Just when you thought you could breathe a sigh of relief about the Boston dirty bomb plot, this jumps up and bites you in the ass:

Plane Forced to Land; Dirty Bomb Link Investigated

Michelle Malkin then digs this up:

The co-owner of the plane, Afzal Hameed, is president of Alpha Tango Flying Services in San Antonio, which trains pilots and mechanics.

Guess who trained at Alpha Tango Flying Services—which, by the way, caters to Saudi Arabian flight students(!):

Among their clients were three Arab flight students investigated by the FBI, including Al Qaeda operative Abdul Hakim Murad , who was arrested in Manila in 1995 and later convicted in New York of plotting to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners over the Pacific, then crash a suicide plane into CIA headquarters.

What is going on here?

One would of thought from this story in the Washington Post on 1/21 that the plot was a hoax and that the FBI and Boston authorities were starting to relax:

But in a briefing Thursday afternoon, Massachusetts officials said that although they had gathered new information about the four Chinese and two Iraqi nationals sought for questioning, an investigation had not increased their alarm or corroborated the tip.

“There are some who would say that the information has a degree of unreliability to it,” Gov. Mitt Romney® said in response to a reporter’s question. Romney had dashed home from inaugural festivities after news reports of the threat broke.

Then, the very next day, we get this:

BOSTON — One of the 13 Chinese nationals allegedly involved in a terror plot against Boston was in custody and being questioned by authorities on Saturday, FBI sources told FOX News.

Authorities were interrogating Mei Xia Dong about her involvement in a possible terrorist plot (search) against Boston that was made public in an FBI report Friday. Airport and transit authorities responded to the report by boosting security — adding patrols, activating radiation detectors and posting pictures of some of the suspects.

Okay…so the authorities downplayed the investigation hoping to catch this Mei Xia Dong woman and some of her compatriots. This kind of disinformation is common in terrorist investigations.

I find it hugely significant that the FBI has widened the probe from trying to locate the original four illegals to where they’re now searching for 13 Chinese nationals. It sounds like they may be on to something concrete.

Here’s more on Hameed from Malkin. Evidently, he married an American woman named Taylor (in whose name the plane is registered) half his age back in 1980:

A little more info about plane owners Afzal Hameed and Alyce Taylor comes from Martin at National Terror Alert. They have been married since 1980 according to Texas public records. FYI, marriage fraud/immigration scams are common among terrorist operatives.

Reader Chris Powell notes Taylor has been a member for 16 years of a San Antonio aviation organization for women called the San Antonio 99s. So, she was involved with flying before she got married to Hameed, a convenient detail if he had married her as part of a scam. Some of the “99s” members took a trip to China in March/April of last year.

Then, today we get this definitive word from the FBI:

BOSTON — The FBI (search) said Tuesday that the possible terrorist plot reported against Boston by a tipster last week was a false alarm.

“There were in fact no terrorist plans or activity under way,” the FBI said in a statement. “Because the criminal investigation is ongoing, no further details can be provided at this time.”

To sum up, they catch this guy at the border with Mexico who claims he smuggled 2 Iraqis and 4 Chinese nationals into the country who may be planning to set off a dirty bomb. Then, the FBI, after downplaying the threat, expands the search to include 10 more Chinese nationals, dropping ANY MENTION OF THE IRAQI’S. Next thing you know, we’ve intercepted a planeload of illegal Chinese immigrants flying on a plane owned by someone who’s trained terrorists in the past. (UPDATE: The illegals have been cleared of any terrorist connection.)

What is the FBI doing and why? It would seem logical to assume that the FBI had some kind of specific threat and were (are?) trying to connect some dots. It would also seem logical to assume that this investigation is far from over, even though the FBI has said there are no terrorist plans or activity underway.

The Chinese-al Qaida connection is well established. Beijing has its own Islamofascist problem. This story from exactly a year ago:

A leading al-Qaida member has been confirmed as one of eight suspects killed in a Pakistani army operation last October (2003).

Earlier, another suspect was identified as Hasan Mahsum, who was described by China as its top “terrorist” along with 10 other ethnic Uighur Muslim separatists, all from China’s western Xinjiang region.

Mahsum was identified as a leader in the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM).

Could al Qaida be using members of a cell related to the Islamic separatists in China to smuggle nuclear/dirty bomb components into the US?

Just a reminder: The Super Bowl is in 2 weeks. It’s estimated that almost 1 billion people will be watching.


UPDATE II:

Evidently the Chinese woman Ms. Mei has been in custody for a while.

Still doesn’t make me feel any better.

Originally uploaded by elvenstar522.

All I can say is I’m glad Jack is on our side!

After 5 relatively peaceful hours, Jack Bauer exploded across my 37” HD TV (with Logitech 5.1 Surround Sound Speakers)in the most exciting 10 minutes of action-packed gore the show has seen in quite a while. So, let’s get right to the weekly feature everyone stops by to see…

THE BODY COUNT

Jack: 13 dead, I gratuitous wounding, 1 viscious pistol whipping
Show:76 (32 in train crash)

Jack accounted for 12 (I had to re-run the tape and count again because Jack was dropping ‘em faster than I could keep track.) Heller put down 2 while the Marines accounted for 8.

Lest anyone doubt my numbers, we know there were 16 terrorists inside the warehouse (CTU thermal scan info relayed to Jack by Erin) and 6 terrorists outside. In addition, we know that the American that Audrey saw at the Heritage Club dinner escaped. We also know they didn’t bring back any prisoners to CTU to be interrogated.

Beruzz accounted for the other kill with his creative use of the shovel.

SUMMARY

After Jack’s spectacular rescue of Secretary Heller and Audrey we meet Paul, Audrey’s estranged husband. Obviously, Audrey fell in love with the guys British accent because THERE”S NOTHING ELSE ABOUT THE GUY THAT WOULD CAUSE ANY WOMAN TO LOSE ANY SLEEP OVER! What a total zero. He takes the news of Audrey’s desire not to get back together rather well, stiff upper lip and all that. He seems the sort of guy that will fight for Audrey not because he loves her but because he thinks she’s his property.

Two major revelations from the show:

1. Maryann is a mole (duh). Couldn’t they have waited a few weeks, maybe show her pitching in and helping selflessly like Nina in season I? I’m still trying to find my jaw which is still on the floor after season I revelation that Nina was a mole. My guess is that the Islamofascist terrorists are NOT the ones ultimately behind this plot. Whoever Maryann is working for (probably rich white guys) are the villians.

2. The briefcase the terrorists crashed the train to steal contained a super-duper, hi-tech, souped up remote control device that allows one to take control of the atomic pile of any nuclear power plant in the United States. I have only one itsy, bitsy, little question about that…

HOW?

I mean, it sounds real neat. Sitting at home in front of your TV with a bag of potato chips, some dip, and your Nuclear Power Plant Remote Control Destructo Box. Give me one for Christams next year!

How do you think it works? I mean how in the name of all that is good and holy can it possibly work. There is no science (in this universe anyway) that would allow a remote device to influence in the slightest anything having to do with a nuclear power plant, much less the atomic pile. Even if you were in the same room as the pile, there is nothing that could influence it remotely. It sounds like something Wily E. Coyote would come up with to try and kill the roadrunner.

Oh well…I’ll bite and continue to suspend belief. After all, I watched “The China Syndrome” which was almost as laughable (don’t go there moonbats).

BAD DADS

What can you say about Mr. Araz? He acquiesces in the attempted murder of his own son. No choice? He’s certainly committed to the cause.

As for Behruzz, it’s a good thing he’s been in this country 5 years. The way he swung that shovel to kill Tarik before the scumbag could kill him shows that Behruzz picked up a little baseball skill along the way.

And what’s with my hero, Heller? Telling Curtis at CTU that it was okay to torture his own son? I don’t suppose he’s gonna get a father’s day present this year from Richard.

LOOSE ENDS

Leaving aside the Buck Rogers Anti-Proton Nuclear Power Plant Dissolvo Ray, anyone else think that the fanatical Islamic warrior that Jack pistol whipped gave up the info on where the Secretary was being held in the warehouse a little too easily? I mean, aren’t these guys ready to die for the cause?

And I was glad to see Secretary Heller was no worse for wear from his hostage experience, but isn’t it convenient that he had an extra suit of clothes to wear after his rescue? When he leaves the warehouse he’s wearing the orange jump suit. Then, in the conference room with Jack and Erin, he’s got a suit on (sans tie).

Maybe he has a closet in his limo.

UPDATE:

I watched the episode for the third time with Significant Otherhawk who got back into town from a family trip today and I realized that I had credited Jack with one more kill than he was due. I’ve changed the number for Jack and given our brave Marines credit for another kill.

Jack has killed 13 human beings in 6 hours…how does that guy sleep at night? No wonder he got addicted to heroin last season. (Note: Reminds me of Llyod Bridges in “Airplane“...”I picked a helluva week to stop sniffing glue…”)

There are some very funny people on this planet. Other planets too, I’m sure… They just haven’t had their own HBO special yet.

Having said that, the funniest man on planet Earth has to be P.J. O’Rourke. (bio) Holidays in Hell left me absolutely exhausted from laughter. East Germany, Moscow, Nicaragua, Lebanon, and the original Jesusland, a theme park operated by Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, all come in for some of the most uproarious lampooning you’ll ever see in print. As a travelogue, “Holidays” rivals Mark Twain’s masterpiece “Innocents Abroad” which skewered the culture clash between Americans and Europeans.

Here, for your reading pleasure, are some of P.J.’s more amusing observations.

2001 – his review of Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village (1995) in his book The CEO of the Sofa

“The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it.”

1994 – from All The Trouble in the World

“The source of contention between conservatives and liberals, the point at which the real fight begins, is when liberals say, ‘Government has enormous power; let’s use that power to make things good.’ It’s the wrong tool for the job. The liberal is trying to fix my wristwatch with a ball peen hammer.”

May 6, 1993 – from a speech to the Cato Institute, reprinted in Age and Guile Beat Youth, Innocence, and a Bad Haircut

“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”

“The fact that nothing’s happening never stops a real reporter.”

1994 – from “Make Lunch, Not War”, published in Rolling Stone Magazine

“Our government gets more than thugs in a protection racket demand, more even than discarded first wives of famous rich men receive in divorce court. Then this government, swollen and arrogant with pelf, goes butting into our business. It checks the amount of tropical oils in our snack foods, tells us what kind of gasoline we can buy for our cars and how fast we can drive them, bosses us around about retirement, education and what’s on TV; counts our noses and asks fresh questions about who’s still living at home and how many bathrooms we have; decides whether the door to our office or shop should have steps or a wheelchair ramp; decrees the gender and complexion of the people to be hired there; lectures us on safe sex; dictates what we can sniff, smoke, and swallow; and waylays young men, ships them to distant places and tells them to shoot people they don’t even know.”

“There are just two rules of governance in a free society: Mind your own business. Keep your hands to yourself.”

From a speech to the Cato Institute

“Term limits aren’t enough. We need jail.”

1991 – from Parliament of Whores

“You can’t get good Chinese takeout in China and Cuban cigars are rationed in Cuba. That’s all you need to know about communism.”

May 6, 1993 – from a speech to the Cato Institute, reprinted in Age and Guile Beat Youth, Innocence, and a Bad Haircut

“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators”

1991 – from Parliament of Whores

“Liberalism … is ultimately about the primitive, ignorant, tribal idea of collective life. And about human sacrifice – liberals like that even better. The will, the conscience, the very existence of the person must be destroyed for the benefit of the mob. Liberals have the same morals as Fascists, Communists, Crips, and Bloods.”

“Everybody knows how to raise children, except the people who have them.”

If you haven’t read anything by P.J. yet, click through on the right to Amazon and browse his selections. I’m sure you’ll find something you like.

DROUGHT! WATER SHORTAGES! CROP FAILURES! PLAGUE! FLOODS! DEFORESTATION!

Headlines from the Bible’s “Revelation Newsletter?” Maybe a preview of the latest Hollywood enviro-catastrophe big budget thriller?

Nope.

It’s the conclusion reached by a report to be issued tomorrow by a consortium of international climate change policy boards:

The global warming danger threshold for the world is clearly marked for the first time in an international report to be published tomorrow – and the bad news is, the world has nearly reached it already.

The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world – and it is remarkably brief. In as little as 10 years, or even less, their report indicates, the point of no return with global warming may have been reached.

This will come as news to scientists who SUPPORT the idea of global warming but have yet to come up with a standard of measurement to determine exactly how much greenhouse gas is in the atmosphere…much less how much of it is caused by human industrial activity.

The problem isn’t, as some have stated, that global warming is a hoax. The problem is NOBODY KNOWS WHETHER IT’S TRUE OR NOT!

Scientists agree that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are probably rising…and that’s the extent of their agreement. A consensus has been emerging over the last 15 years that there is a strong possibility that the earth’s temperature will rise anywhere from 2 degrees to 5 degrees centigrade over the next century. That, by the way, is a huge spread. It’s probably the difference between catastrophe and Eden.

For example, a rise of 2.5-3 degrees in the earth’s aggregate temperature will cause a rise in sea levels of as little as 4 feet or as much as ten feet. Such a rise would cause massive flooding of coastal cities in the US and elsewhere…IF HUMAN BEINGS STOOD BACK AND DID NOTHING ABOUT IT!

The idea that people would sit idly by watching as sea water washed over them is silly. Building the necessary dikes and levies to keep the water out would be relatively inexpensive and could be done quickly. After all, the entire country of Holland is several dozen feet below sea level. They’ve had a dike and levy system in place since the middle ages.

Crop failures and droughts due to global warming are two more myths of catastrophe. While some areas of the planet would experience a shift in moisture patterns, the net result of climate change would mean some of the less temperate zones (like southern Canada and Northern United States) would experience longer growing seasons resulting in increased yield for their crops. So, any subsequent decrease in yield will be offset by an increase somewhere else. And that’s not even taking into account new technologies in agriculture that are already revolutionizing dryer areas of the planet with drought resistant seed strains of grain and fodder.

The real question is how much of this is caused by humans and how much is a result of a natural rise in temperature. Originally, climatologists thought that measuring industrial activity using as a baseline CO2 levels in the year 1750 would give a clue to how much human activity has impacted climate on the planet. Alas, their projections have been called into question, most notably here. Using ice core samples from several dozen glaciers, scientists have concluded that any correlation between human activity and CO2 levels must be tempered by the realization that there have been other large spikes in greenhouse gas emissions going back as far as 18 million years.

Somehow, I don’t think there were any coal-fired electrical plants back then.

Then there’s the simple notion that the sun may be a culprit of temperature rise.

Sunspots appear to intensify the SunÂ’s brightness and energy output, and their numbers are associated with climate, said Solanki, who is also managing director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany.

Looking back over several hundred years, Solanki’s team found that not only did a dearth of sunspots signal a cold period – sometimes for as long as 50 years – but they also discovered that the number of sunspots increased over the past century as the Earth’s climate grew steadily warmer.

What’s becoming clear in this debate is that proponents of the global warming theory have crossed over the line between science and towards an almost religious fervor when defending the basic tenets of climate change. MIT Meteorologist Richard Lindzen recently outlined this problem:

“Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by ‘all scientists,’ you don’t have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief,” Lindzen said. His speech was titled, “Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of ‘Science’” and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.

Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, “you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists—except for a handful of corrupted heretics,” Lindzen added.

These “heretics” include Danish scientist Bjorn Lomborg whose book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” caused a huge backlash in the mainstream scientific community. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute fisks the attempted debunking of Lomborg’s book in “Scientific American” and sums up the reasons for this reaction:

The reason Scientific American is apoplectic about that argument is because it is scientific and convincing. If it convinced the Bush administration to walk away from Kyoto, how long will it be before it convinces Congress to derail the multibillion-dollar gravy train feeding the global warming claque?

This gets to the crux of the matter. Dozens of the best scientists in the field have an enormous amount of personal prestige invested in climate change theory. Do contrary opinions and studies get the attention they deserve? Or are they suppressed due to a mindset amongst both scientists and climate bureaucrats at the UN that will brook no opposition?

Climate alarmists remind me of the population alarmists of the 1970’s. At that time, it was believed that the earth would be unable to support a population of 6 billion people; that both economic collapse and mass starvation in countries like India and China would be the result.

Of course, India is now a net exporter of food and China is very close to self sufficiency in food production. Why?

What Malthusians like Paul Erlich, author of “The Population Bomb” forgot when predicting population disaster was the endless capacity of human beings to adapt, to change, and thanks to free markets, alter economic activity to deal with shortages and surpluses.

This was brought home by Erlich’s famous bet with Nobel Prize winning economist Julian Simon:

Simon offered Ehrlich a bet centered on the market price of metals. Ehrlich would pick a quantity of any five metals he liked worth $1,000 in 1980. If the 1990 price of the metals, after adjusting for inflation, was more than $1,000 (i.e. the metals became more scarce), Ehrlich would win. If, however, the value of the metals after inflation was less than $1,000 (i.e. the metals became less scare), Simon would win. The loser would mail the winner a check for the change in price.

Ehrlich agreed to the bet, and chose copper, chrome, nickel, tin and tungsten.

By 1990, all five metal were below their inflation-adjusted price level in 1980. Ehrlich lost the bet and sent Simon a check for $576.07. Prices of the metals chosen by Ehrlich fell so much that Simon would have won the bet even if the prices hadn’t been adjusted for inflation.

The doomsayers and chicken littles in the climate change debate have made a similar mistake. The problem is, they’re betting with the world’s economic health by advocating policies that would stifle growth and cause the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars from productive countries like the US and Western Europe to the socialist kleptocracies of the third world. And all of this based on questionable science that cries out for further vetting and honest inquiry with all sides of the debate being given the opportunity to prove their claims.

Isn’t that what science is all about in the first place?

UPDATE:

Paul over at Wizbang makes some excellent points on this study:

This paper is just an environmentalist manifesto dressed up as science. Ted Kaczynski without the bombs but with a few letters behind his name. The environmental movement has a problem they did not expect to have when it started. A deadline.

To fully understand this report, you have to first understand that the environmental movement is not about science, it is about policy. Be they socialists, luddites or whatever their motivation, the aim is to affect policy. Therein lies the problem.

Indeed. And while Paul takes the position that global warming is a hoax, he points out quite rightly the abysmal record of environmentalists in predicting disaster.

Judging by this report, they haven’t learned anything from the past.

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher’s Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around… per the Watcher’s instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.

Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

The winning Council post was from Dr. Sanity and his post entitled “WMD and Death by Chocolate.” Still think there wasn’t any WMD found in Iraq? The good Doctor uses an analogy of his “Death by Chocolate” cake and his promise to his neighbors not to make it any more:

Finally, tired of being manipulated by me, and concerned that I might go ahead and bake one of those destructively high calorie cake things, my neighbors force their way into the house and find THAT I HAVE NO CAKE SITTING ON THE COUNTER WAITING TO BE EATEN! How foolish they were to doubt my word! How stupid they were to imagine I might be up to my old chocolate baking tendencies!

On the other hand, they discover while carefully going through my pantry that there are 2 boxes of devil’s food cake mix; chocolate bars, cake pans, pudding mix, flour and sugar, mixing bowls and a number of other questionable items. They even find a recipe book which includes several variants on the “Death by Chocolate” Cake theme—muffins, breakfast loaf, etc

The winning non-Council post was from Varifrank. He also uses an analogy regarding the Iraq war, this time from the standpoint of a neighborhood in danger from a crack house. He sums up the war in terms that even a moonbat should be able to grasp:

When the law begins to act as a shield for criminal activity, it is not a crime to use the law against itself. I do not care if we found a single WMD in Iraq. I would have called for the invasion of Iraq for no other reason than it has supported terrorists and has a long border with Iran and Syria. It was the Tikriti Clan in control of Iraq that was the danger, not what they had in the paint locker.

You can post an entry to this week’s Watcher’s vote here.

UPDATE:

Via a comment left by Mike G., we learn this interesting stuff about “Dr. Sanity:”

The good Dr. Sanity’s name is Patricia Santy and she was NASA’s first female flight surgeon.

I’ve been a reader of her blog for about five months now and from it, I’ve also learned that during her tenure at NASA, she became one of the media’s favorite “experts” on the subject of sex in space.

MMMMMMMMMMMM…I guess I’m gonna blogroll this one. Might be some VERY interesting stuff to read.

The links below are to sites written by people that are generally considered very smart.

Well…much smarter than me…which come to think of it isn’t saying much…or anything at all for that matter.

You ever notice that REALLY smart people have very large heads?

THE GOOGLE-MEISTER

Would you like to know what’s really going on in Iraq? One word…Chrenkoff! His bi-weekly round-up of “Good News From Iraq” is the result of painstaking searches of media sites both national and international. He brings you the news from Iraq that the MSM doesn’t cover.

This post on the circular logic being used by both Sunni moslems and western liberals about why the Iraqi elections aren’t legitimate is a must read.

AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE IN LONDON

Gregory Djerejian is an American by birth living in England. His blog, The Belgravia Dispatch, is a series of posts on culture, politics, and the media in America from a European perpsective. He also posts on European attitudes towards America.

Being a former State Department employee, he has some great sources of information in several European capitols. His coverage of the Balkans is outstanding (check out this post about Serbian war criminals writing award winning books). His recent coverage of the elections in the Ukraine should receive whatever the blogger equivalent of a Pulitzer would be.

THE MYSTERY MAN

Who is Wretchard? What is the Belmont Club? Does it matter?

Only if you’re a snarky NY Times reporter, one who recently suggested that Wretchard was a Republican hack.

Whether Wretchard is a nom de plum, a pseudonym for a group of writers, or someone’s real name isn’t important. What’s important is that, bar none, you won’t find better analysis of the WoT on the net.

For an example of what I’m talking about, this series of articles on the Iraqi elections ( here, here, and here) will convince you that you’ve got to blogroll this site if you want the most penetrating analysis of issues around.

THE WRITER

Victor Davis Hansen is one of the most prolific writers in the United States. His talent is on loan from the angels. He is a master of the arcane area of writing known as “the column.”

Usually writing between 750-1500 words, a good columnist will be able to identify, analyze, and summarize any issue while writing prose that both inspires and provokes thought. Hansen does that in spades.

I don’t think I’ve ever read a bad column by VDH. This one is no exception. Putting the war against Neoconservatives in an historical context while exposing liberals as anti-semites, the column, like all VDH pieces, makes you think. Isn’t that what smart people are supposed to do?

OLD EUROPE EXPERT

John Rosenthal is an expert in international relations who speaks 5 languages and has been published in both scholarly journals and mainstream press in several countries. He’s taught at Ivy League schools and other comparable European institutions.

Talk about scary smart…

His blog The Transatlantic Intelligencer can, at times, be a little to “wonkish” in that it deals with issues at a policy rather than political level. But that doesn’t take away from the brilliant analysis that John provides on issues affecting France, Germany and the US.

In this post, John takes on the international cultural diversity freaks and their drive to blur nationalistic lines by playing “identity politics.”

HOMETOWN BOYZ

The Chicago Boyz have a disclaimer on their blog that Chicago Boyz are not all boys and not all from Chicago. That being said, this group blog has a whole bunch of very smart people writing for it.

Their themes run the gamut; History, Politics, War & Peace, Incentives & Human Behavior, Economics, Markets, Finance,Technology,U.S. & Israeli Exceptionalism, Humor, Rock ‘N’ Roll, Galactic Conquest…truly a diverse group blog.

They’re all experts and they’re all REALLY smart.

Check out this post on US plans to hit Syria. Great stuff.

I know I’ve been sort of poking fun at some of these blogs but the fact is that if you read stuff by smart people, you can’t help but get smarter yourself.

One other thing you may have noticed. Site design on these blogs leave much to be desired. For God’s sake three of them or on Blogspot! Just goes to show that you don’t have to have a prize winning design on your site to get noticed.

That is, as long as you’re scary smart.

The American Prospect is one of those liberal publications so earnest in its desire to “do good” that making sport of their cluelessness hardly seems fair. Indeed, one could use a football analogy and penalize the perpetrator 15 yards, flagging him for unsportsmanlike conduct and piling on.

Don’t worry…we’re not gonna let that stop us.

The Prospect is running a contest to see if any of its readers can define liberalism in 30 words or less. No, I’m not joking:

We want you to submit a single sentence of no more than 30 words; click here to send an email to our editors. Please include your name and hometown (or, if you’d prefer that we withhold your name if we post your entry, let us know that instead). WeÂ’ll post some of our favorite entries as they come in, so bookmark this page and check back regularly.

The prize? Again, I’m going to have to quote directly because folks, you just can’t make this stuff up:

The Prospect staff will choose a winner by February 11, and he or she will receive a free one-year subscription to the Prospect, a copy of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s The Vital Center, an invitation to join our staff for a night out at our favorite haunt, and Robert Reich’s voice on the home answering machine.

“Robert Reich’s voice on the home answering machine?” I don’t know about you, but it may be amusing to try and think what message the former anti-capitalist, anti-business, pro high tax Secretary of the Treasury would leave on my answering machine:

“Hi! I’m Robert Reich and you’ve reached the residence of Superhawk. At the tone please leave your name, telephone number, IRS Identification number, and the amount you’ve paid in taxes for each of the last 8 years. Superhawk will get back to you. If I think you haven’t paid your fair share in taxes…so will the IRS…”

Scary prospect, that.

At any rate, how do American Prospect readers define liberalism? Some early entries:

Liberals believe in providing economic opportunity and security for all Americans, protecting the freedom and dignity of all people, and using AmericaÂ’s power to make the world a better place.—Matt Roder, Chicago

Yes, I know. Matt is a Repbulican. Unfortunately, he lives in Chicago where Republicans are as rare as Limonium bahamense and people are injected with an anti-Republican serum at birth.

Equality for all, privilege for none.—Mark OÂ’Connor

Now that’s more like it. Short, sweet, and incoherent. Liberalism is a mish-mash of moralistic mush defined by terms like “equality” and “privilege” that have no real meaning except when used to either prove one’s own moral superiority or tag the oppositon as elitist scumbags. P.J. O’Rourke said it best:

The principle feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things – war and hunger and date rape – liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things… It’s a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don’t have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.

Here’s another:

Liberals stand for opportunity for the little guy and gal; for investing in America’s future and demanding a return on our common investment.—Matthew Arnold, Kenosha, WI

This guy is definitely not a modern American liberal. He’s much, much, too practical for wanting a return on investment. Then again, would a conservative write something so forced and inane as “opportunity for the little guy and gal?”

Finally, this fellow indulges himself in the full panoply of liberal looniness:

Democrats stand for a level playing field: opportunity and education; good health and good jobs; personal safety and financial security; tolerance and freedom; and a government accountable to the people.—Sam Pratt, Hudson, NY

To dissect such moonbattery would tax the faculties of Socrates. If the government guarantees a “level playing field” how can it, at the same time stand for “freedom?” Freedom for who? In order to achieve that level playing field, someone’s freedom is going to be curtailed (certainly not the liberals’ freedom…that just wouldn’t do). Similarly, if the government guarantees “personal safety” one would have to assume limits on personal freedom to prevent people from doing things that could potentially harm themselves…like eating at McDonalds or sky-diving.

Here’s P.J. O’Rourke on the difference between liberals and conservatives:

Conservatism is sometimes confused with Social Darwinism or other such me-first dogmas. Sometimes the confusion is deliberate. When those who are against conservative policies don’t have sufficient opposition arguments, they call love of freedom “selfish. ” Of course it is-in the sense that breathing is selfish. But because you want to breathe doesn’t mean you want to suck the breath out of every person you encounter. Conservatives do not believe in the triumph of the large and powerful over the weak and u seless. (Although most conservatives would make an exception to see a fistfight between Norman Schwartzkopf and George Stephanopoulos. If all people are free, George Stephanopoulos must be allowed to run loose, too, however annoying this may be.)

But some people cannot enjoy the benefits of freedom without assistance from their fellows. This may be a temporary condition-such as childhood or being me when I say I can drive home from a bar, just fine, thank you very much, at three a.m.-or, due to infirmity or affliction, the condition may be permanent. Because conservatives do not generally propose huge government programs to combat the effects of old age, illness, being a kid or drinking 10 martinis on an empty stomach, conservatives are said to be “mean-spirited.”

What’s truly amazing is that over the last decade or so there’s been a seismic shift in the definition of classic liberalism and classic conservatism. In short, the two ideologies have flip flopped. Liberals now stand for maintaining the status quo, fighting against change of any kind in government responsibilities like taxes, defense, foreign policy, social security, welfare, and the wise use of resources. Modern conservatives seek changes in all of these policies; not a return to a past where these policies didn’t exist but a fundamental shift in the relationship between the governors and the governed.

That’s what George Bush’s “Ownership Society” is all about. It’s not a reorganization of priorities but rather a redefinition of freedom in America. In a polyglot nation where people come from dozens of countries, speaking many languages and worshipping many gods, America has slowly been losing a true sense of identification with their own government. The cure for this, in the opinion of modern conservatives, is giving every American a financial and emotional stake in the country itself by allowing Americans to control their future. Personal retirement savings, health savings accounts, and a tax system that promotes investment and savings will give Americans a new sense of participation in America’s future.

Mired in the past, seeking to undermine freedom by abdicating any notion of personal responsibility, and obstructing changes in policies that would benefit all Americans; this is modern liberalism. The question remains if this tired, failed ideology can re-invigorate itself by allowing real self examination and introspective analyses of its faults.

UPDATE:

Welcome Polipundit readers! While you’re here, I’d like to draw your attention to a brand new conservative blog, “The Wide Awakes.” We’re a blog with 15 fantastic writers posting on a wide variety of subjects. Blogroll us!

Reaction at home and around the world to the President’s startling inaugural address was, if nothing else, predictable. Here’s a round-up of editorial opinion from newspapers here and elsewhere:

The New York Times sorta shrugged their shoulders as if to say “so what?”

Once in a long while, a newly sworn-in president moves beyond the deeply felt but slightly bland oratory and says something that people will repeat long after he has moved into history. Mr. Bush’s speech did not seem in danger of becoming immortal, but its universal intent suited the day.

The New York Post, on the other hand, fairly gushed with praise:

George W. Bush made it clear yesterday that he has no intention of resting now. He has eloquently challenged himself and his countrymen — believing full well that he, and we, will be equal to the task.

We pray that he is correct

The Chicago Tribune was cautiously supportive:

Inaugural speeches sometimes rise to history. Here is a prayer that Bush’s words on Thursday live beyond the moment, and that the next four years are defined not by divisions, but by the values that all Americans share.

Note: Lots of these editorials closed with a “prayer” that Bush succeeds. Being something of an atheist, I find it disturbing that the MSM is getting religion. What’s next? Prayer Breakfasts in the New York Times editorial board room?

The Los Angeles Times was reliably negative and insulting to boot:

A small man (in our view), who became president through accident of birth and corruption of democracy, he has been legitimized by reelection, empowered by his party’s control of all three branches of government and enlarged by history (in the form of 9/11). His second inaugural address was that of a large man indeed, eloquently weaving the big themes of his presidency and his life into a coherent philosophy and a bold vision of how he wants this country to spend the next four years.

Not only does the editorial reveal that the LATimes has forgotten 9/11 (even though they mention it, it doesn’t seem to cross their minds that anything should change because of it) they, like all liberals, seek to trivialize the momentous and complicate the obvious. On Bush’s opposition to using American troops for promoting democracy in 2000:

Not only does Bush now think otherwise — in the most sweeping terms — but he does not even acknowledge that there is a cost involved or another side to the argument. He makes it sound simple. Terrorism is bad, freedom is good. Coherence comes easier when you don’t sweat the details.

What part of “terrorism is bad, freedom is good” is incoherent. Frankly, I’ve never heard it put better.

The Washington Times issues a call for Reagan-like optimism:

The president avoided the cynicism that consumes so much of establishment Washington. It’s the cynicism which allows the president’s critics to consistently underestimate his ability to lead — and a vision of leadership is what the president offered yesterday. Cynicism has never once broken the chains of a slave nor, upon the ringing bell of liberty, inspire others to wonder, as the president asked, “Did our generation advance the cause of freedom?”

USA Today quotes the beating heart of the speech and approves:

There should be no disagreement over the underlying logic of Bush’s words: “America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.” The question now is how the president will apply that logic.

The Wall Street Journal, as usual, gets it exactly right (Listen to the moonbats barking):

This clearly is a President transformed by September 11. He has drawn the essential lesson of that day, which is that the U.S. cannot consider itself safe from the world’s turmoil simply by ignoring it. In George Washington’s day, we could avoid “entangling alliances.” But not in a world where fanaticism bred in the tyrannies of the Middle East can hijack planes and fly them into office towers in Manhattan.

The Times of London, that diary of moonbat madness, can barely control themselves. Check that; they DON’T control themselves. That wet spot you see at the bottom of the editorial page is the result of a little “accident” caused by the editorial board of that ancient and august institution having a collective apoplectic fit:

Yesterday the transformation of George W. Bush from frat-boy-made-good to solemn champion of an urgent, messianic mission to transform the world was completed.

And this:

Four years ago he was the Accidental President, scion of a ruling family propelled into the highest office more by genetics and duty than by political zeal and ideological mission.

Victor, sort of, after a messy constitutional scrum left him in charge of a divided nation and holding a flimsy legitimacy, this apparently callow and unengaged new President seemed to match the times. America in January 2001 was fat, happy and self-absorbed with the trivia of the post-Cold War world.

Jeez! Get over it already!

The Toronto Star fairly sums up the dangers of the President’s policy:

It is hard to quarrel with a U.S. president who presents himself as a champion of democracy, and human rights. And Bush did say the U.S. has no intention of imposing its style of government on others.

But if U.S. pressure plunges the Middle East or Asia deeper into crises before those in Afghanistan and Iraq are sorted out, Bush may multiply the very tyranny, anarchy and terror he hopes to stamp out.

Finally, being THE company newspaper in THE company town for politics, The Washington Post gives a little, takes a little, and sums up the prospects for success of the President’s ambitious proposals for spreading freedom:

That’s a policy with which we agree—and which, until now, Mr. Bush has not pursued. He has promoted democracy when it has coincided with other U.S. interests, as in Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian territories. When opposition to tyranny has been at odds with security or economic policy—in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia, in Russia, in China—the Bush administration of the past four years consistently chose to ignore and excuse oppression. Anyone judging by Mr. Bush’s speech yesterday would have to conclude that U.S. policy toward those countries, and many others, is on the verge of a historic change. If not, his promise of “the greatest achievements in the history of freedom” will be remembered as grandiose and hollow.

The President’s speech will take a few weeks to sink in. The ideals and goals are so profoundly different-radically different-than the pious, platitudinous bromides about freedom and liberty tossed out like candy from a parade float in previous inaugural addresses, that Americans are going to have to get used to the fact that a seismic shift in international relations could be on the way.

The test will come in redefining our relations with three countries: Saudi Arabia, whose cheap oil we so desperately need to maintain a strong economy; Russia, where authoritarianism is beginning to rear its ugly head and whose nuclear stockpile is still dangerous; and a nuclear Pakistan, who like Saudi Arabia, has radical islamo-fascist elements in the government that not only brutally oppress their own people but who pose a real threat to America’s existence.

Those three countries have gotten pretty much of a free pass over the last four years. And that’s where the Presidents rhetorical rubber will meet the real politik road. That’s where our “vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one” idea will be most severely tested.

Cross-Posted at The Wide Awakes

Watching the Condi Rice confirmation hearings on television yesterday was like entering Mr. Peabody’s Wayback Machine and emerging sometime before the election on November 2. I don’t think even Sherman would have relished this rehash of history. The histrionics and speechifying of Democratic Senators caused my breath to catch several times as I had to keep telling myself that it was January 19, 2005 not late October, 2004.

The same thought struck Hindrocket over at Powerline , just going to show that great minds think alike…the only difference being that Powerline gets around 59,000 more unique visitors a day than my modest little enterprise.

First, wasn’t it a novelty to see John Kerry in the Senate? I mean, the Senator formerly known as flip-flop has been in the news these past couple of weeks flitting like a butterfly, going from one photo-op to another trashing the President and the war-that-he-was-going-to-win-but-that-we-shouldn’t-be-fighting-because-it-was-a-mistake. Hobnobbing with the tyrants, despots, and kleptocrats all over the mid east, Kerry’s trip resembled not so much a Congressional junket as a tour of some washed up American rock star, still able to visit world leaders but unable to have his newest album crack Billboards Top 100.

I loved this article on Kerry’s trip in the SF Chronicle with the headline “Kerry cheered in Baghdad, decries Bush team’s ‘blunders’ Once criticized for war stance, he says force alone won’t win.

First and most laughably, if you click the link to the article and read it carefully you’ll be in for a surprise: Nowhere in the article does it mention that Kerry was “cheered” in Baghdad or anywhere else for that matter! The only people “cheering” at Kerry’s statements were Musab al-Zarqawi and his merry band of beheaders.

Then there’s the curious statement “Once criticized for war stance…” Jyah! As if! I haven’t heard anyone retract their criticism of Kerry’s war stance since the election. This isn’t headline writing…it’s cheerleading. All that’s missing was the link button to donate to “Kerry in “08.”

That being said, Kerry, Senator Babs, and the rest of their clueless cohorts sure put on a show for the moonbats. Here’s Hindrocket’s take:

The hearings on Dr. Rice’s confirmation centered mainly on the fact that Iraq didn’t have “large stockpiles” of unconventional weapons after all. Gosh, there’s a news flash. Unfortunately for the Dems, most Americans have figured out that 1) every intelligence agency in the world believed that Iraq had WMDs; 2) an American President who failed to act in the face of this consensus would have been irresponsible; and 3) Saddam had possessed and used WMDs in the past, and was making every effort to reconstitute those programs at the time he was deposed, so the absence of “large stockpiles” at that particular moment is not very relevant.

In any event, that battle was fought last November.

Yup.

It must be terribly frustrating to be a Democrat these days. I mean, it’s terribly frustrating to be a liberal any day what with the world constantly going to hell in a handbasket and nobody listening to your brilliant, albeit useless, analysis of why the United States is to blame for absolutely everything from global warming to the high price of mother’s breast milk. Hindrocket puts his finger on the ultimate cause of this frustration:

But the Democrats’ real problem isn’t their incoherence. It’s the fact that President Bush has four years to complete the Iraq operation. There was one, and only one, opportunity for the Democrats to capitalize on the administration’s alleged failures there, and that opportunity is now gone. My guess is that four years from now, our troops will have been withdrawn, Iraq will be a functioning democracy, various benefits of Iraq’s transformation will be visible throughout the Persian Gulf region, and most people will regard the Iraq war as a reasonably successful and probably necessary part of our long-term effort to stamp out Islamic terrorism.

At which point, of course, we’ll here no more of the refrain “wrong war, wrong time, wrong place.” We’ve already forgotten Afghanistan. You remember Afghanistan? That’s the country that just held free, open, democratic elections for the first time in it’s history. I wouldn’t blame you if you’d forgotten. After all, you probably missed the story when it was first reported back on October 10. I guess when 10 million people vote for the first time in their lives as a direct result of military intervention by the United States, it’s much more important to report John Kerry’s 15th different position taken on the war in Iraq. It just wouldn’t do to credit the Bush Administration for any success whatsoever. That would smack of partisanship.

Then, to add insult and pettiness to the injurious and libelous way in which they slandered Dr. Rice’s integrity, the Democratic leadership wants to delay the Rice confirmation until after the Bush inaugural. Led by Senator Robert (what’s wrong with the hood?) Byrd, the Senate will exercise it’s constitutional duty to advise and consent…while looking like the sore losers and obstructionist lickspittles that they are:

Underscoring the Democrats’ dissatisfaction, Senator Robert Byrd, an outspoken critic of the decision to go to war, announced late in the day that he would not allow the Senate to approve Ms. Rice without a few days of consideration of her lengthy testimony, and at least a token debate on the floor. His refusal to join in the unanimous consent of all Senators for a quick vote effectively torpedoed the administration’s hopes to have her nomination approved Thursday.

“Senator Byrd and others believe that the Senate’s advice-and-consent Constitutional responsibilities are not a rubber stamp,” Mr. Byrd’s spokesman said. (NY Times: 1/20)

Funny that the Senator from Kleagleville never exercised that “Constitutional responsibility” during the Clinton administration.

Rice will be confirmed. Life will go on. And Democrats will continue to supply some glorious fodder for this and other right sites on the web.

Stay tuned.

“What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god.” (William Shakespeare, “Hamlet“)

“Well, man may be an angel. But he damn well must be a killer angel.”
(Sgt. Buster Kilrean from the movie “Gettysburg“)

For perhaps the last time in his Presidency (barring some catastrophe) George Bush will have the undivided attention of the vast majority of his fellow citizens tomorrow as he stands on the steps of what promises to be a bitterly cold and snowy Capitol to take the oath of office for his second term.

What will he say? What CAN he say?

Will he, like Lincoln, seek:

“...to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations…”

Or, will he issue a call to battle, as John Kennedy did so eloquently in 1961:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Will he speak to the New York Times, Washington Post, and other critics of his policies-especially in Iraq? Here’s FDR in 1945:

We shall strive for perfection. We shall not achieve it immediately—but we still shall strive. We may make mistakes—but they must never be mistakes which result from faintness of heart or abandonment of moral principle.”

Personally, I’d like to hear something like this, from of all people Jimmy Carter:

Let our recent mistakes bring a resurgent commitment to the basic principles of our Nation, for we know that if we despise our own government we have no future. We recall in special times when we have stood briefly, but magnificently, united. In those times no prize was beyond our grasp.

But we cannot dwell upon remembered glory. We cannot afford to drift. We reject the prospect of failure or mediocrity or an inferior quality of life for any person. Our Government must at the same time be both competent and compassionate.

More likely, given the passions he has aroused both for and against him, the President may say something along the lines of this quote from Lincoln’s first inaugural address:

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North (blue), or on yours of the South (red), that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.

He could also use another, more famous passage from that same address:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

George Bush is plain spoken, as unpretentious a man that has ever occupied the White House. His first inaugural Address was noteworthy for its stylistic beauty and ambitious rhetoric. The delivery left much to be desired. Since then, Bush has developed a distinctive speaking style and his speechwriters (as well as he, himself) have, judging by his outstanding acceptance speech at the convention, found the right pitch and tone for the President’s rhetoric so that it is capable of inspiring and moving an audience. This didn’t seem possible four years ago, as Bush’s choppy delivery and stumbles over pronunciations doomed the speech to mediocrity.

Bush will have the stage. I hope he can grab the audience and garner some momentum so that he can accomplish some of his ambitious goals over the next 18 months.