Over at Instapundit.com -
MICHAEL YON EMAILS: "Baqubah has gone quiet. Very little fighting. There might be more to come, but overall the people have turned against al Qaeda and are pointing them out day by day. The people are pointing out the bombs. Baqubah received its first food shipment in 10 months just a few days ago, even while light fighting was still on. I was there for the food distribution and am writing a dispatch on it. The primary object now is to start to restore a sense of normalcy in the city. Remember Ramadi? That crazy city of death and fighting? Writers hardly want to go there any more because it's quiet. I am very curious if Baqubah will go that way. So far so good. There are serious sectarian issues here in Diyala Province, but with al Qaeda on defense instead of offense, the people in Baqubah have a chance to do what those in Ramadi and other cities are doing: reclaim their lives."Hmmm. Maybe the Iraqi people have had their fill of their 'brothers' coming and 'helping' them out. There've been reports of people killed for having tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag... and although this does sound wierd, there's a reason for it...
U.S.: Sunni insurgents battling al-Qaida - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.comVegetables. Hot vegetables? They're obsessed with hot vegetable SEX, for crying out loud. I'm trying to come up with a joke... but it's pretty clear Al Qaida's gone so round the bend with sexual obsession that it's no wonder why they blow themselves up... Sheer frustration is driving them MAD, I tell you! MAAAAADDDD! Mars needs women! (Or Al Q needs a heck of a lot of subscriptions to Playboy and a lesson on how to get a grip on yourself from Surgeon General Elders.) And don't anyone tell them about VeggieTales and Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber! Why, it could be worse than the TeleTubbies and Tinky-Winky! But then again... it could be a cactus fixation. Yow.American commanders cite al-Qaida's severe brand of Islam, which is so extreme that in Baqouba, al-Qaida has warned street vendors not to place tomatoes beside cucumbers because the vegetables are different genders, Col. David Sutherland said.
But if they see this yam, it's all over. (NSFW, unless you can explain to your boss it's really a yam before they sic the HR folk on you for insensitivity to Vegetable-Americans.) Humorous vegetables on the internets. Gotta love it...
Re Scooter Libby... I'm kind of stonkered on this one. Let's see, there wasn't any crime committed, at least nothing that anyone's been charged with. But because he couldn't remember spot-on what he told to who he got slammed with years in jail and a $250,000 fine.
Meanwhile, Sandy Berger pleads nolo contendre to charges he took classified documents and gives up his law license rather than try to defend himself... which makes me wonder just who he's protecting and what he made off with. Berger loses his license, pays $25k. Seems kind of odd...
Global warming may be caused by something else entirely. One main problem is we don't necessarily know what questions to ask, or what to make of the answers when we do get them. It IS noticeably warmer on Mars and Pluto, which would tie into a more active sun, which would tie into the theory presented above. More info on the same here. Then again...
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Scepticism' over climate claimsWhen it comes to a choice of being concerned with immediate dog poop versus possible climate change, I think the dog poop would have priority.The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.
The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.
There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.
The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate.
The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.
Let's see... the folks who did the attempted car bombings are doctors... apparently they're better doctors than bomb-makers. And over at The Daily Brief: Military Musings and Thoughts Less Filtered � The Whip Hand and the Velvet Glove, Sgt. Mom's got some interesting observations.
It is reported in the aftermath of the car-bomb attempt on the Glasgow airport terminal, that bystanders yelled “let the ****er burn!” as rescuers attempted to extinguish the fire burning on the clothes and flesh of one of the aspiring jihadis.Expect serious blowback if there's a successful bombing. And again, the pendulum will swing from "Bush is taking away our liberties because of a fake war!" to "He didn't do enough to protect us, and still isn't!"This happening and the fact that it was even noted and reported may be seen as a kind of harbinger. It may be an indication that the masses, or the ordinary people, the proletariat… or whatever you want to call the non-elite are no longer buying the load being sold to them.
Well, that's about it for tonight. I gotta get some sleep, I'm flat out of Provigil... not that I was taking it before... but I really wouldn't mind being able to sleep for only about 3, 4 hours a day...
J.
Comments (6)
I found your blog in the aftermath of the Va Tech slaughter...
I was happy to see that you were on the side of allowing law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves. I abhor the idea of the government allowing, even encouraging the creation of "victim disarmament zones."
Now, with regard to the risk to civilization, are you saying that the Central Government has a responsibility to protect us even if it means we lose the Bill of Rights? Or, do we accept risk to keep the Bill of Rights?
Posted by Mike | July 4, 2007 8:42 PM
Posted on July 4, 2007 20:42
Wonderful post for July 4 at Wizbang.
http://wizbangblog.com/2007/07/04/why-do-you-love-america.php
Sample:
otpu
Posted by Otpu | July 4, 2007 10:52 PM
Posted on July 4, 2007 22:52
Mike:
In partial answer to your question;
The Bill of Rights doesn't describe the rights that the central government grants to its citizens. The Bill of Rights describes the inherent rights that are the natural legacy of every human being. Its presence in the Constitution is to proscribe any action the government might take that may infringe on these natural rights.
The first ten Amendments to the Constitution, particularly the one most directly involved in personal protection, do not permit us to exercise the rights enumerated therein. Their presence in the supreme law of the land is to forbid the government the right to pass laws that might prevent us from exercising those rights.
We cannot lose those rights. They may be stolen from us and that is the only risk to civilization involved.
otpu
Posted by Otpu | July 4, 2007 11:10 PM
Posted on July 4, 2007 23:10
The US Constitution is a wonderful document as, paraphrasing Den Beste, it is a negative document: it is not a grant of rights from government to the people, but of limited rights to government *from* the People. That is what Amendment IX and X are about - ensuring that government is limited and that the People have freest use of their rights without government interference. We fought a Revolution over that.
And because of the structure of the Constitution in the way it outlays things, we miss the greatest part of it over and over again. That outlay is very simple and highly significant:
1) Responsibilities and who is responsible for what,
2) Just means to enact those responsibilities,
3) The Rights necessary to work through Just means to ensure the Responsibilities are taken care of.
Even worse is that if the Rights do not cover what is necessary, the Responsibilities *must* be adhered to. Read for each part of government in Articles I, II and III and that structure is obvious and straightforward. That said the entire Constitution also fits in that exact same pattern, which makes the Preamble not a statement of government, but what We the People set out to do... it is our 'Bill of Responsibilities' laid out right up front so you can know what YOU are responsible for. And, as a People, we are responsible for the whole ball of wax - no blaming government as it is Our government in common working for us. No blaming your neighbor or folks in another State - You are responsible for the things going on here. When one protests that it is 'not in your name', then you are saying that you are no longer part of We the People and will not shoulder your responsibilities with the rest of us. That you, in declaring that, know better than the rest of We the People and will *not* engage in those activities to convince us of your rightness.... decry without building and you are no longer making 'a more perfect Union' with the rest of the People.
These were radical concepts starting in 1776 and 1787... and they still are to this very day, radical. Americans have been taught that the Revolution *ended* with the Peace of Paris. It did not. There is no end to that Revolution until we give up being a People. If that day comes, you can expect there will be a fight between those supporting that radical notion, and the forces of tyranny wanting to put it down. We fight that everyday within ourselves and so we must do so as a Nation. Together. As one People separate and distinct from all others... or else we betray those things the Nation was founded upon.
Posted by ajacksonian | July 5, 2007 2:53 PM
Posted on July 5, 2007 14:53
Mike -
My thought is that government has an obligation to protect us. However - we also have an obligation to keep watch on government and make sure it isn't 'protecting' us too much. There's a good bit of precedent for a TEMPORARY suspension of certain rights during wartime - but those rights are restored when the conditions necessitating their suspension are past.
There is a great deal of difference between our government and England's, and it can be easily parsed out by the names used for residents of the countries.
In Great Britain, they are 'subjects'. Essentially, they have only the amount of say in their government that the government allows them to have.
In the United States - we're not 'subjects', we're 'citizens' - and nominally own the government. (Though it does occasionally take getting our panties in a wad to get the attention of those in government who see us as 'subjects' instead of 'citizens'.)
Hope this helps.
J.
Posted by JLawson | July 6, 2007 6:54 PM
Posted on July 6, 2007 18:54
John B -
A peaceful transfer of power...
And there are some in this country who don't realize just HOW DAMN RARE that is in the history of the world... and would toss it out because they think the wrong person's in charge.
They need to go find some South American dictatorship and observe things for a while.
J.
Posted by JLawson | July 6, 2007 6:57 PM
Posted on July 6, 2007 18:57