toby

01:43 pm: Game on indeed. Mom.

COMBAT CARDS 2.1

watch squarestpeg fight

CREATE YOUR CARD

08:38 pm: Ironic humor
Two Islamic terrorists are sitting in LAX, plotting an attack. One of them speaks out loud in Arabic. The other shushes him and says:

"Do you want to get us caught? We're in America now! Speak Spanish."

06:00 pm: Culture of Corruption
Have you noticed that there's been no mention in the media lately about all the corruption in the House and Senate? Maybe that's because it's no longer a Republican problem. Let's see if any mainstream media outlets feature this story about Alan Mollohan, the top Democrat on the House ethics committee, who had to resign from that committee because he's in some serious trouble himself, stemming from questionable financial dealings.

The resignation was announced by Nancy Pelosi and Mollohan's Dem colleagues defended him claiming that the charges were trumped up by "highly partisan" individuals who want to deflect attention away from Republican misdeeds. Highly partisan individuals? What other kind are there in Washington?

07:10 pm: Mapping religion in America
Interesting maps and bits of information related to religion-and religions-in America.

10:25 pm: Muslims demonstrate in Germany
The German press thus immortalizes Muslims who are expressing themselves against free expression.



I guess it's pretty clear what this slogan "expresses". It's not at all clear what this statement adds to the "discussion"; or why it's written in English.

02:27 pm: Equal rights for all
Gay Bishop Faulted for Calling Alcoholism 'Disease

V. Gene Robinson, the first openly-homosexual Episcopalian bishop, came under attack today for a recent statement in which he called his alcoholism a “disease” for which he’s getting treatment.

“Bishop Robinson has reinforced the stereotype that being a drunk is some kind of medical condition that needs a cure,” according to an unnamed spokesman for the American Drunkards Association (ADA), a non-profit group that helps people recover from Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. “Alcoholism isn’t a disease, it’s who we are. We want to be accepted for who we are. The bishop has done irreparable harm to drunken clerics everywhere, not to mention the damage done to millions of lay-drunkards.”

09:25 pm:

01:50 pm: From Kenya: another point of view
As John Hinderaker says, this point of view makes compromise difficult:

08:10 pm:

11:10 pm: True?
A blogger who calls himself "Rantings of a Sandmonkey" has scanned pages of an Egyptian newspaper from OCTOBER that are reprints of the infamous Mohammed cartoons. Evidently the pictures were prominently featured in this Egyptian paper during Ramadan--and no one paid much attention to them at all....there weren't even expressions of anger or sorrow, much less riots and burnings.

If this is legitimate, I guess it proves that the whole event was orchestrated by Muslim leaders. What a disgrace.

Sandmonkey writes in his blog: Freedom For Egyptians reminded me why the cartoons looked so familiar to me: they were actually printed in the Egyptian Newspaper Al Fagr back in October 2005. I repeat, October 2005, during Ramadan, for all the egyptian muslim population to see, and not a single squeak of outrage was present. Al Fagr isn't a small newspaper either: it has respectable circulation in Egypt, since it's helmed by known Journalist Adel Hamoudah. Looking around in my house I found the copy of the newspaper, so I decided to scan it and present to all of you to see.

06:11 pm: Show me the money!
John Kerry has sent me another letter. This one's a rant about the evil Republicans and how they're going to all be at a meeting, the Conservative Political Action Conference, and I'm not invited. Like it makes a difference to me; pffft.

Like all the other letters, this one suggestsinsists that MONEY is needed to fight the evil ones. It's always about MONEY.

Well, I don't give money to ANY politicians; if I did, an arrogant, dishonest asshole like Kerry would be at the very bottom of the list.

I wonder how many other people on his list are as disgusted by him as I am. And I wonder how many who aren't actually send him money.

06:20 pm: What a disappointment
I've tried so hard to defend "moderate" Muslims; to distinguish them, their sensibilities, actions and attitudes from those of the extremists. Toward that end I've even maintained a correspondence with someone whom I thought was a sane and reasonable Muslim person, who could look at issues and events with an unjaundiced eye; someone who could be objective, at least in the most general way.

Today I'm disallusioned, discouraged, because I've read this person's commentary on the cartoon wars and it's very clear that this "moderate" secular Muslim's view of the world is disturbingly distorted; clouded by presuppositions, prejudice and outright denial of reality. Her views are informed by such selfishness; a clear, self-satisfied sense that Islam is the center of the universe.

valkyrjan wrote about her impatience with the "buts"; with people who decried violence and intolerance yet justified it in some way because it was provoked or in some sense deserved. What I read today in this person's blog goes beyond this. Beyond the "buts", it's filled with anger toward the non-Muslim world, with self-pity and finger pointing--not at the Islamists so much as at those who "disrespect" Muslims.

This "moderate", secular Lebanese Muslim, living in Western Canada, writes:

This cartoon brouhaha is not just about Freedom of Speech. It is about the growing number of people who are becoming intolerant of Muslims. We are spat upon, ridiculed, harassed, arrested arbitrarily, and best of all, we have ever sin committed by terrorists laid at our doorsteps. This cartoon bungle has brought to the foreground the religious intolerance that is found all over the world.

These cartoons are not Freedom of Speech personified. They are in fact Religious Intolerance personified.

What a complete misreading of this situation.

In the past I've asked her opinions, responded to her, respectfully questioned her positions. But I can't do that anymore; what is there to say? We have no common ground whatsover; we live in completely different and separate universes. I felt physically ill when I read what she wrote because it makes it so perfectly clear that there is no way to bridge the gap between "them" and "us". I am so terribly disappointed.

07:47 pm: WHY ARE THEY NOT SCREAMING?
Three years ago, writing about Muslims, Salman Rushdie asked: "As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?"  

Indeed. WHY ARE THEY NOT SCREAMING?

Anybody have an answer? Anybody?

07:12 pm: Double standard. Lest we forget
Interesting reminder about the double standard that exists in the treatment of "protesters". When the "protesters" are Muslims calling for exterminations, annihilations, beheadings, and draconian measures against cartoonists and their defenders, the UK police put on their "kid gloves". This blog entry reminds everyone that this was decidedly NOT the case when the protesters were peacefully decrying the banning of fox hunting with dogs.

September 2004: A demonstration against the fox hunting Bill, outside Parliament: Instantly, the police responded with a flail of truncheons. For a moment, they resembled beaters driving birds towards guns.

Fox hunt protest pictures--violent police reaction, with injuries:







February, 2006: "more than 1,000 demonstrators staged a second protest outside the embassy. The only arrests made were of two men found carrying cartoons of Mohammed. Police said they had been detained "to prevent a breach of the peace". A man dressed as a suicide bomber, however, was left unhindered, while the police sought to prevent photographers taking pictures.

Islamist protest with calls for violence--police showed respect and restraint:



I guess if you scare people enough with your out-of-control, irrational, animalistic violence--then the police leave you alone. That should ensure more bad behavior.

Disgusting. And pathetic.

02:09 pm: Where IS the outrage?
valkyrjan has posted pictures of Muslims demonstrating against freedom of speech, calling for beheading, annihilation, slaughter and extermination of anyone whom they don't like. And picimperfect left the comment I would have if I"d gotten there first.

Where are all these "moderate" Muslims I keep hearing about...the ones who don't buy into this? Where are the counter-demonstrations? Where is the outrage over an Imam who faked pictures to exacerbate an already bad situation and fan these fires of hatred? Where is the outrage about the outrageous reaction to pictures that reflect reality, albeit in an insulting way?

I can only hope that the civilized world will now finally wake up and see what we're up against. They declared war on us years ago--isn't it time we acknowledged that and fought back?

09:58 pm: Art? Freedom? Outrage?


Serrano's "Piss Christ" was funded by US tax dollars--and was auctioned off as "high art" by Christie's in 2000 for $105,000. Someone with great taste in art owns this piece of crap now. Serrano was enriched by his offensive creation, not targeted for death.

Think back to the controversy that surrounded this sculpture-in-urine; remember how Christians were offended and spoke out against it, but were totally blown off by "civil libertarians" who defended the artists right to create and display this insult to their faith--even the right of the artist to use public money in that way.

Think about that episode in the context of what we're hearing now from those same liberals (like Bill Clinton) who are more outraged by the Jyllands-Posten satiric cartoons of Mohammed than they are by the vile threats of the Islamists against Danes and Norwegians who "failed" to chastise the artist.

People, even the Europeans are coming out in support of the Danes and the right to free speech. Why are American leftists decrying the "insult" to Muslims?

Interesting comparison of the two situations here.

05:13 pm: Joe Lieberman writes letters too: gotta love a Senator who actually answers the question you ask
I feel sorry for Lieberman--he's the prime target of all those abusive lunatics on the left. Honestly, I feel so sorry for him I may actually VOTE for him instead of a Republican opponent, just to spite the extreme left wingers who despise him. Besides, I think Lieberman is OK on most issues--not reflecting my views, but OK.

I had written to him imploring him not to go along with the filibuster, suggesting that he vote to confirm Alito, and I got this logical, very cordial, LONG reply:

Dear Mr. B...,

Thank you for contacting me to express your views on the nomination of
Circuit Court Judge Samuel Alito to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy
to be left by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. I appreciate your views on
this serious issue, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

Considering nominees to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court is an
important responsibility entrusted by the Constitution to the United
States Senate. Senators must take care to ensure that prospective
appointees are not only qualified, but also capable of analyzing and
applying our laws and the Constitution and deciding cases in a wise and
impartial manner.

I have always taken the Senate's advice and consent role
very seriously, especially when it comes to the U.S. Supreme Court; and I
believe that my general desire to give the President's nominees the
benefit of the doubt must be tempered by the need to maintain rigorous
standards. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life terms;
barring misconduct and impeachment, once the Senate confirms them, they face
few additional checks throughout their career. Each individual Senator has
an obligation to make certain that he or she carefully considers each
nominee and votes to confirm only if he or she believes the nominee will be
able to fairly and impartially discharge their judicial duties. The courts
are the ultimate guarantors of our liberties. We place our trust in them
and count on smart, independent, wise judges to apply our laws within the
framework of the Constitution. The Senate has a constitutional
obligation to review and, when necessary, serve as a check on the President's
choices. That is what I intend to do.

Like most of my colleagues, I have judged the nominees based on four
factors: their intellect and ability; their experience; their
character; and their judicial philosophy. On the first three factors - intellect,
experience, and character, I concluded that Judge Alito more than
passed the test. But on the fourth factor, judicial philosophy, I am left
with just too many doubts to vote to confirm this nominee for a lifetime of
service on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here is where, for me, the problems with this nomination begin and, in
some senses, end. Judge Alito brings to this nomination process a more
lengthy record of judicial opinions than any of the previous five
nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court that I have had the privilege to consider.
In his 15 years on the Third Circuit Court, Judge Alito has written more
than 350 opinions. Together, these opinions leave me with profound doubts
about whether Judge Alito would protect and advance the special role
the Constitution gives the U.S. Supreme Court -- as the single institution
in our government that our Founders freed forever from popular political
passions so that it could protect the rights that our founding
documents give to every American. Personal freedom and equal opportunity are
America's core ideals, and our courts have been and must be the great
advancers and protectors of those ideals.

It is for these reasons that I respectfully voted no on Judge Alito's
nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. My full remarks are available at
http://lieberman.senate.gov/ newsroom/release.cfm?id=250808.

With respect to the filibuster vote, as you may know, I was a member of
the Senate "Gang of 14" that last year worked together to save the
right
of Senators to filibuster judicial nominations. As part of that
agreement, I agreed to filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances.
To me, this situation did not meet this extraordinary circumstances
standard.

My official Senate web site is designed to be an on-line office that
provides access to constituent services, Connecticut-specific
information,and an abundance of information about what I am working on in the
Senate on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. I am also pleased to let you
know that I have launched an email news update service through my web
site. You can sign up for that service by visiting http://lieberman.senate.gov and clicking on the "Subscribe Email News
Updates" button at the bottom of the home page. I hope these are informative and useful.

Thank you again for letting me know your views and concerns. Please
contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our
work in Congress.

Sincerely,


Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR

JIL:ae

05:05 pm: The letters just keep coming
Here is the latest letter I've gotten from John Kerry--a man whose sense of himself--and his effect on others-- is so incredibly distorted I almost feel sorry for him:



Dear Peter, (addresses me by my first name--which he still doesn't know--how bout a little respect, John? Sheeesh!)

Yesterday, 25 Democratic Senators joined our effort to filibuster the Alito nomination -- that's more votes to filibuster the Alito nomination than there were votes against Justice Roberts' nomination itself just a few months ago.

This morning, 42 Senators voted against Alito's nomination. That's the highest number of votes against any Supreme Court nominee since Clarence Thomas in 1991.

It's hard to lose -- but it's important to fight for what we believe in. I want to thank the hundreds of thousands of you who signed our petitions, called your senators, wrote letters to the editor and, most important, refused to stand silent while President Bush worked to pack the highest court in the land with far right ideologues. We fought a fight that needed fighting.

We made sure the nation knew the truth about the Alito nomination. We made sure America heard how a right wing ideological coup sandbagged Harriet Miers' nomination and replaced her with Judge Alito. No one will be able to say, in five to ten years, that he or she is surprised by the decisions Judge Alito makes from the bench. People who believe in privacy rights, who fight for the rights of the most disadvantaged, who believe in balancing the power between the President and Congress had to take a stand.

We also made it clear to the Bush administration that no matter what they throw at us in 2006 -- whether it's extreme nominees, special interest giveaways, shortsighted policy or Swift Boat-style attacks against Democratic candidates -- we will never surrender. We will always fight back.

Now, we must be clear about something else. Winning the 2006 congressional elections is the only way to change the dangerous path George W. Bush has put us on. We need to defeat those Republicans who have overlooked this administration's incompetence, turned a blind eye to its failures, and lent a helping hand to its dangerous ideology.

Together, we have to act to make sure 2006 is the year Americans, led by Democrats, stand up to incompetence, cronyism and corruption, take back Congress, and get our nation moving in the right direction again.

I look forward to fighting alongside you.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

04:45 pm: Democrats post mortem
Deborah Orin sums up the latest gift the Democrats have given the Republicans. And their penchant for suicide....

Republicans loved 2004 loser Kerry's flop of a filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito because it had Democrats tearing each other's eyes out — over a fight they couldn't win.

Not only did Kerry lose, he lost big time — just 25 Democrats were willing to join him as the party split apart over Alito, just as it has ripped apart over the Iraq war.

Worse yet, plenty of Democrats who did vote for the filibuster — like New York's Sen. Chuck Schumer — left little doubt that they were livid at Kerry's stunt, since it turned into a dream come true for Bush political guru Rove.

Another worry for Democrats was the fact that the reaction on the lefty blogs wasn't to think that maybe they'd had a dumb idea but instead to vow revenge and political death to Democrats who opposed the unpopular filibuster.

"Moron and coward"; "Primary challenge"; "Take down their names and kick their a-- in the next election" — just a few of the angry messages for Democrats posted on the Daily Kos site as his bloggers realized the filibuster was going down.

In fact, Kerry's allies seemed so angry at Democrats that they almost forget to attack Republicans.

"The liberals in the party are marching like lemmings into the sea again," laments a veteran Democratic activist. "Sometimes I think the left wing is turning into a cult. It just doesn't allow for disagreement. If you disagree, you're a traitor."

It's as if Kerry and his party are determined to expose their own vulnerbilites, instead of President Bush's. Lucky guy, that Karl Rove.

07:06 pm: The "folks" at DailyKos
This post if for the benefit of my anonymous commenter who suggested that the "folks" at Kos were....I don't know...intellectual? incisive? Well, whatever. He/she suggested that one need only click on the link and see exactly what sort of "folks" hung out there.

I do often tune in there, as you know. But if you haven't "clicked" and don't know about those "folks", I suggest you check out the comments posted tonight about the Senate vote for cloture on the Alito nomination.

Classic Kos "folks". Here's a sample:

FUCK FUCK FUCK

and I want every Democrat that voted Aye to listen to this fucker DeMint where he is now calling on Harry Reid about his prebuttal to fucking dickWad's speech tomorrow ..... fuck you bill nelson!

Attention Asshole - Go Fuck Yourself
Don't call me a loser because the Dems are losers.

I bet you work for the DLC.

I heartily agree
Shut the fuck up

But please--go read for yourself. I'm sure the "folks" will be happy you did.