Russ Vaugn sent me the following original poem. I'll let it speak for itself.

Handmaidens of Terror?

Michelle Malkin notes, I believe with some error,
The politically correct are handmaidens of terror.

But handmaiden may be a too-mild appellation
For the worms at the core of the threat to our nation,

Who are far more concerned with our socialist purity,
Than commonsense measures for our nation's security.

They'll insist we don't need anti-terrorist powers,
Till terror bombs blow down their own ivory towers.

More than mere handmaids in true servile sense,
They're concubines of correctness in Jihadist tents,

Plying socialist sweetmeats to death-dealing masters,
Naively abetting more future disasters.

Respect our dark brothers say these houris beguiling,
No need for your paranoid, racist profiling.

Forget swarthy males from the East caused our losses,
We must share their pain, understand their root causes.

These handmaids ignore their own reasoning powers,
Like no grannies flew planes into those twin towers;

Or why we're not shown after a terror event,
Any mug shots of men of Caucasian descent.

They insist we ignore facts as plain as their faces,
Like Islamo-fascists tend to be certain races.

No, Michelle, dear, I fear that handmaiden's in error,
Simply too mild a term for these true whores for terror.

--Russ Vaughn

Inspired by a Michelle Malkin column.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:17 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

Dan Riehl of Riehl World View emailed this morning about an upsetting result in a Google Search for Natalee Holloway, the teenager that has gone missing in Aruba. Dan has become the "go-to" guy in the blogosphere for information about Ms. Holloway, her disappearance, and the ongoing investigation.

You can see the offensive search results for yourself if you'd like. The title of the top-ranked post is, to put it mildly, disgusting to most people. As a result, Dan is asking people to contact Google and let it have a peace of their minds.

Personally, I don't "get" the MSM's fascination with Natalee Holloway, and chalk it up in large part to Pretty Blonde Girl Syndrome. Perhaps I'd be a bit less cynical about the media's motives if they were covering the disappearance of a girl in a far less tropical clime... say, Philadelphia.

That aside, I understand Dan's frustration, and if that post retains its top position solely as a result of a human editor's bias, Google may indeed have something to account for, as they already do for their apparent Google News bias.

I guess only time will tell. In any event, if you'd care to help Dan out, please go right on over. I'm sure he'd appreciate the support.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:05 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Michelle Malkin, as usual, provides excellent coverage of the NY Times as it attacks 9/11 family members for not allowing liberal elitists to turn Ground Zero into a political "Blame America" museum that the left so desperately wanted.

The families merely want the site to be an apolitical memorial to the nearly 3,000 dead. That is apparently too much for the Times:

But this is not really a campaign about money or space. It is a campaign about political purity - about how people remember 9/11 and about how we choose to read its aftermath, including the Iraq war. On their Web site, www.takebackthememorial.org, critics of the cultural plan at ground zero offer a resolution called Campaign America. It says that ground zero must contain no facilities "that house controversial debate, dialogue, artistic impressions, or exhibits referring to extraneous historical events." This, to us, sounds un-American.

Ground Zero is a place of rememberance, not a place to demonstrate against those who died. Why is that so hard to understand for the Timeseditorial board?

Please go to Take Back The Memorial for their response to this cowardly unsigned Times editorial, and while you are there, please read and sign the petition.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

According to Karel at The Advocate, the electricution deaths of four Scout leaders at the beginning of this week, the 300 cases of heat-related illnesses mid-week, and the lightning strike that killed a scoutmaster and rendered a teenaged scout brain dead are acts of revenge by God against the Boy Scouts for discriminating against gays.

It couldn't be clearer. God hates the Scouts' policy of discrimination against gays. That's right, God is pro-gay, and he/she/it is letting that be known, beginning with some good ol' fashioned smiting of those who are blatantly going against his laws and discriminating against his creation, gay men.

Karel seems old enough to have heard the bitter viciousness of AIDS jokes back during the early 1980s. Do you remember those Karel? I do.

As bad as those were, AIDS jokes were a nervous defensive reaction against an unseen killer we didn't understand. It was a coping mechanism, as crude and crass as they come, but at least it had a purpose.

I've yet to find anything especially witty or incisive in this hatefest by Charles Karel Bouley who mocks the deaths of six people and the pain of hundreds more. Sometimes, poor sarcasm is just a thin veneer for hate. Karel simply proves that hate and biogtry isn't monopolized by one sexual orientation.

Update: You-know-who is quick to jump on the bandwagon.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:57 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

1 "Bee Editorial: HIV plan backfires Coded reporting system is unworkable" The biggest Gay jokes in the 80's were played on themselves as ACT UP and others fought against contact reporting and for bath houses. I was called a Gay basher because I publicly advocated standard public health reporting for HIV. "Friends" of Gays in essence told them to go play in the traffic. Randy White was sent back to a public school where he picked up the opportunistically disease that killed him. Had he stayed away from crowds he would have been alive when medicines that would have kept him alive were available. The parents and public officials who put Randy back in school should have been charged with felony child abuse.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at July 30, 2005 12:52 AM (xX0fS)

2 WOW. You shouldn't have shown this to me, now I am really pissed off!!!!

Posted by: eric at July 30, 2005 01:18 PM (PQqiw)

3 Using the logic that Karel of The Advocte likes to use,a better case can be made for God's Revenge by merely counting the number of deaths in the gay world associated with AIDES. These folks will do and say anything to justify their unnatural behavior.They will try any explaination to "normalize" their life style so they can seem important and meaningful.They want the world to think they are normal,but they are lonely,depressed and out of touch with nature

Posted by: Jim at July 30, 2005 02:19 PM (jJIr3)

4 Before this gets out of hand, I want to make it perfectly clear that this isn't about whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Homosexuality is natural, and common throughout animal species. Even penguins. Whether or not you think it is moral, it is normal that a certain percentage of almost every species on this planet is gay. That is simple fact. AIDS has killed far more heterosexuals than it ever will homosexuals. So let's no go there, okay? This is a story of a bitter, spiteful man lashing out in completely inappropriate ways. Karel has become the mirror image of Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps. He has become what he hates most. That is your story.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 30, 2005 03:28 PM (0fZB6)

5 Doubt very much the comment about the animal world. "Common" suggests far more than the less than 10% of any species that engages in such behavior. Plus, this "fact" is usually spewed by those who in some way support the gay agenda. One thing to remember is that in the animal world, any such behavior is probably a mistake on the part of the animal and certainly a aberration. In the human world, it is only "natural" in the sense that humans tend to want to indulge themselves without thought to consequences and it that way it is "natural". But it is never normal as it is contrary to our biological design. As to Karel, a better comparison than Phelps would be the preachers who called 9/11 an example of God withholding His protection because of the decadence in our country.

Posted by: Marshall Art at July 30, 2005 05:31 PM (fp5th)

6 Nicely done, quoting the article from The Advocate completely out of context. Did you happen to notice the part of the editorial which mentioned the far right radical Christians who claimed that 9/11 was God's way of punishing America for allowing gays to exist? It's really easy to bash the article based on half of a paragraph ripped out of context. . . How many of your readers are actually going to take the time to read the whole article in The Advocate and see what Karel was REALLY saying? Of course, you'd have no ammunition if you took the article in full context, rather than picking and choosing parts of it at which you can pretend to be outraged. It's a funny thing about religious nutjobs: They all seem to like to pick and choose parts of written things- like this article and, oh, The Bible- to support their angry, twisted, bigoted little view of the world.

Posted by: Holly Wight at July 31, 2005 05:21 AM (RIGk9)

7 Does anybody not get what the comments are about. It isn't about gays or scouts. Its about karel saying it is Gods revenge. Does Karel have a direct line that noone else has to God and knows Gods vision of the world in general and scouts in particular? Karel is a 21st. century prophet? To equate any catstrophe or tragedy with the wrath of God is over the top. It is quite alright to agree with a philosophy but to claim the highest support in an opinion is immature and juvenile. It is in the grouping of 'my dad can beat up your dad'. Perhaps Karel has lost his sense of empathy and humanity and should attend the funerals of these men so that he can see the loss of the families and communities to which they belonged.

Posted by: brother at July 31, 2005 08:24 AM (M7kiy)

8 Karel's just another dude playing to the crowd and making a buck off of a tragedy. Precisely the same as Falwell. No difference at all.

Posted by: Scott Chaffin at July 31, 2005 05:38 PM (NcJOu)

9 Do you guys know the meaning of the word 'satire'? Look it up, people.

Posted by: Terrence at August 02, 2005 10:08 AM (SEFvy)

10 Karel is obviously being satirical here. His point is that when Falwell blames 9/11 on, among other things, gays and gay rights, he is using faulty logic, and that by the same logic one can conclude that God punished the boy scouts for discriminating against gays. Note that he says hurricanes show that God hates Florida; how ridiculous does he have to get before you will recognize that he's not being serious?

Posted by: Mattt at August 02, 2005 10:40 AM (B1twS)

11 Exactly, Matt. I'm sure some of these people were just as offended when Falwell blamed 9/11 on feminists and gays. (Heads up, everyone else, I'm being sarcastic! Obvisouly, you have trouble figuring stuff like that out.)

Posted by: Terrence at August 02, 2005 10:44 AM (SEFvy)

12 So you claim that Karel can hide behind the veil of "satire." I accept that premise as that is what he intended. But does satire give the write an excuse to say any hateful thing that comes across the writer's mind? Is satire an immediate and justifiable excuse for hate speech of any kind? Can it justify a white supremacist writing (using satire, of course) about wanting another Holocaust to "police up" the remaining Jews? Would it make that speech less hateful, or more appropriate? Apparently, you argue that it would. I hardly think, Terrence and Mattt, you'd be giving Karel the same kind of rhetorical protection if we change the words from "Boy Scouts" to "African-Americans.” Hatred is hatred, no matter how you try to disguise it. Karel obviously has plenty to go around.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 02, 2005 11:04 AM (2cgwG)

13 You're forgetting that the Boy Scouts have made quite clear their hatred of gay people. They have banned gays from both serving as Scouts leaders as well as any boy scouts who happen to be gay. So let's get it out there - the Boy Scouts are a bigoted organization. There is zero debate about that. They are as anti-gay as they come. So sorry - the Boy Scouts can be legitimate targets of satire. Why the hell would any gay person have one ounce of respect for this bigoted organization? I don't. I'm sorry that these people died, but I can still criticize their bigoted beliefs.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at August 02, 2005 11:38 AM (FRjNx)

14 Oh yes, Lad, the Scouts /hate/ gay people. As an Eagle Scout, I can attest that we hold regular meetings in which we teach new Scouts to avoid the gay menace. We also give applicants polygraph tests. One of our favorite campfire activities is to burn effigies of gay people. Does this mean Mensa hates dumb people?

Posted by: at August 02, 2005 12:01 PM (WA+/H)

15 So, the Boy Scouts are a hate group, Downtown Lad? I shudder to think about your righteous, quivering indignation over the inherent racism of the Brownies.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 02, 2005 12:15 PM (2cgwG)

16 Confederate Yankee, hatred is hatred; but the Advocate writer doesn't hate Boy Scouts. He was using the tone usually taken by Jerry Falwell and using it ironically (you may want to look that one up when you look up the word satirical). A white supremacist who writes a piece about rounding up Jews wouldn't be writing it satirically; he would actually mean it. The Advocate writer doesn't really think Boy Scouts are being killed by God; his point is that it's just as ridiculous to say God kills gays as a punishment as it is to say God kills Boy Scouts as a punishment. So your comparison is wrong. You and your readers were taking the Advocate piece at face value. I was merely telling you that it was a satire. Satire doesn't give anyone the license to say whatever he or she wants, but if you comment on a satirical piece without knowing it's satirical, then your comments are worthless. P.S: You write, "But does satire give the write an excuse to say any hateful thing that comes across the writer's mind?" Clearly, you meant "satire give the RIGHT an excuse..." Anytime you want some free grammar advice, let me know

Posted by: at August 02, 2005 12:27 PM (SEFvy)

17 Karel intended satire and sarcasm, which if you read in my original post, I clearly mentioned. I also clearly explain that sarcasm and satire are often just "a thin veneer for hate," which shows through in the venom of his writing. You assume that Karel doesn't actually take some sort of sadistic pleasure in this series of events, and therefore say he is different for a white supremacist in intent. His tone in this piece seems to suggest otherwise. Karel seems to smugly enjoy the deaths of the Scout Leaders and the irony he is able to gin up out of the circumstances. If you can explain how KarelÂ’s snide, satirical hatred is qualitatively different from the small-minded bigotry of a Fred Phelps, please, go right ahead. Fred is a small-minded, small town stooge reviled by all; Karel is supposed to be a metropolitan man of the world, and seems to have quite a few supporters. From where I stand, hatred from willful choice seems to be more of a sin that hatred from ignorance. Obviously, many disagree.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 02, 2005 12:57 PM (2cgwG)

18 So what are you saying Confederate Yankee? That the Boy Scouts actually LIKE gay people??? And they ban gay people exactly why again? The Boy Scouts ban gay people. Every single one of them. There is not one person in the entire world that they would tolerate as a member. That's a fact. I'd love to hear you explain how they can do that WITHOUT having hatred for them. Any organization that says you are ok to be a member one day, but then kicks you out when they find out you are gay, is a bigoted organization.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at August 02, 2005 01:01 PM (DPFIK)

19 So what are you saying Confederate Yankee? That the Boy Scouts actually LIKE gay people??? I'm not saying that they like or dislike anyone. But you ascribe hatred to them simply because they have a set philosophy of who they choose to admit and who they chose to exclude based upon their traditions and beleifs. As a private organization, they have that right. And they ban gay people exactly why again? I don't pertend to know the details. Somehow, I doubt you do either. Any organization that says you are ok to be a member one day, but then kicks you out when they find out you are gay, is a bigoted organization. Of course, finding that you have been lying to them when moral integrity is a core component of their philosophy wouldn't have anything to do with their decision, would it? You'd get fired at work if you lied to get your job as well. Just because you disagree with someone on moral grounds does not mean that you hate them. Well, perhaps it means that you hate them, but it does not mean they hate you back.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 02, 2005 01:17 PM (2cgwG)

20 By the way - I was a Boy Scout. I didn't realize that they were discriminating against gays then either. Actually - they weren't - it's more of a recent policy. Anyway - many kids in the Boy Scouts have no idea that they are part of a bigoted organization. And guess what? White kids in the segregated South probably had no idea that they were engaging in racism when they attended white-only swimming pools. But just like segregation was racist, the Boy Scouts are engaging in bigotry as well.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at August 02, 2005 01:25 PM (0cwiO)

21 Let's see Confederate Yankee. So by your logic, the KKK doesn't hate Jews and black people just because they ban them???? I'm sure you don't really believe that. I never said the Boy Scouts don't have the right to ban whoever they want. You have a habit of putting words into people's mouths. Of course they have that right. But you have to be very stupid (or a bigot) to not realize that they are practicing bigotry against gay people. Oh - and I love your argument that if you don't tell someone you are gay then you are "lying" to them. Here's some advice Confederate Yankee. I think you should actually go out and talk to a real live gay person. Because it's quite obvious from your ignorant comments that you've never met one. Most gay people don't realize they are gay until they are older. I'm sure there are many gay scouts who don't realize that they are indeed gay until they're already a Boy Scout. Same with Scout Leaders. It's not uncommon for gay people to come out of the closet until they are 30, 40, even 50. But you slander all gay people by calling them "liars" because they didn't come to terms with their sexuality until later. Shame on you. By the way - you seem quite quick to defend the Scouts and say that they don't "hate" gays. But you have absolutely no problem in jumping to the accusation that Karel "hates" the Boy Scouts. You do realize that that makes you a complete hypocrite, don't you?

Posted by: Downtown Lad at August 02, 2005 01:34 PM (BN/Fu)

22 The difference between fred phelps and the advocate guy: you are merely inferring that he takes pleasure in boy scouts dying; fred phelps actually enjoys gays dying, and says so every time he gets a forum. And I beg to differ that Phelps is "reviled by all" -- he clearly has a following.

Posted by: terrence at August 02, 2005 02:12 PM (SEFvy)

23 Lad, don't be ignorant. You can't compare the KKK to the Boy Scouts. Or do you think that at den meetings they burn crosses and wear hoods? The difference is that the Boy Scouts aren't dedicated to hating a group of people, unlike the KKK. What a terrible comparison!!

Posted by: sara w at August 02, 2005 02:41 PM (i2Xqn)

24 Why is it that when a conservative speaks out against something, it's hate. When a liberal speaks out, it's their opinion and if a conservative disagrees, they're violating their right of free speech. I don't get it. Being anti-Boy Scout makes about as much sense as affirmative action. Call it what you may but it's still racism. In this case, hate is hate and you need to call it what it is and not do it. Period!

Posted by: ranter53 at August 02, 2005 03:06 PM (jYdQL)

25 Aids has killed more heterosexuals than homosexuals? Man where did you find this statistic?

Posted by: philip at August 02, 2005 03:17 PM (+uJhm)

26 Gays arent allowed in the boy scouts because they are a religious organization. Do you have to be religious to be a Boy Scout? No but you have to acknowledge God and show good moral character. If they think that the act of homosexuality is immoral, then, hey they are a private organization and should be allowed to choose what they wanna do. If Gays want to why not start a gay boys scouts?

Posted by: Philip at August 02, 2005 03:23 PM (+uJhm)

27 Let's see Confederate Yankee. So by your logic, the KKK doesn't hate Jews and black people just because they ban them???? I'm sure you don't really believe that. No more than I believe bar owners have a pathological hatred of people under 21. Logical argument isn’t your strongpoint, is it? I never said the Boy Scouts don't have the right to ban whoever they want. You have a habit of putting words into people's mouths. Of course they have that right. But you have to be very stupid (or a bigot) to not realize that they are practicing bigotry against gay people. DTL, you said yourself that a Boy Scout without realizing that they were not “gay friendly.” So which is it? Are you, by your own criteria, stupid, or bigoted? The fact of the matter is that this is part of who they have been and who they have always been since their inception as civil group. Oh - and I love your argument that if you don't tell someone you are gay then you are "lying" to them. If you join an organization under false pretenses and misrepresent who you are (lying on your resume about your qualifications, for example) to get around specific criteria, you are lying. Period. Here's some advice Confederate Yankee. I think you should actually go out and talk to a real live gay person. Because it's quite obvious from your ignorant comments that you've never met one. My best friend all through college was gay. Some of my wife’s friends are gay men, and I think they’re a hoot. You must have buns of steel from jumping to all those conclusions, sweetheart. Most gay people don't realize they are gay until they are older. I'm sure there are many gay scouts who don't realize that they are indeed gay until they're already a Boy Scout. Same with Scout Leaders. It's not uncommon for gay people to come out of the closet until they are 30, 40, even 50. Which is why the argument against gay scouts and scoutmasters is primarily a political matter instead of a practical one. But you slander all gay people by calling them "liars" because they didn't come to terms with their sexuality until later. Shame on you. Again, they are only liars if they know they are gay and misrepresent themselves as straight in order to join the scouts. I make no age claims. That is all you. By the way - you seem quite quick to defend the Scouts and say that they don't "hate" gays. But you have absolutely no problem in jumping to the accusation that Karel "hates" the Boy Scouts. You do realize that that makes you a complete hypocrite, don't you? The opposite is in fact true, my logic-challenged one. You say that an entire group hates gays, which is a mathematical improbability. We know that Scouting does not want gay members or scout masters, but they have ascribed no feelings along to these value judgements. I have seen nothing from either the BSA or a representative group of scouts saying they hate gays, they simply hold that homosexuality is incompatible with their beliefs. Karel, on the other hand, provides direct evidence of his hostility in his writing where he gleefully capitalizes on the deaths of several adults and one child to make a political point about their parent organization, while involking God, a diety he says he doesn’t believe in, to mock them.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 02, 2005 03:30 PM (2cgwG)

28 Aids has killed more heterosexuals than homosexuals? Man where did you find this statistic? It isn't just a statistic, it is a continent called Africa. More straight people have contracted AIDS in Africa alone than all homosexuals worldwide. I imagine the NIH (National Institute for Health) would have the latest numbers if you are interested in the details.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 02, 2005 03:40 PM (2cgwG)

29 So what are you saying Confederate Yankee? That the Boy Scouts actually LIKE gay people??? And they ban gay people exactly why again? The Boy Scouts ban gay people. Every single one of them. There is not one person in the entire world that they would tolerate as a member. That's a fact. I'd love to hear you explain how they can do that WITHOUT having hatred for them. Any organization that says you are ok to be a member one day, but then kicks you out when they find out you are gay, is a bigoted organization. Posted by: Downtown Lad at August 2, 2005 01:01 PM In response to Downtown Lad's unscientific, irrational, emotional and venom filled diatribe: The Boy Scouts ban homosexuals for the same reason that it's a bad idea to have heterosexual men take the Girl Scouts camping in the woods unsupervised. Considering the Catholic Church priest scandal had about 80% same sex ie homosexual child molestations of the total -- it's safe to say that's a good idea. Um what does every homosexual pedophile want? To be around little boys and adolescent males. Um what does every heterosexual pedophile want? To be around litte girls and adolescent females. Considering there are numerous organizations of young girls that *gasp* men are not allowed to join as either leaders or members what part of like 90% of all sexual predators being male do you not understand? Puh Leeze -- if Downtown Lad had heard of this thing called the Uniform Crime Reports (www.fbi.gov) or say the 18 billion studies available in the Archives of Sexual Behavior regarding the issue there would not even be a debate. Liberalism requires a complete ditching of any facts, logic, science and reason. And like another poster not "Why not form the gay Boy Scouts". Downtown Lad would reply "No we need to unconstitutionally infringe on the right of assembly & association of the Boy Scouts rather than create our own competiting organization". Quite the little fascist Downtown Lad is in not realizing that if the Boy Scouts do not have the freedom of association then neither does GLAAD, GLBT, GLSEN etc.

Posted by: kuyapat at August 02, 2005 04:05 PM (IKibl)

30 pedophiles, even those who molest boys, are overwhelmingly heterosexual.

Posted by: at August 02, 2005 04:12 PM (7tpGj)

31 pedophiles, even those who molest boys, are overwhelmingly heterosexual. Cardinal Law, I thought I thought I banned you from this site. ;-)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 02, 2005 04:23 PM (2cgwG)

32 Anyone who has had the misfortune of hearing Karel on his weekend talk show in San Francisco knows he is The Gay Michael Savage. C Y - I respectfully disagree with you regarding the nature of homosexuality. It may not be a "choice" in the majority of instances, and in that sense, perhaps it could be referred to as "natural." But it is by no means "normal." What gets my dander up is the way that the most fierce advocates of gay rights aren't satisfied with being open about who they are; their strategy is to use political correctness to force the question, "Are you what YOU think you are?" Never mind the re-definition of marriage and family -- some won't be happy until society rejects the concept of gender, imagining that differences between men and women are artificial and socially repressive (thus making their phasing out a priority). I live in San Francisco, Yank. I know.

Posted by: L.N. Smithee at August 02, 2005 05:05 PM (LQziH)

33 So gays are now pedophiles? Confederate Yankee - I hope you're proud of your blog that has now turned into a neo-nazi diatribe against gay people. I somehow don't think God approves of your bigotry.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at August 02, 2005 05:10 PM (cV7Xy)

34 And why don't you ask some of your gay "friends" to read these blog comments. I think you'll quickly find out that they want nothing to do with you.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at August 02, 2005 05:12 PM (FRjNx)

35 ...And Godwin's law comes into play. My gay friends know my stance on this and similar issues, which is why they are friends instead of acquintances. They also know that I am anything but bigoted against gays, and that I've consistently attacked those who would use homosexuality as a weapon, and that includes people who would bludgeon others with their sexuality such as you, DTL. My bigotry against stupid people, however knows no limits. Consider yourself banned.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 02, 2005 05:34 PM (0fZB6)

36 Well, I've missed most of the comment action already, but I think a critical point is that just because a group excludes people doesn't make them bigots. Boy Scouts doesnt include women in its membership, but its not sexist for doing so. I also dont think the Scouts "kick out" gay children, their policy only pertains to openly gay Scoutmasters. So the BSA beleives open, practicing homosexuality is immoral and presents a bad example for young children. That doesnt mean that they are irrational or motivated by animus towards gays. It may not be the best policy, but its certainly not bigoted. As they say, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." One can hold an action to be wrong or innappropriate without abjectly hating that action's practitioners, and I can assure you that that is exactly what Scouting is all about.

Posted by: Matt at August 02, 2005 07:13 PM (ECRkY)

37 So gays are now pedophiles? Confederate Yankee - I hope you're proud of your blog that has now turned into a neo-nazi diatribe against gay people. I somehow don't think God approves of your bigotry. Posted by: Downtown Lad at August 2, 2005 05:10 PM Uh if you actually read the previous post that I made it referred to both heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles and noted that 90%+ of all sexual predators are male not female. Hence Brownies, Girl Scouts and like 1,000 other organizations catering to young women and young girls don't allow male members much less males to be the leaders. The whole "Let's have openly homosexual Boy Scoutmasters take boys camping in the woods" is merely 1) a good precaution and 2) An acceptable moral judgement by an organization that homosexuality is not an approved behavior Interesting to note however how Downtown Lad did not even address the issue that if the Government can infringe on the freedom of association of the Boy Scouts then it can infringe on the freedom of association of any organization including GLBT, GLAAD, GLSEN etc. "Neo-Nazi" -- sorry I'm not a National Socialist -- I make Bush look like Senator Kerry But thanks Downtown Lad for proving Michael Savage correct in one point "Liberalism is a mental disorder". One could contend that liberalism is also the greatest producer of genuine homophobia in society as well. Hopefully someday you might actually peruse the Uniform Crime Reports at the FBI or the Archives of Sexual Behavior rather than blindly follow whatever politician / leader on various issues. Somehow I doubt it.

Posted by: kuya_pat at August 03, 2005 09:55 AM (+bjds)

38 I am so glad all this dialogue has started. OF COURSE I'm being satirical. The problem is, the Fallwell's of the world AREN'T. And how many of you get your panties in a wad when gays are blamed for everything? None. How many of you go to funerals where Fred Phelps is and denounce him? NONE. Get off your high horses. As stated, I don't believe in GOD, therefore, do not believe there was any divine retribution of the boy scouts. And, I made it clear in the article that I grieve for the families as well. More than the religious right said to me for 20 years as my friends died. They said they deserved it for their lifestlyle. Well, turnabout is fair play. Problem is, those on the right don't understand fairness, or the ridiculousness of their argument, even when someone points out how ridiculous it is by turning it around on them. Again, I'm glad you all are having a fun time with this. And by the way, I've gotten thousands of emails in agreeance with me. It's SATIRE. But at the same time, the lady doeth protest too much me thinks. Did I hit too close to home? karel

Posted by: karel at August 03, 2005 12:09 PM (HMyva)

39 There are enough comments on this thread. I'll address Karel's reply here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 03, 2005 06:21 PM (0fZB6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Via Bloomburg:

The U.S. economy grew at a 3.4 percent annual pace from April through June, the ninth straight quarter exceeding 3 percent, as booming sales allowed companies to pare bloated inventories.

The government's first estimate of second-quarter gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced in the U.S., compares with a 3.8 percent gain in the year's first three months, the Commerce Department reported today in Washington. Not since January 1983 through March 1986 has growth exceeded 3 percent in as many quarters.

Wait. Just. One. Minute.

That can't be right, because the economy is going bust. Oliver Stone said so.

And OLIVER STONE IS NEVER WRONG.

I'd like to add that his new 9/11 movie will be great—and his rumored casting choice for the eccentric, devoutly Christian, and brave Marine rescuer Dave Karnes is nothing short of inspired.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:38 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

(h/t: Drudge)

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case."

First Dick Durbin's Cook County, now Nancy Pelosi's own San Francisco.

Maybe Democrats really are the experts on prison abuse!

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.

(h/t: Ace)

Via the Guardian:

A press conference organised by the city council took an unexpected twist when the chairman of Birmingham central mosque, Mohammad Naseem, who is known as a moderate voice, attacked the way the bombings investigation had been carried out.
Dr Naseem said the government had given the impression Muslims were to be targeted. "Why do we not have an open mind about this?" he asked. "Terrorists can be anybody."

He had seen no evidence Muslims were responsible for the bombings and attempted attacks. He claimed the four men killed among others on July 7 could have been innocent passengers. [emphasis added]

UmÂ… yeah.

It kind of reminds me of that bit of stupidity in The Jerk:

“He hates these cans!” (get audio clip)

I liked this load better when Larry was flinging it with both hands last week.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

You've got to hand it to "al-Qaedarrific" online news aggregator Google News: they are consistent.

Google News claims:

Google News gathers stories from more than 4,500 news sources in English worldwide, and automatically arranges them to present the most relevant news first. Topics are updated every 15 minutes, so you're likely to see new stories each time you check the page. You pick the item that interests you, then go directly to the site which published the account you want to read.

Google News is a highly unusual news service in that our results are compiled solely by computer algorithms, without human intervention. As a result, news sources are selected without regard to political viewpoint or ideology, enabling you to see how different news organizations are reporting the same story.

While Google News results may be gathered by a computer algorithm, who decides which article and headline get the lead story treatment on any given topic? It would seem that these pages are compiled by humans, and apparently those with strong political opinions.

Google News once again shows its bias early Thursday morning, leading its "top stories" coverage of a possible U.S. troop drawdown in Iraq with an article from an organization called the World Peace Herald, with the headline, "U.S. plans Iraq Troops cuts as revolt rages." The article is written with the decidedly "Bush Lied, People Died!" far left tone one would expect from an organization that "seeks to provide readers with access to news and views not often found in the traditional media, with a particular focus on issues that relate to building world peace" [emphasis added].

Google News, which claims it "gathers stories from more than 4,500 news sources in English worldwide, and automatically arranges them to present the most relevant news first," leads with this 17 hour-old story, even though there were 68 articles that were more recent on the same topic from much more credible news sources that are far less biased in tone. Examples of this are articles from the Chicago Tribune (one hour old*), the UK's Guardian (two hours old*), or Pravda (four hours old*).

More balanced coverage? Um, yeah.

More than 600 of Google News' cited 4,500 news sources covered this story, and yet Google News prefers to lead their coverage with an extreme position from a minor contributor.

It seems quite odd that a computer algorithm would be designed to promote a specific political agenda.

One might begin to think stories in Google News are selected for prominence from human sources, perhaps those still bitter of the results of the 2004 election.

* relative to the time this post was researched.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:17 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 4 kb.

Gop and the City shows that a hater is always a hater.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Via the New York Times:

The two giant unions that quit the A.F.L.-C.I.O. say their exodus will help revive the labor movement. But Greg Devereux, one of the 800 delegates at the union convention here, was not buying it.

"A lot of people are still stunned and angry about it," Mr. Devereux, a Washington State delegate from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said Tuesday. "A lot of people view it as destructive and selfish."

Once upon a time, unionized labor accounted for roughly a quarter of all private sector jobs. These days, that percentage has plunged into the single digits and their political power has dwindled.

Two unions, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Teamsters, have split from the A.F.L.-C.I.O, after having grown tired of wasting money on lobbying and supporting political candidates.

I should add, Democratic political candidates.

While few mainstream media pundits or even the unions themselves are willing to admit it directly, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. breakup can very much be attributed to the failure of the national Democratic Party to win or even hold the line in elections in recent years. These elections were supported by millions of union dollars that the SEIU, Teamsters, and others felt would have been better spent recruiting new union members.

While I think this is hardly the death knell of organized labor or the Democratic Party, it does point to a growing schism between elements of the blue collar, traditional union Democrats and a liberal leadership that seems to care more about gay marriage and than workers' rights.

A house divided against itself cannot stand, and as one wise conservative Democrat recently said, a party that loses touch with its base is a A National Party No More.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

"I guess hiring a prostitute and beating her to recover the money you just paid is OK, as long as you don't see her naughty bits."

Ouch.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

The Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts seems to have taken the predicted turn; Democrats have asked for all documents related to Robert's work for the government, and the White House has released almost all of it, while holding onto paperwork from Roberts' time as deputy solicitor general during George H.W. Bush's administration.

The current Bush administration currently says that documents relating to Roberts' work as deputy solicitor general will not be given to senators, citing attorney-client privilege, as stated by seven former solicitor generals in a 2002 letter.

"Any attempt to intrude into the Office's highly privileged deliberations would come at the cost of the Solicitor General's ability to defend vigorously the United States' litigation interests -- a cost that also would be borne by Congress itself," the former officials said in a copy of the letter obtained by CNN.

The letter cited was written by Seth Waxman, one of three solicitors general under the Clinton administration. The letter was sent on behalf of Waxman, Walter Dellinger, and Drew Days of the Clinton administration; Kenneth Starr from the George H.W. Bush administration; Charles Fried and Robert Bork who served under Reagan; and Archibald Cox, who worked for President John F. Kennedy.

The job of the solicitor general is to argue cases for the government in the Supreme Court. The seven former solicitor generals feel that breaching the confidence of this office would be detrimental to the performance of the solicitor general; which seems to be an entirely reasonable positionÂ… well, reasonable except to those who might want to obstruct the confirmation of a judicial nominee.

A presumably still bitter John "Magic Hat" Kerry, who is not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the first to call for the release of Roberts' written record, "in its entirety." This of course, is coming from a man who ran for the highest office in the land while refusing to release his own record.

Some newspapers are already quick to jump on the bandwagon of creating a Miguel Estrada-like battle between Democrats and the administration, where Estrada was filibustered for refusing to release his privileged solicitor general's office-related documents.

Estrada eventually withdrew his nomination due to Democratic stalling tactics, but it remains to be seen if Democrats will try the same tactic against Supreme Court nominee Roberts. In this instance, the media's prodding for an epic struggle between Democrats and Republicans is not in the best interests of their normal allies in the Democratic Party.

Reporters want copy and airtime, and Democrats ache to regain political power. If media liberals can successfully push political liberals into trying this same stalling tactic on Roberts that they did on Estrada, they will set the stage for their own disaster.

And. Then. Came. Rove.

There is every reason to believe that "Bush's Brain," conservative political strategist Karl Rove is once again deftly using the strengths and tendencies of the mainstream media and liberal politicians to practice jujitsu on the Democratic Party.

Unable to depose Rove via Nadagate, frustrated liberals might try to go after John Roberts in revenge. I'd wager the White House is counting on it. This would be a huge mistake, on par with thinking that a portly documentary filmmaker could really affect the outcome of an election.

Rove threw a head fake to the media from the word "go," floating a rumor that Edith Brown Clement, and later Edith Bunker might be the new Supreme Court nominee before he, err, Bush officially nominated the ultimate outsider that night: a white middle-aged male.

Roberts was anonymous when he was introduced, and by the time the political left was ready to begin an attack against him the next day, he was already known as the father of the adorable (and not gay) "dancing Jack." The moment that video segment came out, the Roberts family connected with every parent who'd ever had a four-year old act up in public. When Democrats were unable to mount an immediate and credible attack on John Roberts political views within the first 24 hours after the nomination, and Ann Coulter mounted an attack that painted him as not conservative enough, the ball game was effectively over.

Roberts has cute kids. He isn't the right wing extremist that liberals had shrieked that Bush would nominate. The American people said, "we'll take him."

Rove's brilliant strategy of getting Jack to take dance lessons and asking Fräulein Coulter to write her attack piece won the nomination before it began. What remains is just Another Rovian Plot™ to see just how far he can unhinge the Democrat Party.

Leahy gobbled up the bait first, quickly followed by Kerry. Others are sure to follow. If the trend continues and a complicit media keep pouring blood in the proverbial water, Liberal Democrats might work themselves up into a filibuster before they realize that it is their own hemoglobin that has them in a frenzy.

Completely oblivious to the outside world by In the Beltway madness, Democrats will not see the Nuclear Option coming down until it comes to a vote, and this time, the American people, sick to death of Democratic scheming, will be behind it 100%. The filibuster will die because of Rove's brilliance and a $39.95 dance class for a four year-old, and within a week of Roberts' confirmation, Rehnquist will step down.

Coulter's nomination to the Supreme Court will be immediate, and without the filibuster, unstoppable. The Scalia Court will be Rove's legacy to the world.

I must say that I've learned to be at peace with that.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 955 words, total size 7 kb.

There seems to be a lot of second-guessing of Operation Kratos, the London Metropolitan Police policy of shooting suspected suicide bombers in an effort to save civilian lives. The policy became public knowledge this past Friday when a man wearing a heavy padded coat fled police towards a subway less than 24 hours after a series of failed suicide bombings on London subway trains and a bus. The British police fearing a suicide bombing attack, shot him eight times, killing him instantly.

Tragically, the man, Jean Charles de Menezes, turned out to be a Brazilian electrician guilty at most of having an expired visa and very bad judgment. Hindsight being 20/20, some people are now second-guessing the shoot-to-kill-to-save-lives policy of Operation Kratos.

Some question why Metro police did not try detain him earlier. Some wonder why he was not shot in an arm or leg to disable him if police thought he was a threat. Some could not understand why police would shoot him, repeatedly, once he went down. Perhaps even more people are incredulous that the police say they did nothing wrong even though an admittedly innocent man died.

In an effort to cut through some of the confusion, I thought it might be helpful to create a post explaining on a high level how suicide bombs work, and explaining the general philosophy of shoot-to-kill-to-save policies.

Jihad for Dummies: A Non-technical Primer

Leaving ideology out of the equation, the defining trait of a suicide bomber is the willingness to personally detonate an explosive device in an attempt to kill others, knowing they will die in the process. While suicide bombers can take many forms, from the WWII-era kamikaze pilots and suicide submariners, to truck and boat bombers, the most common form of suicide bomber is one wearing explosives on his person.

It's so easy, even a kid can do it.

Suicide Belts
As the picture above hints, a suicide belt is among the more popular options for would-be suicide bombers. It is easy to construct, carries a decent payload of explosives, and can be easily concealable under a medium-weight coat, providing it has sufficient padding to break up the tell-tell outline of explosive charges.

Please note that the explosives on a suicide belt can take up a large part of a bomber's torso.

A close relative of the suicide belt is the suicide vest.

Suicide Vests
Suicide vest are very similar to suicide belts in terms of explosive power, but, the construction of the vests tends to make them more concealable. If you compare the belt designs above (and below) this vest, you'll note that the belts tend to "print," or show very easily though clothing due to sharp edges and angles of parts of the device that tend to catch fabric and betray the presence of the bomb. A vest, as used here, does not print as much as most bomb belts tend to, and is harder for authorities to spot.

Again, note how much of the body that explosives tend to cover.

If you think bomber above looks vaguely familiar, it is because you've probably seen him before.

Set It Off
Suicide bombers may have a mind of their own, but the explosives do not. Bombs need detonators.

As the photo above shows, detonators don't have to be elaborate. The pipe-bomb belt in the photo above has a simple plunger-type detonator. The wire from the detonator to the bomb can easily be run down a shirt or coat sleeve to a bomber's hand, where it is easily concealed.

All a bomber has to do to end his life and the lives of dozens around him is simply clinch his fist, and bring his thumb down.

Game Over.

Applied Lessons
Now you know a little bit about how suicide bomb belts and vests are constructed and commonly detonated, you can begin to develop an appreciation of the situation Metropolitan Police must have encountered this past Friday morning.

Police staked out a group of houses because they have information that one of the failed suicide bombers from the day before may have a connection to this general location. The very next morning, an man fitting the general age range (15-35) of the average suicide bomber leaves the block of houses wearing a padded coat; quite unusual dress for a humid July morning. He is also carrying a backpack, which were known to have been used in all successful and attempted suicide attacks in London to date.

The man then boards a bus that the police know leads to a nearby subway station. At this point, police must begin to have strong suspicions that there may be a follow-up attack in the works. At the subway station, the man, for reasons as yet unclear jumps the turnstiles and begins running for a train, refusing police calls to halt. The police run after him. As he enters a subway car, he trips and falls.

Now imagine you are the police officer who has had his city attacked twice by suicide bombers in the past few weeks, including four times in the past 24 hours. Keep in mind that you know exactly what could happen if you shoot into a suicide vest. Keep in mind what exactly what could happen if the man on the ground has a detonator under his thumb. Know that if you fire one man will die. If you don't fire, dozens could die.

Oh, and you have about second to make your decision

Glance quickly at the dozens of fearful citizens around you... what do you do?

Dozens of lives versus one. A Devil's Choice, but a choice that had to be made, and in this context, it appears the decision was made correctly.

Update: This post's description of suicide vests has drawn the attention of Clinton W. Taylor of The American Spectator, in an article called Prometheus, Deterred. I'd encourage my readers to check out Mr. Taylor's article. I'd also encourage A.S. readers to visit the front page of this blog for more breaking content.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:01 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1015 words, total size 6 kb.

Inflamatory rhetoric kills:

ON HIS last visit to relatives in Pakistan this year, one of the London bombers, Shehzad Tanweer, boasted of wanting to die in a revenge attack over the way Muslims are treated.

While his family in Leeds had no idea about his suicide mission, Tanweer confessed to his cousin his ambition to become a “holy warrior”. At his father's home village 30 miles from Faisalabad, Mohammad Saleem described yesterday how Tanweer, 22, hero-worshipped Osama bin Laden.

Mr Saleem supported his cousin's bombing at Aldgate station which killed seven people, saying: “Whatever he has done, if he has done it, then he has done right.” He recalled how Tanweer argued with family and friends about the need for violent retaliation over US abuse of Muslim prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. [emphasis added - Ed.]

No one died as the result of unethical U.S. military action in Guantanamo Bay. The body count due to unethical media and political actions continues to rise.

Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom explores the impact of unethical behavior by Democrats, the media, and so-called human rights organizations in "Why Rhetoric Matters."

Go read it.

Update: Since Goldstein asked for it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.

I'd be willing to be the people responsible for this would agree with this crowd.

(h/t: Instapundit)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Instapundit:

"Let's support our troops. Bring them home." Please don't ever say those words again. Nothing is so disheartening to our troops who are in harm's way than to hear our own citizens say things like that.

On June 16, 2004, I willingly said goodbye to my wife and parents in a parking lot at Fort Drum, N.Y., not knowing if I would ever see them again. I don't expect any kinds of praise for this or special thanks because that is my job, and I knowingly volunteered for it. I never would have done that if I did not believe that I was defending this great country of ours and all those in it.

Read the whole thing.

Lt. David Lucas, who wrote this editorial, won a Bronze Star for his role in a dramatic hostage rescue.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

London Metropolitan Police are now saying that the south Asian man wearing a heavy coat on a muggy warm day who ran from police into the Tube the day after botched suicide attacks, tripped and was shot in the head is not related to the recent rash of Islamic terrorism.

Via BBC News:

A Scotland Yard statement read: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.

"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.

"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

How should I respond?

You don't give children matches. You don't attempt to rewire your house without shutting off your electricity. And you certainly don't run from police when dressed suspiciously like a suicide bomber who attacked the same area the day before. Stupidity kills.

So does the unwillingness to follow established doctrine.

Operation Kratos, the operational plan and training of Metropolitan Police officers by the world's foremost experts on suicide bombers, failed yesterday. It did not fail because the man shot turned out to be an idiot rather than a suicide bomber. It failed because the man penetrated the perimeter and made it to the train before being shot. He never should have made it that far.

Commuter Mark Whitby captured the attention of the media yesterday with his dramatic recreation of events:

“As the man leapt on the train I looked at his face. He looked just like a cornered rat ... like a cornered fox, absolutely petrified.

“Then he tripped. One of the police officers was holding a black automatic pistol in his left hand. They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him — bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

“Five shots and he's dead. It was no further than five yards from me. It was like a nightmare — a very distressing sight.”

Some are sure to vilify the police and their commanders for the decision to employ shoot-to-kill/head shot tactics, just as they would assuredly blame the authorities for not firing fast enough if the dead man had been a terrorist and had been able to detonate a bomb as he was falling. Mrs. Whitby would have found the situation far more distressing if she was spending today waiting for a call from the corner's office that they'd been able to locate the majority of Mr. Whitby.

Terrorism is a dirty business, and unfortunately, fighting terrorism can be bloody as well. It takes courage, dedication, and quick reactions. The Metropolitan Police failed yesterday, not because they lacked courage or dedication or because they shot the wrong man, but because they did not shoot him fast enough.

Operation Kratos, the shoot-to-kill policy designed to save London commuters from suicide bombers is a sound, intelligent policy, but it cannot work if the police are going to second-guess themselves.

Real suicide bombers are likely to take advantage of yesterday's justifiable shooting and the hesitation that might creep into the mind of the next Metropolitan police officer that is faced with a similar situation.

Everyone knows that the police are deadly serious now. The next suspect to run toward a bus or subway will likely be a terrorist intent on finishing his mission as he dies.

I have a bit of advice for the London Metro police offices on call that day: squeeze, don't jerk the trigger. You may kill indeed kill someone who isn't a terrorist... but if you're wrong and don't fire on a real terrorist, hundreds could pay for your hesitation.

Sight. Squeeze. Save lives.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:08 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 637 words, total size 4 kb.

1 The cops were undercover, wearing plain clothes. If you're in jolly old England, unarmed by law, and some chav looking guys, with a different amount of melanin from you, start yelling at you and waving a pistol what do you do? Run! Looking scared is optional but fits the scenario.

Posted by: marc at July 24, 2005 01:54 PM (jK/B+)

2 Marc, you forget to mention that the three plainclothes cops were accompanied by an estimated 15-20 uniformed cops also involved in the chase.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 24, 2005 02:09 PM (0fZB6)

3 It would change my mind if the cops were in uniform. The BBC link in this post says "Witnesses report seeing up to 20 plain clothes police officers chase a man into Stockwell Tube station" (quote from the graphic at the bottom). And the "Sun" just says "at least 15-20 policemen were running down". I son't know if those are the same 20 as the BBC mentions or if they were in or out of uniform. Most articles only mention that "plainclothes" officers killed Menezes. I also like the exceptionally fit officers in the "recreation" at the top of the "Sun" link

Posted by: marc at July 24, 2005 02:50 PM (jK/B+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

So, the Transportation Safety Administration is illegally compiling passenger profile information?

This isn't the first time the government has been caught illegally collecting information on certain demographic groups. And certainly not the first time they've abused that information.

What was that bit about "absolute power" again?

But hey, we can trust the government...

Right?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

Sooner or later all societies are going to realize that feeding hatred is an unsustainable idea, for hatred is unpredictable, disloyal, irrational, and it will always find a way to turn back on you.

This attack was targeted against westerners, but the attack happened in Egypt. Next time it could be Egyptian mothers, Jordanian daughters, or Saudi sons, who weren't faithful enough, pious enough, or were simply in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

That's the funny thing about cancer. Even if it wins, it dies, and the question is whether you will allow yourself to die with it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Next? A British counterterrorist trains.

An article one week ago today in the Scotsman revealed that London Metro Police could be given orders to fire at the heads of suspected suicide bombers in an effort to save lives in a plan called Operation Kratos:

Normal firearms rules mean officers fire at the chests of targets, with the intention of stopping and incapacitating, but not directly aiming to kill.

But the Met has been advised by Israeli security officials that this is not adequate, since even after several shots they can still be capable of triggering an explosive device.

Shooting at the chest also runs the risk of triggering explosives strapped to a terrorist's body.

Shots to the head, by contrast, kill immediately, almost instantly causing the nervous system to shut down, preventing any detonation.

Today saw dramatic evidence that that policy was indeed in effect.

The Muslim Council of Britain was not thrilled with the idea of police officers having a green light to shoot suspected suicide bombers. They are apparently worried that trigger-happy police may kill innocent Muslims by mistake. Perhaps they should think about persuading their fellow Muslims not to turn themselves into "personal demolition experts," and turn upon the radicals jeopardizing their culture instead of letting them rant unopposed.

In the meantime, the new rules of engagement outlined in Operation Kratos may be the last line of defense for British mass transit. One can only assume similar plans are in effect on this side of the Atlantic.

We'll know for certain once the ACLU sues to stop them.

Update: No wonder Muslims are upset!
According to al-Jazeera, the man British police shot was killed for merely trying to board a train.
(H/T: Bluto at The Jawa Report)

Further Update: The man who ran turns out to be a Brazilian electrician. The family of this man is, of course, threatening to sue. The British Police have not backed down from the right response.

Good.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:46 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 3 kb.