They’ve wanted to get away from those evil Republicans and bible-thumping conservatives, not to mention the wild and wooly Libertarians. And on the horizon appears their opportunity to create enough distance from us. It seems there’s a new planet out there:

	An international team of researchers including astronomers from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory have discovered the smallest planet yet detected outside of our solar system, using a method that could eventually locate other small planets with the potential to host life.
	The new planet is just 5.5 times the mass of Earth, far more petite than the 150 or so other “exoplanets” spied outside the solar system to date, the smallest of which is the size of Neptune, 12 times the mass of Earth.
	“This is an important breakthrough in the quest to answer the question ‘Are we alone?'”…

Since this is a question Liberals have been asking themselves for sometime now, it is comforting to think they may have an answer.

	Unlike the gaseous giants scientists have found in the past, the new planet has a solid, rocky core.
	“It is so small that its gravity couldn’t hold five earth masses worth of gas together,” said Livermore Lab astronomer Kem Cook… The new planet is orbiting a star five times smaller than our sun at a distance 2.6 times further than Earth’s distance from the sun. That means it is probably too cold, maybe 360 degrees below zero, for living organisms on the newly discovered planet.

Well, perhaps we could send them off with little heaters attached to their space suits?

	“It’s a major discovery,” Cook said. “It’s moving in the direction of the Holy Grail of planetary science, which is an earth-mass planet in the habitable zone.”
	The planet, which resides more than 20,000 light years away in the Sagittarius constellation, may also be the most distant planet found so far. It was spotted using a technique called gravitational microlensing, which is based on one of Albert Einstein’s ideas.

Another Holy Grail quest. If that’s not a burning Liberal issue, what is? Of course they haven’t come up with a new idea since FDR (Johnson’s War on Poverty was merely a riff on the New Deal) so this may be just the ticket.

Imagine that. All the Libs safely on their own planet. Be still my heart.

Hat tip: Wally Ballou. However, he is not responsible for the editorial comment. Unlike the MSM, we here at Gates of Vienna can tell the difference between real news and our fervent hopes.

 
The White House has chided the Mexican government for the helpful maps it gives out to illegals hoping to cross the border.

As usual, Jerry Seper is the journalist covering this story:

	The Bush administration yesterday accused the Mexican government of facilitating illegal entry into the United States after Mexican officials said they would distribute maps of dangerous border areas and posters with safety instructions and other tips.
	[…]
	“We oppose in the strongest terms the publication of maps to aid those who wish to enter the United States illegally,” said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. “It is a bad idea to encourage migrants to undertake this highly dangerous and ultimately futile effort.
	“This effort will entice more people to cross, leading to more migrant deaths and the further enrichment of the criminal human trafficking rings that prey on the suffering of others,” he said.
	State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States would “take whatever steps it deems necessary to protect its own borders.”
	“No government, including the government of Mexico, should facilitate or encourage its citizens to try to enter the United States outside established legal procedures ,” he said.

Finally! Chertoff is no longer claiming it’s not a problem and the State Department has quit sweeping the problem under the rug.

Mexico, of course, is claiming “we din’ do nuthin’ so don’ blame us — it was those guys”:

	Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) said the maps, which would provide details of the terrain, cell-phone coverage and water stations set up by the U.S. charity Humane Borders, would help to save lives.
	[…]
	Rafael Laveaga, spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington, said the NHRC is an independent body and receives no government funds. He said the commission is working with Humane Borders in distributing the maps.

They then proceed to say since we can’t stop the rape of our borders, we might as well help those who are going to do so anyway.

Well, Mexico hasn’t changed its tune, but at least the Bush administration has.

	Mexican President Vicente Fox has called for a “status of regularization” for Mexicans illegally in the United States, which would allow them to remain as long as they were employed. He also has criticized recently approved legislation in the House authorizing the construction of 700 miles of fence on the U.S.-Mexico border and the designation of illegal entry as a felony.
	“What is not resolved by intelligent policies and by leaders is resolved by citizens. That is how the Berlin Wall fell and that is how this wall will fall,” he told Reuters news agency Tuesday. “I hope it isn’t even built because, if it is, it will fall.”

Don’t you wonder how Fox plans to demolish the wall?

Stay tuned. And by all means, read the whole article at The Washington Times Insider.

Also look at what this angry sheriff has to say:

	Texas border sheriff yesterday demanded that the U.S. and Mexican governments investigate incursions into the United States by heavily armed drug escorts dressed in Mexican military uniforms “before someone gets killed.”
	Zapata County Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez Jr., who heads the Texas Sheriff’s Border Coalition, said a growing number of suspected incursions and violence aimed at the area’s law-enforcement officers is making the border “a pretty dangerous place.”
	“We have tried everything we know to make the federal government aware of the problems at the border and how they have affected us,” said Sheriff Gonzalez, who has fewer than two dozen deputies to patrol 1,000 square miles, including 60 miles of Texas-Mexico border.
	“It appears our government is covering this thing up because it just doesn’t want to admit there is a problem,” he said. “Trade between the United States and Mexico may be more important to Washington than human lives.”

The Baron’s grandfather fought in the last skirmish we had with Mexico. Let’s hope we haven’t come full circle here.

 

Ah Google. It’s a business, it’s a stock, it’s a verb, it’s an access millions use every day, all over the world.

It’s also a controversy at the moment.

First of all, there is Google’s motto: “Don’t Be Evil” — which may be the most awkward use of words they could’ve chosen. Someone running across that would think, “hmmm… just what particular evil were they considering? Am I missing something?” If you’re going to choose a motto, phrase it positively — as in “Do Good” or, closer “Refrain From Evil.” But with this one, it’s only too easy to take a whack at it and end up with Don’t Be Evil… which is what any number of angry bloggers have proceeded to do since Google decided to go to China.

The controversy has essentially two sides (or three, if you count those who are indifferent. But they probably don’t count in a contretemps, do they?).

On the first side are those who are angry because they’re convinced that what Google (and Yahoo and that Big Satan, Microsoft) did is harmful to the United States and to the West and to those Chinese who will be monitored and perhaps punished, as was the case with Yahoo. Thus, by their standards, Google is a pariah and should be treated as such: divest your stock (oh, that I had some to divest!); give up using Google Ads on your blog and sacrifice the revenue therefrom; inveigh against this decision and call for a boycott.

A few well-known facts:

• China is fiercely xenophobic.
• China is neither a democracy or a republic.
• China does not believe in or promote free access to information by its citizens.
• China is fast catching up to the rest of the world in areas of technology. For example, they have trained thousands of oil and gas pipeline workers in order to be ready for the petroleum land battles that are sure to come.
• China does not merely import military knowledge. It also uses the cultural artifacts of the West and incorporates them, unlike, say, the Middle East.
• China’s middle class is growing exponentially.
• China is family over the individual; the group is primary.
• China is Confucian rather than Aristotelian or Christian (despite inroads, the state still controls the churches, at least on the surface).
• China is immense and probably ungovernable in its present state. We may see it split over the coming century.

So there’s the other side. Some believe that Google’s decision to work within the limits imposed by the Chinese government is just the foot under the tent. As with all the West’s previous dealings with China, the latter will become more Westernized and more open as a result of the contact. Thus, we ought to welcome the idea since it means China becomes less a threat to us.

Don’t forget that China is full of young, intelligent and well-educated men — far more than it really knows what to do with since its population control policies have included the unintended consequence of millions of aborted female fetuses.

These intelligent, bored “youths” take great pleasure in hacking, just for the sheer fun of getting away with it. So guess what many of them will be doing once China has Google on board. That’s right: they’ll make Google’s entry into China the widening point of an already-growing chasm between young and old, bureaucrat and individual, son and family.

Ah, China: you have once again doomed yourself to live in interesting times.

From The Drudge Report:

Fortunately for Mrs. Clinton, they aren’t holding the next presidential election any time soon…

Only 16 percent of voters are “firmly” in Hillary’s camp. Another 32 per cent would “consider” Mrs. Clinton for President.

But CNNGallup says that 51 per cent say “no way, Jose.” No Hillary. N-O.

As Drudge notes, that means her negatives outnumber her positives by three to one.

Among Republicans, 90 per cent perish the thought, but only 71 per cent of conservatives are that definite.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the divide, 46 percent wouldn’t back Dr. Rice.

So there you are. THREE WHOLE YEARS BEFOREHAND and they’re running these dumb polls and I’m reporting it.

Interesting feel for things, though. Bet ol’ Hillary won’t be talking about the “plantation” again anytime soon or they’ll be all over her like chocolate on New Orleans.

[Sorry. My new favorite phrase. Be patient; another one will eventually replace it. That’s how it is with pet phrases…]

 
This won’t compute.

Michael Jackson, the world’s greatest pedophile and cross-dresser has found refuge in Bahrain. It appears he now wears the hijab; obviously he’s found a spiritual home:

	He was wearing an abaya, a robe with long sleeves, under which his pants, white shirt and men’s shoes could be seen, and his head and face were wrapped in a black veil. He had black gloves on his hands.
	The veil, abaya and gloves were of a style typically worn by conservative Bahraini women, though Jackson appeared to be wearing them to hide his identity.

With him was a woman — also in an abaya and jeans and a scarf over her head that partially covered her face — who had the two other children. All three children’s faces were wrapped in black scarves, and they wore yellow shirts and sweatpants or khakis without robes. The woman’s identity was not known.

Now where in the Koran or the hadith is there room for this creature? You don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

It’s laugh at his get-up and cry for his children…

If he weren’t rich and famous, they’d have stoned him by now. At the very least.

Hat tip: Baron Bodissey, who definitely doesn’t need a hijab.

 
I can hear people squawking about this now, but what the hey. It’s a genius idea from the Heritage Foundation if only NATO has the proper anatomy to carry it off. Or maybe we could just shoot it up with testosterone long enough to get things going:

	On the surface, Iran appears to have bested the international community in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell has observed, after two years of fruitless negotiation, the international community is no closer to halting Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons… Instead, the great powers endlessly debate where and when a diplomatic showdown will take place while Iran resumes its nuclear research. In essence, the world is fiddling while Rome burns. The West has one ace left to play before a final showdown looms. Extending NATO membership to Israel could convince Iran’s Mullahs that developing a nuclear capability is not in their interest.
	[…]
	endless talks between the EU-3 (France, Britain, and Germany) and Tehran are not solving the problem and will not disarm the Iranian regime. Behind the scenes of the negotiations, many in continental Europe secretly wish that the U.S. would simply accept the possibility of an Islamic Republic of Iran with a nuclear arsenal. They ignore, however, the harsh reality of such a foolhardy policy. The fallout from inaction would be disastrous. An arms race in the region would ensue, with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt all vying to develop their own nuclear weapons. Iran would become increasingly vociferous in its threats against Israel and could actively arm the myriad terrorist groups that depend upon Tehran’s protection. Israel would not play along with this game of Russian roulette. The world would shortly face a major regional conflict, possibly involving the use of nuclear weapons. There is a way out of the present diplomatic morass that will signal to the Mullahs in Tehran that the West is serious about reining in their nuclear ambitions, but without allowing them to destabilize the Middle East. The United States should propose the quick admission of Israel into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as a full and equal member. Israel meets NATO qualifications: it is a democracy, has a free market economy, and is able to contribute to the common defense. In fact, unlike many new NATO members, it would be a net addition to the alliance, having lift and logistics ability, a second-to-none officer corps, and a first-rate military capable of all aspects of war-fighting. Israel spends nearly 10 percent of its GDP on defense and has active armed forces numbering 167,000 men and women, with 358,000 in reserve. It possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads, as well as a well-equipped Air Force and Navy.
	Israel’s intelligence capabilities have been a vital asset in prosecuting the Global War on Terror, as few understand the conflict so well. Like the U.S. and Great Britain, history has forced Israel into being a genuine warrior nation. Its accession to NATO could only enhance the alliance’s capabilities.
	More importantly, Israeli accession to NATO would explicitly extend the Western alliance’s nuclear deterrent to cover Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Now it will be Tehran, and not the rest of the world, that has a proliferation problem. Any nuclear or conventional attack on Israel, be it direct or through proxies such as Hezbollah or other terrorist groups, would be met by a cataclysmic response from the West that would make the Battle of Omdurman look like a stroll in the park…Israel’s accession would leave the Mullahs with no illusions about the West’s determination to respond to Iran’s strategic threat to the region.

Please read the whole essay by John Hulsman and Nile Gardner, here at The Heritage Foundation . This would “confound” the Iranians and let the EU3 get a little rest from their Sisyphean labors.

Now, may we see a show of hands here?

 
Mark Steyn’s recent column, “Standing Small Against Iran Won’t Work” brought to mind the years I spent immersed in the crises of domestic violence. Whoever first termed it “domestic terrorism” was right. Though this was decades before Islamicists were on the horizon, the similarities would turn out to be striking.

In his essay, Steyn pokes fun at the limp-wristed resolve of the EU 3 and their vicious counter-attacks on Iran. Britain is harrumphing about “narrowly targeted sanctions.” That’ll put a scare into them. Germany thinks this is too harsh, and La Belle is doing some nuklear saber-rattling — but who believes Chirac on anything, even the color of his tie?

So what do these “world leaders” + Iran have to do with domestic violence? Well, let me give you a real-life example; see if you get the parallels.

Back in the mid-’80s, while domestic violence was pretty much a grass-roots organization, I admitted to our shelter a woman who’d had both eyes blackened by her abuser. As the shock wore off, she was distraught, angry and determined to end the relationship. We took pictures of the damage for court, and went to the magistrate’s office. He looked her over and filed charges for assault. Her abuser was picked up the next day, spent the night in jail, and at his preliminary hearing was given a court date and instructions on finding a lawyer. He was released on his own recognizance as he had no previous record, was steadily employed, and wasn’t going anywhere. In the judge’s opinion, he was a “good” risk, though she ordered the man to stay away from his victim. He proceeded to do so, never once bothering her in the lead up to the trial.

Meanwhile, she made common sense decisions regarding living arrangements. Someone else got her things from their apartment, she opened her own checking account, and set about trying to establish life on her own.

She was nervous, though. “You don’t know him,” she’d tell me over and over again. Problem was, I did indeed know his pattern and thought her misgivings intuitively right. The most dangerous time for a woman is after she leaves. This woman was living in a danger zone and she didn’t need me to tell her.

Court day came. The Commonwealth’s Attorney had his ducks in a row: pictures of my client’s damaged face (now healing), testimony from the victim and her family — the whole and usual thing in these cases.

The judge listened carefully to both sides before finding the man guilty and sentencing him to six months, suspended, on the condition that he stay away from his wife. He had a good job, he seemed reasonable and contrite — six months probation and an “anger management class” of course. He was to stay away from his victim.

After it was all over, the abuser stopped the Commonwealth’s Attorney as he was leaving court. The man’s interest was in the particulars of his sentence: only six month’s probation for damaging his wife’s eyes like that? The Commonwealth’s Attorney, who hated these guys, answered tersely, “yeah. It’s not nearly enough. Stay the hell away from her.” The man rocked back on his heels once or twice and seemed to ponder this. “Six months probation, huh?” The CA pushed past him.

You can guess the rest of the story. Within the week, my client was hospitalized, having been severely beaten. Her abuser was out on bail this time, which was set at $25,000.00. His family helped him raise the percentage for the bondsman. When I saw him, he told me it was the six months’ probation that made his assault irresistible. “Only six months,” he said. “It was worth it.”

The later circumstances are less clear now. I believe he was sentenced to a year in the county jail. What stayed with me, though, was this man’s cool assessment of risk versus payoff. To his way of thinking, he made a rational decision and was willing to pay the consequences for inflicting that amount of pain.

Same thing with Iran. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. Whether in the privacy of his home or as the head of state, there is always the calculus of pay-off. And sometimes, to their twisted way of thinking, it’s simply worth the price they have to pay.

Pray for Israel and the people of Iran.

 
Today, CNN ran an Associated Press report about a showdown at the border between Mexicans dressed in military uniforms and Texas law officers.

CNN managed to make this story exceedingly boring, scratching the surface of an important problem while employing a style so flat you could nod off before reaching the end of what they had to say.

Most importantly, though, they provide no background beyond the usual “200 sightings of Mexican military, etc.” Nothing to add to what we already know, and nothing of substance.

The MSM is the junk food of information nutrition.

Why? Is it just ineptitude? Do they not care about American sovereignty? They could have been talking about a showdown in Sri Lanka for all the import their story carried.

Meanwhile, another member of the MSM, The Washington Times, was all over this story like chocolate on New Orleans. And they filed their reports last week, for Heaven’s sake. They had names, numbers, complications and possible solutions.

Reporter Jerry Seper wrote two stories on the problems we’re having at the border, and columnist Tony Blankley took the governmental bureaucracy to task for its failure to lead — or for that matter, even to follow.

On January 17th, The W.T. Insider had the first story. Our report, “Mexican Military Now Invading Our Borders” and the link to Seper’s report here:

The U.S. Border Patrol has warned agents in Arizona of incursions into the United States by Mexican soldiers “trained to escape, evade and counterambush” if detected — a scenario Mexico denied yesterday. The warning to Border Patrol agents in Tucson, Ariz., comes after increased sightings of what authorities described as heavily armed Mexican military units on the U.S. side of the border. The warning asks the agents to report the size, activity, location, time and equipment of any units observed.

Then, on January 19th, Seper again reported on the situation, with more background and some information regarding a program, “Red Zone” that has been funded but has not been implemented.

	Arizona Congressional representative, Rick Renzi, wrote to Secretary of State Rice describing the events at our border with Mexico as “narco-terrorism in its purest form:”
	“Our borders are under attack by sophisticated organizations that have no qualms about firing on our Border Patrol units,” Mr. Renzi said. “As we get tougher and more committed, so do the organizations committed to smuggling death and terror our borders.”

And where is CNN in all this? Asleep at the wheel, or doing busy work with its story on Disney’s acquisition of Pixar.

Compare the three reports, two from The Washington Times, and the one today from CNN (a week later) and judge for yourself. Who is reporting the news and who is going through the motions?

As a commenter said of the story on the vandals who were sentenced recently for their destruction of Republican vans more than a year ago in the run-up to the last Presidential election, “Why didn’t we hear about this?” Why, indeed? The Milwaukee paper carried the story but it doesn’t seem to have been picked up or remarked upon in the wider media.

Don’t you wonder why CNN’s big story was Disney acquisition of Pixar? Sure, it matters if you have stock in either company, but other than that it’s trivial.
Maybe that’s the problem with CNN? It can’t tell the trivial from the important.

Compared to our serious, complex, and likely explosive problems with Mexico, the Disney and Pixar story is a gnat’s fart.

Hat tip: Baron Bodissey.

 
Remember those happy-go-lucky Democratic tire slashers in Milwaukee during the last presidential election?

Son of a gun, if they didn’t just wrap things up. Who says justice isn’t swift? According to The Milwaukee Sentinel Journal Online, things are finally winding down now, more than fifteen months after the incidents:

After a two-week felony trial culminating with notes from a conflicted jury, four Kerry-Edwards campaign workers – including the sons of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) and former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt – had their charges in the Election Day 2004 tire-slashing reduced to misdemeanors and accepted the deal.

And who says justice isn’t fair? A dumbed-down charge from felony to misdemeanor, now that’s fair for a practicing Democrat just trying to make the playing field a bit more level. One brave soul held out and got off:

The fifth Democratic staffer accused of crippling Republican vans won a jury acquittal by sticking with a fight against the felony charge.

There’s a close call for you: this one must have nerves of steel. All that’s left to do is for the boys to pool their money and pay restitution — a total of $5,317.45 — and they can forget the individual $10,000.00 fines that can accompany misdemeanors of this sort. They don’t have to serve the recommended nine month jail time, either:

	All five defendants had been charged with damaging 40 tires on 25 rented vans parked outside Republican Party offices on W. Capitol Drive, hours before they were to be deployed for electioneering. The repair costs easily exceeded the felony threshold of $2,500, yet there was little evidence about what each man had allegedly done.
	Prosecutors built most of their case on testimony from out-of-state Democratic operatives who had come to work on the Wisconsin campaign alongside the defendants – Michael Pratt, 33, Lewis G. Caldwell, 29, Lavelle Mohammad, 36, Justin Howell, 21, and Sowande Omokunde, 26. The witnesses said the local men boasted about their crippling attack on the Republican vehicles.

Dear, dear. “Boasting,” were they? That’s so Michael Moore.

Well, at least they’re free and ready for getting out the vote in 2006. Or are they planning to keep the voters at home again? That’s one way to win elections in Milwaukee, especially if you’re afraid you’d lose otherwise.

Good poll workers don’t let other poll workers vandalize the competition.

Perhaps the boys could be “sentenced” to write that out a thousand times. Hearts and minds were certainly changed when Sister Agnes employed this method. Perhaps the court could try it.

It also has the advantage of being a cheaper form of punishment than having the taxpayers of Milwaukee pay to house five thugs.

Hat tip: The Common Room

 
Common Dreams is quite a site. Not interesting enough to link to, however — especially since their banner carries that infamous doctored photo from Code Pink.

Remember this revelation from Little Green Footballs, via Publius Pundit?. Publius exhibited the original phot, plus the doctored one issued by Code Pink for their propaganda purposes. I guess CP thought they’d pulled a fast one. At any rate, LGF put them together for our edification.

However, that’s not the worst of what they have on offer. Today’s sample is a neologism they seem to have coined for Cindy Sheehan and those of her ilk (yes, I realize I do not usually refer to, mention, or otherwise allude to a poor human being who has long since abandoned home for the halls of lunacy. However, aside from the icky, faux photo, this particular post’s juxtaposition of snide ire and irrelevance is interesting in a creepy kind of way).

Have you ever heard of matriotism? Lucky you. At least until now you’ve been fortunate, because you’re about to see a little progressive thought progression. But before we get there, consider the Left’s sleight-of-hand with the word “progressive.” Like the term “pro-abortion,” the Left was forced to come up with another word for Leftist, given that it has fallen into such disrepute. Pro-abortion has come to mean support for partial-birth murders abortions, so it had to be changed to “pro-choice.” Nice euphemism; so much less grisly than the truth. The same goes for “Progressive” and “Leftist.” The former is just so much less grisly than reality, isn’t it?

So what’s the new reality word? Why it’s matriotism! Isn’t that sweeter than that ugly old male patriotism the Right is always spouting off about? Patriotism is a murderer, matriotism is a mother. Get it? Here’s nasty old patriotism a la Common Dreams:

There have been volumes written about patriotism, defining it, supporting it, challenging the notion of it, etc. I believe the notion of patriotism has been expediently and nefariously exploited, and used to lead our nation into scores of disastrous and needless wars. The idea of patriotism has virtually wiped out entire generations of our precious young people and has allowed our nation’s leaders to commit mass murder on an unprecedented scale. The vile sputum of “if you aren’t with us, then you are against us” is basically the epitome of patriotism gone wild.

Ugly, ugly. Nasty leaders/killers. “Vile sputum” indeed. Don’t you wonder why they don’t just get straight to the point and just say “vile sperm” —- after all, aren’t these “the woman is better” thinkers?

But what of matriotism, you say? Here it is, though sadly it was aborted by our leaders “jumping on the bandwagon” (the belly?) of 9/11:

After the tragedy of 9/11 we were on our way to becoming a fledgling Matriotic society until our leaders jumped on the bandwagon of inappropriate and misguided vengeance to send our young people to die and kill in two countries that were no threat to the USA or to our way of life. The neocons exploited patriotism to fulfill their goals of imperialism and plumder[sic].

This sort of patriotism begins when we enter kindergarten and learn the nationalist “Pledge of Allegiance.” It transcends all sense when we are taught the “Star Spangled Banner,” a hymn to war. In our history classes the genocide of the Native American peoples is glossed over as we learn about the spread of American Imperialism over our continent, though it wasn’t named until the 1840’s, when the doctrine of Manifest Destiny was expounded to justify the USA’s conquest of and “civilizing” of Mexican territories and Native American populations. Manifest Destiny sought to spread the “the boundaries of freedom” to the American Continent, with the notion that we have a special mission from God. Sound familiar?

My heavens, of course it sounds familiar. It’s the same mantra we’ve been hearing since the 1930’s Red Diaper babies. It’s old, dear progressives. So old, it’s regressive, not to mention simplistically wrong. One problem with Progressives is that they believe history began on this continent. Never do we hear a comparison between America’s beginnings and development with that of Europe’s. Never do we see an admission that had we not been willing to fight they’d all be speaking German or Russian and for darn sure they wouldn’t be blogging this faux history. Oh, wait a minute, this is matriotism: it’s herstory, not history. Silly me.

Here’s another sample of the simple, kindly approach of matriotism:

Not everyone is a mother, but there is one universal truth that no one can dispute no matter how hard they try (and believe me, some will try): Everyone has a mother! Mothers give life, and if the child is lucky, mothers nurture life. And if a man has had a nurturing mother he will already have a base of Matriotism.

I think that’s enough, don’t you? This evisceration of history and intellectual thought is sad, sad, sad…

Ohmygod. I was about to close the page when I looked further down the post. This thing was written by Mother Matriot herself! No wonder it made me think of Mrs. Sheehan: she wrote this excrescence. I had no idea. As the Irish would say, “aye, the puir woman. Can’t help herself.”

Just shows you God has a sense of humor. Let us pray that one day He shares it with Casey’s momma. She badly needs it if she’s to make it through the rest of her life.

A word to my commenters. Yes, I should have known that Common Dreams was associated with Mrs. Sheehan. But we live a sheltered life here at Gates. Besides, what are you guys doing at that dive?

Dear Amazon and Mr. Jeff Bezos:

We both know you’re a Big Deal and we both like that. Success is wonderful. Among other good features, your ability to move merchandise is remarkable and your pages are very user friendly. As you have expanded into other areas, I have followed you there and made purchases other than books. Way back when, who’d have thought one could purchase underwear on Amazon? Or chef’s knives?

I think enough of your service to have ordered your credit card and use the coupons which it generates in order to buy books from Amazon.com. However, unless you remedy the current problem that conservative writers experience on your site, I’m going to cancel my credit card and move on.

I just looked at Fred Barnes’ book here. The cover of the book is intact this time, though the last view showed some hacker’s version of President Bush in handcuffs with the title “Felon in Chief,” which you can view here, at Michelle Malkin’s site. Ms. Malkin calls what has happened “The Amazon.com Review Cesspool.” This is an accurate assessment of the phenomenon which conservative writers and readers experience.

Of course you know this is an on-going problem. Kate O’Beirne is another conservative author who is being amazoned. The National Review Online editor, Kathryn Jean Lopez, calls it “The Sacking of Kate O’Beirne.”

The insulting comments amount to nothing more than ad hominem attacks on these books, their subjects, and on the authors. Mr. Barnes is a respected writer; I have read his work on political subjects for decades now and speak from the direct experience. Unfortunately, I suspect that most of your over-the-top commenters on conservative books neither buy nor read these works. They are simply on the site to trash the messenger and his message.

As for Ms. O’Beirne, I have read her columns for some time and had planned to buy the book from you. However, I hesitate to give my money to a business which does not protect its authors from illegitimate hazing.

Here is a suggestion: either have your commenters on a particular book be able to show proof of having purchased this item on Amazon or block their comments. You have the capability to do this. Whether or not you are willing to risk the ire of Leftists who are bent on spoiling things is another matter. If commenters neither purchase the book from you nor read it in any other way, why grant them the privilege of commenting on what you have on offer? Their behavior lacks integrity. If you fail to address this issue, your organization will suffer the same character defect.

On principle I do not believe in boycotts. They are a legacy from the ’60’s Left, and are little more than a form of bullying. Besides, they’re not effective. However, I also believe in the power of choice. Unless you are willing to deal with massive, and massively unfair, attacks in a timely manner, I will — with regret — make my purchases elsewhere.

Will you miss our business? Not much. Will we feel better not having to go through garbage in order to look at a book and purchase it? You bet.

I would be loath to stop doing business with Amazon, Mr. Bezos, but like the rest of us, you are not indispensable. I do hope you can see your way to reason, fairness, and — above all — integrity in this matter.

I wait with interest to see what you decide.

With utmost sincerity,

Dymphna
Gates of Vienna

The Watcher’s kaleidoscope changes again: Done with Mirrors is replacing Eric’s Grumbles Before the Grave. I always liked Eric’s choice of blog name: his very own memento mori. At any rate, he moves on our blog from the Council to the other links. If you haven’t done so, check him out.

This week’s winners are The Glittering Eye and Strata-sphere, for first and second places respectively (when a second place winner places so closely to first, I feature both).

“Options on Iran II,” by the GE, provides a most valuable link:

In order to come up to speed on the history of Iran’s nuclear development program you should check out NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative). NTI is headed by former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia (whom I much admire) and at the link you’ll find an impeccably sourced chronology of Iran’s nuclear development program from the 1950’s to the present. For a sketch of the developments of the last two years see here . It’s too long to include and impossible to excerpt.

In a long list of possible outcomes for the “burgeoning crisis” that is Iran, G.E. sums them up this way:

Over the Christmas holidays I had a conversation on the subject of Iran with my very bright brother-in-law in which I was reminded that lots of people make little distinction among things that are physically impossible (things we can’t do), things that are politically impossible (things that are hard to do), things we shouldn’t do, and things we don’t want to do. They are different and there are quite a few things we can do about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, it’s not completely clear (at least to me) that we should do any of them, and not one of them is particularly palatable.

Brilliant analysis. Depressing, too.

I want to personally thank Strata-Sphere for his exposition of the NSA mess. I’ve avoided reading about it because it seemed too Byzantine for my ADD brain to ever successfully untangle. But his second place post did the trick. He clarified this thing right down to the ground so even I could understand it, and he made it look easy.

In “NY Times Confesses Truth About NSA Leak” he hits two birds with one stone: he explains succinctly what happened and he clears the way for an excision which might serve to create a new orifice on the Old Grey Doxy:

	[George Bush] opened the flow of leads from NSA monitoring regarding communications between people overseas and people here in the US. The NSA mission probably did not change, but their target list grew as we got intel from the battlefield and arrests. But what probably changed is how easily it flowed now to domestic law enforcement.
	[…]
	Seeing the obvious results of the Bush order, as clearly described by the NY Times, it seems clear the only change was that leads could now easily be passed from NSA to the FBI. Many of us assumed this was always the case. Now I believe that was one of the systemic problems we had pre 9-11 and was the essence of the Bush order.

When reading this post, you get the definite feeling that the FBI doesn’t want to work too hard (that “Gorelick Wall” must have suited them just fine) and that The Times will do any amount of work in order to bring Bush down:

	Finally, the mea culpa. The NY Times is trying to get itself out of hot water. It is trying to make it appear like this was all some innocent mistake and they were caught up in an internal feud. Well they weren’t caught up in an internal feud. They were duped because they wanted Bush so bad the believed anything these media addicted malcontents would say. Without question.
	Several of the law enforcement officials acknowledged that they might not know of arrests or intelligence activities overseas that grew out of the domestic spying program. And because the program was a closely guarded secret, its role in specific cases may have been disguised or hidden even from key investigators.
	All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the program is classified.
	Translation: their sources are equivocating.

Read the whole discussion. It’s enlightening.

First place in the Non-Council nominations was The Anchoress for her assessment of the traitorous perfidy of that yellow journalism rag emanating from New York City. In “NY Times tipped terrorists? (UPDATED)” she recalls the horror of 9/11 — both hers personally — and the stories of others. She ends her moving remembrances with this observation:

	I remember knowing, four years ago, that terrorists were evil and that terrorism needed defeating. I thought we all knew it.
	[…]
	I will wonder how Harry Reid and the NY Times and the leakers and “anonymous sources” they have lionized can live with all the blood on their hands, even as they (predictably) immediately blame the White House for not “connecting the dots.”
	If it happens anywhere in America, (or, really, anywhere else) I will look toward the NY Times and the rest of the “pure, patriotically motivated” press and leftists, because they will have, by their actions and their rhetoric, enabled terrorists to move forward where they had perhaps formerly been stalled. By making the job of surveillance and information-sharing more difficult (drop the Patriot Act and Jamie Gorelick’s wall snaps back in place) and the terrorist’s job easier, they will have participated in something deadly – all because they wanted to “get” the president and keep him from succeeding – which means keep America from succeeding – which means keep the world from progressing away from the scourge of terrorism.

And here, her clincher about those traitors on43rd Street:

It’s funny, in a way…the NY Times and the rest have damaged their own playing field. Had we been attacked – and they not leaked the NSA information – many in the country (those not convinced that a second attack is inevitable) would reflexively blame the White House for slacking off. Now, thanks to the leaks, and all the pontificating about them…well, if there is another attack, people will look not at Washington, but at West 43rd Street, and similar addresses.

Where your heart is, there will your treasure be as well. It must take dark, dark hearts to be able to consciously decide that a “get” is more important than the safety of your fellow citizens, that helping terrorists is more noble than helping your government to defeat them.

The Anchoress sure can craft a sentence.

Second place went to Liberty and Culture for a post I’ve thought of writing myself, but never did. In “Bloggers: The Pamphleteers of Today,” Mr. Pappas quotes George Orwell:

The spontaneous uprising of Internet bloggers shows a discontent with the orthodoxy of the leftward-leaning mainstream media (MSM.) Blogging today has its precedent in yesteryear’s pamphleteering and often driven by a similar dissatisfaction. George Orwell’s, in an introduction to the British Pamphleteer, was motivated “by his belief that in Twentieth-century society the press does not adequately represent all shades of opinion.”

He ends his post with a most interesting prediction:

With the advent of radio and television, particularly the days where networks dominated, the professional writer was separated from the man in the street. With the rise of the Internet the writer-citizen has re-established a healthy balance not seen since great days when our republic was founded. Perhaps two hundred years from now, some graduate student will be writing a dissertation on The Role of Blogs on the Restoration of the Principles of the American Revolution.

May it be less than two centuries, sir. How about sixty years? That’s as long as it took us to get from the Constitution to the Civil War. And since change happens more rapidly now, how about thirty years or so?

All this and more is over at the Watcher’s. Give it a look-see.

Commenter Wally Ballou sends a link to a picture of a Palestinian voter. As he says:

Check out the fascist eagle P.A. logo on this guy’s hat.

Ah, well, dreams of Hitler never die, they just transmogrify into images of Little Hitlers. At the moment it would seem his spiritual heirs seem to be in possession of the Palestinians.

Don’t you wonder where he got the hat? An inheritance from Arafat, perhaps?

Opinion Journal’s Shelby Steele agrees with Gates of Vienna: nobody panders like a Clinton panders:

Hillary Clinton’s recent claim that Republicans run the House of Representatives like a “plantation” was old-fashioned political and racial pandering:

In fact, her stance was so blatantly racial that one was embarrassed for her — you wanted to look away from such obvious politicizing and condescension. As Shelby Steele points out, better than my post did, Mrs. Clinton sings off key:

she uttered this remark at what certainly would have been a prime venue for her husband: a largely black audience on Martin Luther King Day. So, clearly, she was looking to connect with this most loyal Democratic constituency. But Mrs. Clinton is possessed of a tin ear precisely where her husband is all deftness and charm. Black audiences are beyond her. The room of black faces that brings her husband alive, freezes her in overbearing rectitude.

Who knows, maybe ex-President Clinton’s playing-it-by-ear came from his Southern background, while his wife’s inability originates in her lily-white childhood? Whatever other constraints there may be in the South, there is certainly less physical segregation here. Or maybe Bill is just constitutionally inclined to love everyone while Mrs. C. is more attuned to making them do the right thing. Think of Charlie Brown and Lucy.

Again, Steele points out the difference:

pandering of the sort she exhibited on MLK Day requires a convincing human identification in order to work. The political panderer always identifies with the suffering of those pandered to–always “feels their pain.” And this is where a tin ear can be disastrous: In giving witness to a group’s suffering, one can seem to be shaming the group. Must blacks have their slave past rubbed in their face simply for Hillary Clinton to make a little hay against modern-day Republicans?

That was a truly awful speech. You kept waiting to hear a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton to present her apology for Pandering While White, but none was forthcoming:

When political pandering goes awry, it calls you a name. On an emotional level, many blacks will hear Hillary’s remark as follows: “I say Republicans run the House like a plantation because I am speaking to Negroes–the wretched of the earth, a slave people–who will surely know all about plantations.” Is this a tin ear or a Freudian slip, blacks will wonder? Does she really see us as she projects us–as a people so backward that our support can be won with a simple plantation reference, and the implication that Republicans are racist? Quite possibly so, since no apology has been forthcoming.

Lately it seems, many Democrats are possessed of this same tin ear. The affliction seems endemic to the Left in general. Is this deficit part of the reason for their rage against those who disagree with them? Is it that they cannot hear how bizarre and anachronistic they sound?
Personal identity is a complex thing. Woven of all the experiences in a particular life, the strands create a complex tapestry that others may see and understand better than the individual herself. Thus, while Hillary continues to sing off-key, she is beset on all sides by those who would prefer that she not be part of the choir. Thus, comparing her to Condoleeza Rice, does great damage to Mrs. Clinton’s persona:

No one on the current political scene better embodies this Republican advantage than the current secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. The archetype that Ms. Rice represents is “overcoming” rather than grievance. Despite a childhood in the segregated South that might entitle her to a grievance identity, she has clearly chosen that older black American tradition in which blacks neither deny injustice nor allow themselves to be defined by it…because Ms. Rice is grounded in this tradition, she is of absolutely no value to modern liberalism or the Democratic Party despite her many talents and achievements. Quite the reverse, she is their worst nightmare. If blacks were to take her example and embrace overcoming rather than grievance, the wound to liberalism would be mortal. It is impossible to imagine Hillary Clinton’s “plantation” pandering in a room full of Condi Rices.

Imagine Dr. Rice using “the plantation” metaphor in a speech. Won’t compute, will it? No grievances, just accomplishments. Thus, if Dr. Rice wanted to serve her party, but didn’t want to run for office, all she would need to do is dog Hillary on the campaign trail. She is the anti-Hillary, and there is no worse fate for a politician than to have his or her antithesis following along behind her.

Mrs. Clinton’s tin ear is going to cost her what she most dearly desires: control of everything.

Look at the photograph of Dr. Rice and Mrs. Clinton. Dr. Rice is perfectly still, her arms hang straight and are held quite closely to her body. It is as though she is in a picture by herself. Interesting body language.