Favorite poster from NR's "The Corner"

... but it's okay

ahma get married anyway

"i don't know how i feel about this topic, so i'm going to write to National Review and express my feelings

damn every line of this is amazing

I admire the courage of those on your side of the issue who take the stand publicly and accept all the heat that goes with it.

yeah k-lo and m-gal were super close with so many fabulous friends, but, dammit, it was time to take a stand. it's been hard getting good flowers done these days, and broadway, forget it. courage has costs.

The way defenders of traditional marriage are treated appalls me... Gay marriage activists have dehumanized them totally in their own minds

straight-bashing incidents in gay neighborhoods are way up

The way defenders of traditional marriage are treated

i.e. nobody with any sense listens to them

i'm going to think up something crazy and send it to her

yesssssssss

insert something secret-message style, like schwarzenegger's message to the legislature.

http://americandigest.org/bigarnoldletter.jpg

T.I., Fuck You. S, A.

you guys go here, read the first line, you might scream

http://author.nationalreview.com/bio/?q=MjE3Mw==

I saw three straight white men getting pulled out of their cars by policemen the other day.

Lopez's reporting subjects are as diverse as feminist indoctrination in the Girl Scouts to the politics of human cloning and racial reparations and daily Beltway politics. You can read her nearly hourly at NRO's weblog, The Corner — where she is better known as "K-Lo."

"standing athwart history" bitch, please...

I saw three straight white men getting pulled out of their cars by policemen the other day.

You said they were suckers.

STANDING ATHWART

http://webpages.charter.net/micah/klo.jpg

"She speaks frequently"

hai guys I"m Maggie Gallagher and I hate teh gays

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxwCDuemitk&feature=player_embedded

fess up, Mordy

lol. I'm an intimidator w/r/t gay marriage! Hardly on the fence.

(Also, irony! Writing this from the NYU Gender Department.)

I refuse to give my ... full-throated support to it.

Is this anything like deep-throated?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WFYQWi4zsb4/Svl0uUI2Z_I/AAAAAAAAC_c/c-q27xlyYIY/s1600-h/SP32-20091110-090901.gif

hrm blogspot

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WFYQWi4zsb4/Svl0uUI2Z_I/AAAAAAAAC_c/c-q27xlyYIY/s1600-h/SP32-20091110-090901.gif

jonah must have new knees every year

gah he is just not intelligent

if i can't knee surgery whenever i want, you can't control your body nyah

The Link to Terror Red Herring [Jonah Goldberg]

If you listen to the news coverage, there's a lot of concern over whether or not Hasan had "ties" to foreign Jihadist groups, primarily al Qaeda. This is obviously a serious concern and should have been investigated before Hasan murdered those people — and, of course, after as well.

But, I sometimes get the sense that some will be relieved if he had no ties to Jihadi groups and was merely a lone gunman. For some it's as if the "going postal" from stress explanation is more reassuring. Happens all the time, after all.

But isn't that the scarier scenario? I would much rather live in a world where terrorists needed to make traceable phone calls or send interceptable email to places like Yemen before they went active. A scenario of freelance terrorists who don't need technical guidance but mere ideological inspiration is much scarier both because of the vulnerablity that would imply as well as the awful climate that would create.

Update: Oh, I left out the most relevant and timely illustration of my point: The guy who was executed yesterday.

so John Allen Muhammed was a terrorist?

he was a minority who killed people, so yes

also his last name doesn't help things either, does it?

it "helps" rebrand him as a terrorist!

"freelance terrorist"

you might say he was one of allah's independent contractors

A scenario of freelance terrorists who don't need technical guidance but mere ideological inspiration is much scarier both because of the vulnerablity that would imply as well as the awful climate that would create.

Welcome to 2001?

i want to set up a script that emails the words GEORGE TILLER to him every 90 seconds

if only he was just a white man pissed off about the economy

"I would much rather live in a world where terrorists needed to make traceable phone calls or send interceptable email to places like Yemen before they went active."
^failure of imagination imho, why not "rather live in a world without terrorism"?

but that would wreck their jack bauer fantasies

in a world where jabba the hutt stands athwart history

one man

i can't even figure this one out...

I'm Catholic First, American Second [Maggie Gallagher]

It sounds like there is a lot of evidence that Major Hasan had Islamicist-extremist tendencies. But these words are not good evidence.

There is a reason the Pledge of Allegiance asks us to pledge to our country "under God." The best American tradition has never required people to surrender their first allegiance as a condition of citizenship.

My sympathies to Muslim fellow-citizens on the coverage of that particular quote.

I remain, "the King's good servant, but God's first."

11/11 03:17 PMShare

referencing the pledge of allegience, especially those lines in the pledge, is facepalm.jpg. look up the history, stupid.

... that sentiment towards Muslims is totally unexpected and perplexing

it's wrong that these ppl doing/saying things that come from a perspective I can be sympathetic towards makes me hate them even more, right; like, I should be letting my burning antipathy blind me to the fact that they're people and, as such, capable of occasionally doing or saying something that isn't wholly reprehensible

Fuck you, Rich Lowry.

so John Allen Muhammed was a terrorist?

― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Wednesday, November 11, 2009 6:38 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

John Allen Muhammad wasn't a terrorist, because if he was, we couldn't say that Bush "kept us safe from terror attacks since 9/11."

(likewise, the anthrax attacks weren't terror attacks)

Get Used to an Exceptional President and an Unexceptional Country [Victor Davis Hanson]

That's the current Obama-administration message.
I suppose that in World War II or Korea, the U.S. could have captured non-uniformed infiltrators, shipped them to a POW camp, dithered over how to handle them, and then sent them back to the U.S. for civilian trials, as if they were U.S. citizens, with full legal rights, facing criminal charges of the sort brought against Americans.

But with the upcoming terrorist trials in New York, we have crossed the Rubicon, and lots of eerie questions will arise. Can those attacked or wounded by Predator drones sue in U.S. courts for America's judge/jury/executioner treatment of them? The next time we catch a terrorist blowing up a building in Kabul, should we read him his Miranda rights, videotape his testimony, offer him a lawyer, and send him to the U.S.? Or should we wink and nod and turn him over to the Afghans, with the understanding that our post-modern justice system is so absurd that we would rather informally rely on others' pre-modern way of doing business? (Is that why Obama kept renditions — because the more we become utopian and loudly perfectionist, the more we will need others to do our dirty work?)

Why the assumption that KSM and others will be found guilty? What if one or two sympathetic souls on the jury nullify (as in the O.J. Simpson case) the evidence? If KSM et al. are found innocent, will we connive to keep them in custody anyway? Can KSM give the jury the names of those who hurt him in Guantanamo? Did Mohamed Atta go a little too far in acting out his mere "suggestion" to take down U.S. high-rises? Did KSM face life-changing bias and hurtful discrimination while a student in North Carolina?

Once you turn war into a legal tussle, every military act attracts dozens of second-guessers — as if in the cold sobriety of peace, safety, and security, those with law degrees can post facto pick apart the acts of younger fighters amid the chaos, mayhem, and danger of war.

There is a larger issue here: Obama's image is at odds with America's self-interest. The civilian trials, loud promises to close Guantanamo, and trashing (if only rhetorically) of Bush's anti-terrorism protocols apparently reflect well on Obama overseas, but they don't enhance our security.
We saw all that with his reset-button/apology tour, and the old tropes that he was only a lad when America acted badly. More recently, his not showing up at Berlin hurts us; using a video link instead to talk about his own landmark presidency merely enhances Obama. Ditto his "first Pacific president" remark. Even the trivial incidents of bowing to Saudi royals and the Japanese emperor in a way other heads of state do not reflect Obama's image of himself as the first post-national global citizen, rather than the commander in chief of the U.S.

After another year of all this apologizing, revisionism, ahistoricism, and separation of Obama the Nobel Prize winner from Obama the U.S. president, no one will quite remember that it was the Chinese and Russians who butchered millions of their own and threatened the free world during the Cold War, or that from the Middle East we got international terrorism, crippling oil boycotts, and energy cartels, or that Reagan helped crash the Soviet Union, or that the Japanese started WWII at Pearl Harbor.

Yet, given our growing mega-deficits, sliding dollar, mounting debt, spiking unemployment, burgeoning trade deficits, and government takeovers, bowing to foreign dignitaries will soon be, not a sign of Obama's transnationalism, but an obsequious and accurate reflection of our genuine inferiority.

Can those attacked or wounded by Predator drones sue in U.S. courts for America's judge/jury/executioner treatment of them?

The next time we catch a terrorist blowing up a building in Kabul, should we read him his Miranda rights, videotape his testimony, offer him a lawyer, and send him to the U.S.?

Why the assumption that KSM and others will be found guilty? What if one or two sympathetic souls on the jury nullify (as in the O.J. Simpson case) the evidence?

The three most crazy things in that post, imho

he's still mad at those dirty japs, huh

WWII started at Pearl Harbor, fyi

1. Sure.
2. No.
3a. Because.
3b. Oh well.

thx for the questions, they were very intersting