor to PAJAMAS MEDIA.

All is well…All is well…

Today, I am taping a segment for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio show “High Definition” that will feature a little back and forth with MSNBC’s Craig Crawford. We’ll be discussing Jack Bauer’s influence on American attitudes toward torture and Jack’s place in the culture generally.

At least that’s what I hope we talk about…

Actually, I plan on having loads of fun. It will be broadcast on February 11th. Watch this space for broadcast times and a site that will stream it.