The War on Poverty is A Quagmire

ShrinkWrapped discusses "Race and the Unconscious". Here is an excerpt, but go and read it all:

Here is a hypothetical family constellation: A black person who has grown up in the entitlement system will have been subject to the message, over and over again, that he or she is unable to compete on a level playing field with whites. They are empowered by the liberal entitlement workers (social workers talk about "empowerment" which is defined as a better ability to extract what they are entitled to from the system) to maintain their status as a dependent on the state. Even without noxious government employees, this is a set up to feel humiliated and condescended to. A dependent adult struggles with feelings of inadequacy (after all, the message is that they are inadequate!) and internalizes such feelings. Unfortunately, even those black Americans who are successful are tainted by such stigmata. They will wonder if they are truly capable and qualified or have attained their position by virtue of assistance from the more powerful, more capable white man.

Matters become even more complicated when a generation grows up raised by parents who feel devalued and imagine themselves to be devalued, lesser people. When you add in that the father has been completely devalued and marginalized by the radical feminist "scholars" who hold sway in our liberal arts universities and the PC-thought that is an outgrowth of radical feminism, the young black male as an endangered species is inevitable.

Psychologically, the process that ShrinkWrapped delineates works in both directions. Not only are black persons who have grown up in the entitlement system subject to the message, over and over again, that they are unable to compete on a level playing field with whites; but whites who interface with this system end up believing the same thing about blacks--which only reinforces any latent racism or tendency to think of the poor black person as" inferior".

This reverse process also impacts the loving and compassionate social workers and other liberal do-gooders, who also absorb this toxic message, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Though they don't care to admit it, the effects of the message are demonstrated in their own behavior (see here, for example). Another example is discussed here by Betsy at Betsy's page).

So, many times in politics, programs that originate with the "best of intentions" end up doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. Yet, many people are so ideologically committed to one way of thinking that they not only refuse to change, but keep pouring money into programs that can be shown to actively harm the people they are meant to help; and reinforce the stereotypes they are meant to end.

What makes matters worse is that the "champions of the poor and oppressed" (as they like to think of themselves) then virtually demonize anyone who suggests an alternate strategy-- even when that strategy has been proven to work. We see this time and again in their attempts to portray the Republicans as the party that "hates the poor"; or that their policies reinforce racism, hunger, and deprivation. Since they are incapable of reasonable discussion on this point, one must conclude that it serves some intense psychological need for them to portray others in this light, particularly when their own rhetoric and behavior clearly demonstrate that these are their own beliefs. We refer to this psychological mechanism as "Projection".

Many people --both democrats and republicans-- genuinely want to end racism and poverty. Many sincerely want to help the poor to have better lives. So, why not go with what works, instead of what doesn't and has never worked?

I have said it before, and I'll say it again: POVERTY HAS A CURE --but it is not in the psychologically devastating social programs that promote victimhood and encourage a politically correct version of racism.

The cure is economic opportunity. It is not even more "compassionate" and condescending social programs that artificially encourage "self-esteem" or promote "Black history"; or endless affirmative action. Nor is the solution to continue to pour $$trillions into the "war on poverty".

Can we all admit that the so-called "war on poverty" -- a war that has been going on for decades--is in reality one war that actually meets any and all criteria for the "quagmire" designation? Not only is it a perpetual quagmire (as recent events in New Orleans aptly demonstrate), but it has victimized another generation of poor blacks who compensate for their humiliation through our young black culture's "glorification of their devalued status" (as SW refers to it). This is the antisocial and deplorable behavior campaigned against by Bill Cosby and other notable successful black thinkers. It is a subculture that devalues education; and extols attitude, violence, and hypersexualized misogyny.

Policymakers whose goal is fighting poverty need to pay attention to the link between economic freedom and prosperity. They need to empower the black family economically. They need to stop encouraging victimhood by their policies; and encourage personal responsibility that gives people a tangible stake in their own lives. If they do that, the psychological benefits will automatically follow.

Question

So, who is it that is specifically targeting journalists?

Eason Jordan? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

UPDATE: Cori Dauber suggests that the terrorists were trying to drag news coverage away from Hurricane Wilma. It seems they share with Mother Sheehan an intense dislike of being upstaged by a mere hurricane.

COMMENTS NOT WORKING

The Haloscan comments don't appear to be working right now. Sorry for the inconvenience.

UPDATE: 2:30 pm - Comments now seem to be working.

Sense and Sensibility

Michael Barone is one of the most sensible people in the U.S. Here is his take on the Plame affair (which happens to coincide neatly with mine):

So it seems clear to me that an indictment under either of these statutes would be a gross injustice. It is a general principle of law that when the government wants to criminalize acts other than traditional common law crimes like murder or theft, it must set out with great specificity the conduct that is forbidden. To visit the rigors of criminal indictment, trial and punishment on someone who has done nothing that is specifically forbidden is unjust -- the very definition of injustice.

That leaves the question of whether Rove, Libby or someone else will be indicted for perjury, obstruction of justice or making false statements in the course of the investigation. But why should there be indictments if there was no crime?

True, Rove and Libby did seek to discredit Joseph Wilson -- as they should well have done. As the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan report in July 2004, just about everything Wilson said publicly about his trip to Niger was untrue. He said that he had discredited reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Niger. But the CIA people to whom he reported concluded that, if anything, he substantiated such reports. He said that he pointed out that certain other intelligence reports were forged. But the forgeries did not appear until eight months after his trip. He said his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger. But it was she who recommended him for the trip. And on and on.

In the absence of a violation of the underlying espionage acts, any indictment here arising from the course of the investigation would be, in my view, unjust and an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Barone goes on to make the same point that I quoted in this post:

Rooting for Rove's indictment in this case isn't just unseemly, it's unthinking and ultimately self-destructive. Anyone who cares about civil liberties, freedom of information, or even just fair play should have been skeptical about Fitzgerald's investigation from the start. Claiming a few conservative scalps might be satisfying, but they'll come at a cost to principles liberals hold dear: the press's right to find out, the government's ability to disclose, and the public's right to know.

But when you are dealing with people in the grip of mass hysteria, common sense gets lost in the feeding frenzy.

Elusive and Dead ?

This is what anews service is reporting from a Pakastani newspaper:

A Pakistani newspaper Ausaf published from Multan has reported that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden died four months ago in a village near Kandahar of severe illness.

According to the newspaper report, Bin Laden was campaigning at Bamiyan, fell very ill, returned to Kandahar where he died and was buried in the Shada graveyard in the shadow of a mountain.

The controversy continues to surround Osama bin Laden and while US and Pakistan officials have often been quoted by the media as saying that his mortal status was just a matter of detail, the hunt is still on and the issue remains a topic of great interest for the media and governments alike.

Funeral prayers have been said for Osama bin Laden over these years with one reported now by the Ausaf, and another in an Egyptian newspaper Al Wafd as far back as December 2001.

Osama bin Laden has a reward of $25 million on his head. Despite this he remains elusive, and could remain that way for a long time, alive or dead.

I am certainly hoping that he remains elusive because he's already dead. I have suspected this is the case, particularly since we are hearing so much about Number Two Thug Zawahiri lately.

But, we've heard this before, so I won't get my hopes up.

Imagine You Are A Muslim Woman....

A remarkable piece by a Saudi woman academic, Badriyya Al-Bishr:

"Imagine you're a woman, and you are subject to assault, beatings, or murder. When the press publishes your photo [together with] the photo of the criminals and [descriptions] of their brutality, there are people who ask: 'Was the victim covered [by a veil] or not?' If she was covered up, [the question arises:] 'Who let her go out of the house at such an hour?' In the event that your husband is the one who broke your ribs, [people will say] that no doubt there was good reason for it.

"Imagine you're a woman whose husband breaks her nose, arm, or leg, and you go to the Qadi to lodge a complaint. When the Qadi asks you about your complaint, and you say, 'He beat me,' he responds reproachfully 'That's all?!' In other words, [for the Qadi], beating is a technical situation that exists among all couples and lovers, [as the saying goes]: 'Beating the beloved is like eating raisins.'

"Imagine you're a woman, and in order to manage your affairs you must ride in a 'limousine' with an Indian or Sri Lankan driver... or that you [must] wait for a younger brother to take you to work, or that you [must] bring a man who will learn to drive in your car, and will practice at your expense... because you yourself are not permitted to drive.

"Imagine you're a woman in the 21st century, and you see fatwas [issued] by some contemporary experts in Islamic law dealing with the rules regarding taking the women of the enemy prisoner and having sexual intercourse with them. Moreover, you find someone issuing a fatwa about the rules of taking the women of the enemy prisoner even in times of peace, and you don't know to which enemy women it refers.

"Imagine you're a woman who writes in a newspaper, and every time you write about your [women's] concerns, problems, poverty, unemployment, and legal status, they say about you: 'Never mind her, it's all women's talk.'"

Now, I have a scenario that I would like the ladies of the Left to consider.

Try to imagine that you are a Muslim woman almost anywhere in the world. Then remember that you were born in this country, where even Muslim women are equal under the Law; and the only things that keep them from pursuing their own individual ambitions and dreams are the cultural and religious prohibitions of Islam. Which, by the way, strongly and violently disapproves of anyone choosing to opt out of their belief system.

Of course, this is perfectly consistent with the tenets of multiculturalism, a late 20th century doctrine that praises the differences among various cultures and maintains that one culture is not better than any other. In fact, it positively extols the virtues of even those cultures where women are treated worse than dogs. As the gurus point out, who are we to judge?

Now, imagine that you are a truly progressive and liberated woman of the modern-day feminist movement; earnestly marching against the evil empire of America in support of ANSWER or UPJ or Code Pink etc.etc.; proclaiming the beauty of multiculturalism and denouncing American culture (by strange coincidence, the only culture that is assumed to be inferior and not considered "equal" by the multicultural gurus).

In fact, your behavior is aggressively enabling the very tyrannical regimes that humiliate and oppress women llke the courageous author of the above article; while trashing the culture that offers her and others like her freedom and opportunity she has never known.

But that's one of the more ironic aspects of freedom, isn't it? You are free to make bad choices and behave stupidly.

Not Really Very Important Stuff

OK, I hate polls. If you read my blog, you will know that. However, for purposes of the N.Z. Bear tracking poll on the Miers nomination, let me say:

"I am neutral on the Miers nomination." That was the option closest to my position, which is really, "I don't care about the Miers nomination.".If you have a blog and want to participate in the poll, then go to the link above!

OTOH, just for fun--you can find out how much your blog is worth. I did. And was amazed. I LOVE THESE KIND OF THINGS! (It's my inner child expressing herself...)Check it out here (hat tip: Who Tends the Fires). Here are my results:

My blog is worth $510,908.70.
How much is your blog worth?

Louder, Stronger, Prouder

Michael Yon writes about the Iraqi Election (in the Weekly Standard and an extended version will also be on his blog): "All Quiet on the Baghdad Front":

Next morning, I got information from the Army that there had been 19 attacks on polling sites throughout Iraq, and in January there had been 108. There may be some garble in the numbers (there usually is). There had actually been somewhere between 300 and 350 total attacks on the January election day. And the army would later say that there were 89 total attacks during the voting last week. Who knows? I know that it was quiet from my perch, and that the guns had been silenced long enough that we could hear the Iraqi voice speak for a second time. The voice was louder, stronger, and prouder than it had been in January.

Read the entire article.

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES

Time for the weekly insanity update, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). Calling all bloggers! Be sure to send in your entries to the Carnival, which will be posted every Sunday. Entries need to be in by 8 pm on Saturday to make their way into the list that week. Only one post entry per blogger, please. Thanks for all the submissions. SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!

1. He probably knows more about how to make people hungry than anyone. Why should anyone be shocked or amazed at anything the UN does anymore?

2. Next we will have an in-depth report about his garbage. OTOH -- maybe this is just more "staged" news?

3. And speaking of that, the press should be outraged at this staged event.

4. Does the term "child abuse" mean anything to people like this? How about the term "ironic"? Or "religion of peace"?

5. Captain Ed has a great way to keep your sanity these days. But these poor people are truly suffering!

6. Democratic operatives are invisible to the MSM.

7. Piglet and Pooh reprieved!

8. Of course, the best debunking would be to ask her if she said it or not.

9. Oh, right. They always tell the truth.

10. Just what the world needs: more hallucinating, sleep-deprived people!

11. A quasi-totalitarian feminist state. That's something to look forward to as the feminist movement gets weirder and weirder.

12. Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earle.

13. Aiming for the penis is probably a good strategy.

14. Underwear confined to the dustbin of history? Phew!

15. Karma? Divine Justice? Irony? Coincidence? You decide.

16. Simpsons in the Middle East? [Omar: (to himself) Mmmmm. Kahk]...no telling what impact this piece of virulent American culture will have! Hope they don't have a cow, man.

17. I suspect that Hilary will think this is fantastic. If I were as paranoid as those who despise Karl Rove, I might even think she put Cindy up to it!

18. Paganism is back! But the prisons draw the line at nudity. Magazines don't, however!

19. Top PETA comic book titles!

20. Ahhh. The pleasures of autumn!

21. The Headmistress is really tough on those who suffer from idle pity.

22. I love my Ipod, but this seems a bit over the top.... (did you know you can buy a Kate Spade or Gucci cover for the darn thing?)

23. Saying what needs to be said about psychotic professors of any color.

The Mask Slips

You know, I have always wondered what motivates people to do vile and despicable things. It is part of the reason I became a psychiatrist--to try and understand that dark side to human nature.

The evil within men's souls (and women's, of course) hides behind many different masks. Here is an example of the darkest and most depraved side of human nature masquerading as comedy.

Your mask is slipping, Mr. Franken. If you take it completely off, even you will be able to see how much in common you have with Mr. Zarqawi.

(H/T The Anchoress)

Now This Is A REAL Scandal

You have to wonder why there are not loads of journalist out trying to dig to the bottom of this important story. All I know is that there aren't many who even care much about it or the implications of it.

Thank goodness for real journalists like Claudia Rosett who--if there were any justice in the world-- would be the recipient of both the Pulitzer prize for reporting, and the the Nobel Prize for Peace. Her persistance and courage in sticking with a story that will have the farthest-reaching consequences of any in our time is incredible.

Just think for a minute about what the UN Oil for Food Scandal tells us about the world body that the Left has entrusted with its hopes and dreams for world peace. Just note for a moment the lack of interest of most MSM news outlets in this story. Just read the link above to see how Rosett has uncovered connections between Saddam, Al Qaeda, and the UN.

People died and the UN lied. People starved, and the UN let them; while pocketing blood money from Saddam. Where are the protestors? Where is ANSWER? Where is the Left? Where is Kos (well, at least we know where the last two are--chortling hysterically about their eagerly anticipated early "Fitzmas" but just a wee bit anxious that they may only get a lump of coal)

The UN has really raised the bar for future generations by taking corruption and greed to unimaginable levels; while at the same time excelling in the category of cynical and self-serving rhetoric. Never in the history of the world has there ever been an organization--ostensibly devoted to the pursuit of peace-- that has encouraged and enabled so much of the opposite.

There is no question that the world would be a far better place without the UN and its leeches sucking it dry. Nobel Peace Prize for El Baradei and the UN? Surely that must be one of the biggest jokes in human history.

The UN is the REAL scandal of our times.

The Meaning of Life

I was reading Larry Elder's comments about dinner with a Bush-hater, and marvelled at his disappointment that "someone could go through the world so incredibly ill-informed."

He was referring to the fact that a woman who claimed that President Bush had said that rich people shouldn't pay taxes. When he questioned her further, it turned out that she believed the top 1% of rich people pay only 1-2% of total taxes in the U.S.

For the record, since my table companion doesn't know or doesn't care, the top 1 percent -- the taxpayers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) over $295,495 -- paid, for 2003, 34.27 percent of federal income tax revenues. The top 10 percent (with an AGI over $94,891) paid 65.84 percent, the top half (AGI over $29,019) paid 96.54 percent. The bottom half? They paid 3.46 percent.

People should know this. Even if you live in Seattle.

Yes. People should know a lot of things. But they don't.

For instance, I just recently bought a new Special Edition DVD for my family of "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" - a comedy that I enjoyed wholeheartedly back in the 80's when it came out. In particular, I really liked the first segment in which a tired old insurance company in an old building with old people slaving away is suddenly taken over by the old people who then become pirates and sail away with the building to capture brand, spanking new companies. Then and now, I thought it was a clever idea, brilliantly executed.

My mistake was in buying the "Special Edition", where we have hours of commentary about all aspects of the film. Because I liked that initial segment a lot, I decided to listen to Terry Gilliam discuss how it was made and offer his insights.

Well--just like the intrusive man and woman at Larry Elder's dinner party--he certainly offered his "insight". In the middle of talking about some of the technical aspects and problems that occurred when he directed that portion of the film, quite gratuitously he started talking about how it all tied into "making up stories about WMD" and "sending young people off to fight in wars" etc. etc. etc.

There I was, right in the middle of my own living room, watching a film from the 80's and suddenly listening to a diatribe against current American foreign policy. Like Elder, initially I simply let it pass. Living in Ann Arbor, I am quite used to such Bush hatred suddenly popping up in the most benign conversations. (Example: "Oh, Pat! Have you tried this new flavor of ice cream yet?" "No, not yet." "Well, that simpering bushchimphitler would probably prevent you from enjoying it if he could.")

But Gilliam persisted in tying the theme of people rising against an autocratic system that abused them to the Iraq war. So I stopped the video.

But I wondered. What in heaven's name had he thought he'd been saying all those years ago when he actually wrote and directed the scene? I had seen it as a triumph of human freedom and dignity. The feeble old men taking on the young men was a clever way of generalizing the quest for freedom to all of humanity. Or so I thought.

Obviously, Gilliam had been going not for the broader implications, but only for the superficial; the anticapitalistic, Marxist-style oppression/oppressed class struggle theme. That was his narrowed view of the world, and meaning of life--nothing more.

And beyond that, I realized, that he believed that the Islamofascists we are fighting in Iraq today--who celebrate death and wish to destroy individual freedom-- were like the oppressed old people in the faded insurance company. Why shouldn't they take arms against us and use whatever means they had at hand to try to destroy us?

Sad to say, After hearing the reflexive Leftist talking points spouted so naturally and effortlessly by Gilliam, I will never be able to appreciate the abstract meaning of Python's antics (anti-authoritarian, subversive, piratical nonsense that celebrates freedom and life) in quite the the same way again.

Like Elder, I too am disappointed that people can be so incredibly ill-informed...and so foolishly concrete in the way they view the world and the meaning of life.

Thou Dissembling Clapper-Clawed Botch!

Tired of those same old bland insults with which to attack your opponents? Can't think of anything new to angrily fling at the curs? Have boring and commonplace adjectives and nouns got you down?

Let me recommend the Shakespearean Insult Generator!

It will ratchet up the level of invective and gives even the most inappropriate ad hominem argument a touch of class. The best thing about it is that most people or groups on which the insult is used will recognize they've been insulted, but won't be sure exactly what you've said about them! So you'll be laughing while they're trying to find a dictionary so they can figure out how to respond!

Priceless.

THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN!

This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels. Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts.

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place
A Sketch History of U.S. Military Bases in the Middle East: The Overthrow of Mossadegh
The Glittering Eye

Second Place
The Counterterrorism Blog Looks Into the Face of Evil Gates of Vienna


BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place
Iraqis Preparing to Decide... Iraq the Model

Second Place (A three-way tie!)

Steps to Limited Government The QandO Blog

Chemical Weapons, Drug Smuggling, and Other Crimes of the Yemeni Dictator
Armies of Liberation

Andrew Bostom: The Legacy of Jihad RedState.org

These are all great posts and highly recommended! Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's site!

Oh, and one more thing - THERE IS A COUNCIL SEAT UP FOR GRABS! So, if you are interested, go here and follow the instructions for applying. Good Luck!

League of Looters versus League of Freedom

Here is a great piece at FrontPage that identifies the key reason why the UN has failed in its primary objective of fostering world peace:

The fundamental feature of the United Nations is its policy of opening membership non-judgmentally to all nations--whether free or oppressive, peaceful or belligerent. This is upheld as the UN's central virtue and a vital means to peace. Admitting blatantly tyrannical regimes, proponents say, creates opportunities for "dialogue" and rehabilitation. As Kofi Annan explains, the very fact that such "non-democratic states" sign on "to the UN's agenda opens an avenue through which other states, as well as civil society around the world, can press them to align their behavior with their commitments."

But UN membership did not prevent the USSR (a founding member) from herding its citizens into gulags and forced-labor camps, murdering untold numbers of them, and invading other states; nor China from crushing under its military boot pro-freedom demonstrators and peaceful ideological dissenters; nor Iran and Saudi Arabia from infusing Islamist terrorist groups with abundant financial means and the ideological zeal to wage jihad against the West.

The UN's policy of neutrality accomplishes precisely the opposite of its putative effect; it actually protects and bolsters vicious regimes.

Participation in the UN confers on them an unearned moral legitimacy. That the leaders of such regimes are routinely invited to speak before the UN rewards them with an undeserved respectability. So it was with Fidel Castro: his self-justifying UN speech after seizing power in Cuba elicited rapturous applause. He was raised to the dignity of statesman -- a man who deals in reasoned argument -- despite being a totalitarian ruler who brutally silences dissidents. And the unwarranted recognition of arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat as a statesman arguably began when he first spoke at the United Nations in 1974. Though such men attain and hold power by force, though they preach murderous ideologies, though they devastate the lives of their subjects -- the United Nations unfastidiously endorses them and their regimes.

The United Nations thus gives them a means to entrench their power.

Is it any wonder that the once noble vision and hope that led to the formation of the UN has now evolved into a "League of Looters" that plunders the goodwill and prosperity of productive and free nations and rewards those led by despots and tyrants?

Well, live and learn.

The time has come to dissolve the UN and accept it was a terrible, horrible mistake that has increased world suffering and become the biggest impediment to the spread of Freedom around the world.

If idealists still exist after watching the UN debacle unfold over the last half century, then I would suggest that the next time around, membership should be restricted to those countries that demonstate a committment to real freedom for their citizens--and not the "Jimmy Carter" kind of country that pretends to have democratic elections so some despot can get the former President's approval and high fives from other tyrants in key UN positions.

What is needed is a League of Freedom to promote and encourage democratic and free institutions around the world.

League of Looters versus League of Freedom. A real no-brainer.

THE NAME OF PLAME MAKES EVERYONE INSANE

(Sung to the tunes of "Poor Professor Higgens" and "The Rain in Spain")

MEDIA:
Poor Saddam Hussein!
Poor Saddam Hussein!
Night and day
He pines away! Oh, poor Saddam Hussein!

All day long he thinks about the time when he was the number one;
Doesn't rest; Doesn't eat;
Doesn't have much fun!

Poor Saddam Hussein!
Poor Saddam Hussein!! His WMD was fantasy;
Oh, poor Saddam Hussein!

Just because he killed some Kurds
He not as bad as neo-nerds!
It was an illegal war...! He really still is quite a star!!
So enter a “ Not Guilty” plea,
We're on your side, we hope you see!

Bush is evil, he will pay. Pounding pounding in our brain.
Saddam's just misunderstood—as proof, we offer "Plame"...

FITZGERALD:
The Name of Plame is making me Insane!

WILSON:
By George, indict them! I said indict them!
Now, once again what is her name?

THE LEFT:
It is Plame! It is Plame!

WILSON:
And who's mentioned that name?

THE LEFT:
Our bane! Our bane! (now, what’s his name?)

ALL:
The name of Plame will make the Right insane!
The name of Plame will make the Right insane!

MEDIA:
In Halubja, Haditha and Harvard...?

THE LEFT::
...Terrorism hardly happens!

PLAME:
How kind of you to use my name!

WILSON:
Now once again, what is her name?

THE LEFT:
It is Plame! It is Plame!

WILSON:
And who's whispering her name?

THE LEFT:
Karl, our bane! Our bane!

ALL:
The Name of Plame Makes Everyone Insane!

**SPECULATION ALERT** Is it just a coincidence that“Saddam Hussein” happens to rhyme with "Plame"? I don't think so....

Hypocrisy in Full Bloom

Cliff May in The Corner cites an article by Eli Lake on MSM hypocrisy--and, my oh my has Lake nailed it. Let me reproduce May's comments:

Great lede: “The big irony to savor at the center of the Valerie Plame case is that everything everyone thinks they know about Patrick Fitzgerald's leak investigation has been leaked.”

Also: “ Where would the president's critics be without anonymous and classified disclosures from CIA analysts, diplomats, and military officers unhappy with the president's policy? Without these intelligence leaks the public would never have learned that, say, Ahmad Chalabi allegedly fooled the entire American intelligence community into believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Valerie Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, was a leaker when he, acting anonymously, shared his story of a secret trip to Niger with the New Republic. A whole literature devoted to demonizing the neoconservatives is at risk.”

And: “The editor of the trade publication, Editor & Publisher, Greg Mitchell, called for the New York Times to fire Ms. Miller, complaining that he found it hard to believe Ms. Miller could not remember who told her the name "Valerie Flame," as she wrote in her notebook. Let's get this straight. The editor of a publication devoted to covering newspapers is angry that a reporter didn't disclose enough of her confidential sources to a grand jury in a criminal prosecution.”

One more: “Mr. Wilson also said that Mr. Cheney authorized his trip to Niger and therefore the vice president knew that it was false to claim Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. Based on the accounts of reporters Ms. Miller and Matthew Cooper, it appears that if there was a mention of Mr. Wilson's wife by Messrs. Rove or Libby, it was an effort not to burn an official at the Central Intelligence Agency but to correct Mr. Wilson's own misstatement about Mr. Cheney's knowledge of his secret mission.”

Read all of Lake's piece (and check out The Corner sometime, too). Of course, such hypocrisy has been the staple of the MSM for some years now. Seeing it burst full-bloom in the Plame case only tells us that they smell blood; and like any other mindless beast, are ready to finish the kill.

Makes you kinda hope the blood they smell is their own.

A Good Question...

...and it is by a Bahraini journalist living in the U.S.:

"When the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke, there was not a single Arab who did not express the opinion that it was a despicable, mean [act] contrary to humanist values. They are right about this. But these people swiftly forgot their humanism and sealed their lips when the Jordanian terrorist Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi declared war against the Shi'ites in Iraq, and began to dispatch his booby-trapped soldiers to blow themselves up among children, women, and the elderly. None of those [who denounced the Abu Ghraib scandal] uttered a word and none shed a tear for the hundreds and thousands of Iraqis being murdered and whose bodies are being mutilated.

"The first to denounce [the Abu Ghraib scandal] were the Americans themselves, who thought that the acts of some of their soldiers distorted the image of the U.S. and served as a mark of shame...

"But don't the Arabs feel an even greater sense of shame when some of them kill and massacre Iraqi citizens? Don't the rest [of the people] feel pangs of conscience when they try to come up with excuses and justifications for the murderers and criminals whom they call the 'resistance?' How can someone outraged at the torture of or disrespect for another person be silent and ignore [Al-Zarqawi's] declaration of the [program of] extermination of millions of people because of their sectarian affiliation?

"How is one to [describe] the Arab silence [in general] and the Sunni [silence] in particular in light of the murder of Shi'ite Iraqis and their intimidation in the most despicable and base of ways?... After all, the murderers declare their positions publicly, brag about them, and consider them Jihad for the sake of Allah. [Even] if what has happened does not stir up the regular Arab citizen – who has been brainwashed, and whose will has been totally eroded – how is one to explain [this same position when it is adopted by] politicians and members of the media?"

Not only is this a good question to ask the Sunnis and Arabs in general, but it is a really excellent question to put to the clueless protestors of ANSWER and their ilk, who reflexly condemn the U.S. military and curiously never seem to be bothered by the savagery of the enemy that our military are fighting.

Is it possible that they still think of them as Michael Moore's "minutemen", valiently fighting for freedom in Iraq? Just to remind you, here is what Moore said:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win....I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle...the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.

To Mr. Moore and the Left: The Revolution has happened--you just can't see it. It happened in January when the Iraqi people voted on a provisional government. It happened this month when they voted for a new constitution. It is happening now, as they put their former president and sadistic dictator on trial for the murder of thousands of his own citizens.

How can it be that you missed these momentous events?

I can only conclude that like the "regular Arab citizen" (described by Omran Salman in the article above), "who has been brainwashed, and whose will has been totally eroded": the American Left is also suffering from the effects of an indoctrination so pervasive that it has blinded them to the events of the real world.

They scream about the evil of Abu Ghraib over and over, but are completely unmoved by the ongong barbarism perpetrated against innocent Iraqis by Zarqawi and his thugs.

They rail against the Bushchimpeyhitler, while ignoring the fact that one of the most savage and brutal dictators in the world is going on trial for his crimes against humanity.

They say they want a revolution, but are unable to recognize one--when it is for democracy and freedom anyway-- zs it stares them in the face and reverberates around the world.

They whine about how Christian and Jewish symbols must be excluded from our schools to keep them pure; but introduce an Islamic curriculum ok'd by CAIR to promote "diversity" and "tolerance".

They harp on the religious right and it "oppresssion" in the US; but seem willfully blind about the religious oppression done all over the world in the name of Islam.

To paraphrase our Bahraini journalist and the pseudoprophetic Mr. Moore: Are they unable to feel the shame and disgrace of their carefully orchestrated and selective outrage? Their silence about the deaths and atrocities committed by Al-Qaeda in the name of Islam make it doubtful that either God or the Iraqi people will forgive them in the end.

The Tide Rushes In

From Cox and Forkum:

And, while I am on the subject of Iraq, neo-neocon has some musings about Saddam's trial that are well worth your time.

Good things are happening in Iraq.

ABLE DANGER AGAIN?

Things have been quiet on the Able Danger front, but this evening I received two emails alerting me to the fact that Curt Weldon had just given a fiery speech about Able Danger on C-Span. (hat tips: Larwyn and DK in Sunnyvale).

The following points were made by Weldon by those who heard it on TV (and these are tentative until I can find the official link!):

1. Weldon has a new witness, with a sterling reputation, who claims that Able Danger data still exists.

2. Weldon stated that Wolfe Blitzer claims that the DIA told him that Lt. Col Shaffer was having an affair with someone in Weldon's office. Weldon is demanding to know who gave Blitzer that information.

3. Weldon is suggesting apparantly that the DIA is atively attempting to discredit Shaffer. Besides the above gossip that was passed to Blitzer; the DIA apparently sent Shaffer some boxes "personal" belonging gathered after his security clearance was recinded. These "belongings" included $500 of government property, including government pens (remember that Shaffer was accused of stealing government pens as a justification for his security clearance suspension) and even classified memos!

4. Weldon is demanding an investigation into all this, or he will resign from Congress.

I have not been able to find a link to Weldon's speech yet either on his own site, or elsewhere, but will post it when its available. All the information I
have was sent to me by two people who listened to the speech on C-Span.

Able Danger remains extremely interesting. In a previous post on this subject, I said:

This story is just slowly getting more and more interesting. There are powerful forces at work here trying to hold it back. From that alone we can estimate its importance.

Like Weldon, I would like to get to the bottom of these powerful forces trying to hold it back. In fact, my first "loose association" when I learned of these latest revelations, coming after I have been reviewing the CIA's (or at least a portion of that Agency) aggressive attempts since 9/11 to undermine the Bush Administration and selectively leak information to a gullible press (who will print anything that is detrimental to Bush), was how completely screwed up the priorities of our intelligence agencies seem to be.

What precisely is going on here? Someone, somewhere in the executive and/or oversight legislative branch needs to get them under some control and all working on the same page. I can live without knowing all the national security secrets that are entrusted to these people every day in the course of their work.

But, what I can't live with is being continually manipulated by the selective release of information for purposes that undermine our government and country--especially in a time of war.

Bush Derangement Syndrome may have infected some of the analysts committed to the previous administration. If that's the case, then it's well past time to clean out all those closets, I think. If it's something deeper, or even uglier-than-usual politics, then those closets need to be cleaned AND disinfected.

UPDATE: The Strata-Shpere and Michelle Malkin have lots more! For all the details, go there. Here is a UPI article on the call for a new probe.