It's a beautiful site.
UPDATE: Assassinated?! Somebody fire this guy or his producer.
MORE: Bob Woodward gets final interview with Saddam. Hard to believe it's a parody:
Mr. Woodward said he would not comment on rumors that he will soon publish interviews with singers James Brown and Lou Rawls, cartoonist Joseph Barbera, actors Don Knotts, Jack Palance, Glenn Ford, June Allyson, Dennis Weaver, Shelley Winters and Jane Wyatt, as well as Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin and sportscaster Curt Gowdy, all of whom died in 2006 and may have been secretly critical of Mr. Bush’s rationale for invading Iraq.
UPDATE: The Zeleny article was the just the tip of the iceberg. Don Surber has more on the New York Times in mourning.
Getting back to football...it seems highly unlikely that Robert Kraft would let Belichick go, even if there are moral issues involved. It would be a huge coup for the Giants, but it'll never happen.
One of the talking heads on one of the cable news shows (does it matter which?) said that it was a "great thing for America" that Gerald Ford pardoned the crooked war criminal, Richard Nixon. He said that we don't make public spectacles out of trying our presidents in criminal courts. After all, we are not a "banana republic."
No, the United States of America is not a "banana republic" Mr. Talking Head, but since Nixon got away with his blatant crimes and every President since Nixon has skated away from office after having committed overt and covert crimes, we have on our hands, here, a situation that I am forced now to call: "Bloody George."
Oops! There go the invitations to the next round of Upper East Side cocktail parties.
Libertarians already agree with the left on social issues such as stem-cell research, immigration and censorship, Lindsey wrote.
Even where they differ - chiefly over the virtues of capitalism and free markets - libertarians can frame their arguments in progressive terms.
Libertarians detest farm subsidies, for example, because they inflate government and distort markets. Call them "corporate welfare," however, and many liberals will applaud.
Lindsey's real point is much like Frank's: Support for free global trade can be bartered for stronger social-safety-net and worker-protection programs.
"The central challenge," Lindsey wrote, "is to elaborate a vision of economic policy... that both liberals and libertarians can support."
Part of that vision, at least for the moment, may stem from opposition to what has passed for conservatism during much of the last six years.
Libertarians who champion small government and open markets have been appalled by Congress' deficit spending and the Bush administration's embrace of protective tariffs for steel and other industries.
Lindsey, and others, suggest it would be more useful to cut a deal with liberals - higher taxes in exchange for balanced budgets, say.
You could call this kind of horsetrading "pouring liberal wine into conservative bottles." Lawrence Seidman does - that's the title of his new book.
Okay libertarians, I know things are bad right now, but for the love of Milton Friedman let's not lose our heads! Noam Chomsky makes a mockery of the language (ironic since he's a linguist) every time he calls himself a "libertarian socialist." These two words cannot be put together... they are fire and ice. Yes, the Republicans went socialist in the past few years, but that doesn't mean we should go running to other party which historically makes the GOP seem like penny-pinchers. Rationalize it all you want, but libertarians and "liberals" don't mix.
It is sad to wake up this morning and have the first news be that of the death of a good President. The news stories will say it better than I can, but Gerald Ford was the ultimate example of sacrificing political gain in order to do right by the country. After Bill Clinton held on to power for no useful purpose, and spent 8 years working on a legacy verses what was needed for the country, we can all see the difference “in style”. Political expediency is the norm right now. Staying on the best course, despite the news media’s lame and consistent harping, is becoming a rare trait. The news media will never be able to undo the damage did while this man was President. They scoffed at Gerald Ford from the Ivory Towers of unsustainable arrogance at every opportunity. Just as with the passing of President Reagan, the media wiill choke down their dislike and pretend to redeem themselves as they cover the passing of this good man. Or maybe they won’t. One thing about liberals is their innate ability to be tacky at any cost. But as usual, the media is the sideshow. The main event is this man’s life long dedication and sacrifice to all of us. Thank you Mr. President. God speed.
Statement from President Bush:
Laura and I are greatly saddened by the passing of former President Gerald R. Ford.
President Ford was a great American who gave many years of dedicated service to our country. On Aug. 9, 1974, after a long career in the House of Representatives and service as vice president, he assumed the presidency in an hour of national turmoil and division. With his quiet integrity, commonsense and kind instincts, President Ford helped heal our land and restore public confidence in the presidency.
The American people will always admire Gerald Ford's devotion to duty, his personal character and the honorable conduct of his administration. We mourn the loss of such a leader, and our 38th president will always have a special place in our nation's memory. On behalf of all Americans, Laura and I offer our deepest sympathies to Betty Ford and all of President Ford's family. Our thoughts and prayers will be with them in the hours and days ahead.
Nonsense. Saddam is next on the chopping block and hundreds of Iraqis are chomping at the bit to be the one to drop the axe, pull the switch, what have you. I can't wait.
In the meantime, however, Rosie made a huge mistake by insulting Donald Trump on today's show. Trump, never one to back out of a fight, says he'll be suing Rosie and loving every minute of it. Could be a ploy for publicity on Donald's part, but I hope he's sincere and makes her life hell.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Wednesday installed self-described conservative writer and producer Warren Bell on the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports U.S. public television and radio.The horror...the horror.
Bell, who was nominated in June, writes for the conservative magazine The National Review and was previously a writer and producer for "Coach" and "Ellen," two popular TV series in the 1990s.
The Senate Commerce Committee had been scheduled to hold a confirmation hearing for him in September but he was dropped from the agenda because of concerns by both Republicans and Democrats.
The Los Angeles Times reported that some of Bell's fellow writers said he had made negative comments about funding public broadcasting, a charge he denied. No action on his nomination was taken by the Senate before it adjourned earlier this month.
It also ties into my post from last week, asking how the fans of Ahmadinejad feel about their hero standing side-by-side with David Duke. Someone at Time Magazine has some explaining to do.
To the Senators' comparison of ExxonMobil's funding of climate sceptics with tobacco-industry funding of research denying the link between smoking and lung cancer, Lord Monckton counters, "Your comparison of Exxon's funding of sceptical scientists and groups with the former antics of the tobacco industry is unjustifiable and unworthy of any credible elected representatives. Either withdraw that monstrous comparison forthwith, or resign so as not to pollute the office you hold."
Take that you gobshites!
-Sources are telling Drudge that Gerald Ford has taken a turn for the worse. The oldest living president has struggled with many health issues the past few years. It might be his time.
-REPORT: Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh Decides Not to Seek Democratic Nomination for President...
Looks like the Clinton smear machine is running on all cylinders.
-Officials: John Edwards to Enter 2008 Race...
Like it matters.
-Ex-Rep. Barr Quits GOP for Libertarians...
I admire his principles. He's a good man.
-Hundreds Detained Ahead of Anti-Government Rally in Moscow...
Former President Carter turned down a request to debate Alan Dershowitz about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, saying the outspoken Harvard law professor "knows nothing about the situation."
Carter, author of a new book advocating "peace not apartheid" in the region, said he will not visit Brandeis University to discuss the book because the university
requested he debate Dershowitz.
"I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz," Carter said in Friday's Boston Globe. "There is no need ... to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."
The school's debate request, Carter said, is proof that many in the United States are unwilling to hear an alternative view on the nation's most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory.
Carter brokered the 1978 Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt and received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. He said the goal of his book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," is to provoke dialogue and action.
"There is no debate in America about anything that would be critical of Israel," he said.
In the words of Will Ferrell, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!" What the hell is this man talking about? Spend 5 minutes in Turtle Bay and tell me there's no debate critical of Israel. Read the Baker-Hamilton Report and tell me there's no debate critical of Israel. Listen to Michael Moore and the nuts at Democratic Underground and Daily Kos and tell me there's no debate critical of Israel. Listen to anyone who uses the term "Neocon" and tell me there's no debate critical of Israel.
You know who else thinks there's no debate in America about anything that would be critical of Israel? David Duke.
The head of a private DNA laboratory said under oath today that he and District Attorney Mike Nifong agreed not to report DNA results favorable to Duke lacrosse players charged with rape.
Brian Meehan, director of DNA Security of Burlington, said his lab found DNA from unidentified men in the underwear, pubic hair and rectum of the woman who said she was gang-raped at a lacrosse party in March. Nurses at Duke Hospital collected the samples a few hours after the alleged assault. Meehan said the DNA did not come from Reade Seligmann, David Evans, or Collin Finnerty, who have been charged with rape and sexual assault in the case.
The New York Times headline noted Pinochet was a “Dictator Who Ruled By Terror in Chile.” The Times began by describing him as “the brutal dictator who repressed and reshaped Chile for nearly two decades and became a notorious symbol of human rights abuse and corruption.” He was “never brought to trial.” Both the Post and the Times used post-Pinochet government estimates that more than 3,000 people were executed or disappeared during the Pinochet dictatorship.
But the same liberal press that despises right-wing autocrats cannot bring that same vigorous denunciation to bear when a communist dictator dies. When Chinese dictator Deng Xiaoping died in 1997, the Post mentioned the “bloody crackdown” in Tiananmen Square in 1989, but the words “dictator” or “dark legacy” did not appear in the headline, which simply recited the fact of death: “China’s Deng Xiaoping, Dead at 92.” The Post reporter did not attempt to enumerate the thousands or millions killed on Deng’s watch, or wonder why he was never put on trial.
The Post presented Deng as a great liberalizer, to a point. “Deng had guided the country out of the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, flung open China's doors to the outside world and loosened the grip of central economic planning,” while, ahem, “insisting that the Communist Party's monopoly on power go unchallenged.”
Some communist leaders couldn’t even be accused of liberalizing tendencies. When Korean despot Kim Il Sung died in 1994, the New York Times couldn’t call him a dictator in their headlines, let along mention ruling by terror. The second story on the death was headlined "Kim Il Sung, Enigmatic 'Great Leader" of North Korea for 5 Decades, Dies at 82."
The Times reporter proclaimed that to some Kim was “seen as a Stalinist maniac.” (Note the qualifier “seen as.”) And to others? There was also the “grandfatherly Kim Il Sung,” a “smiling leader seeking respect for his economically disabled nation, the man who three weeks ago embraced Jimmy Carter” as a way of establishing contact with President Clinton.
So let’s review. A right-wing ruler responsible for the deaths of 3,000 -- but also responsible for an economic miracle of free enterprise, and who allowed the democratic process which forced him from power – “dictator.” But communist despots who controlled their citizens with iron fists until the day they died, preventing all manner of political, economic, and religious freedoms, and who caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions – “leaders.”
The more things change, the more they stay the same. While conservatives still seek to defend both democracy and American interests, liberals are still fawning over communist and terrorist thugs. May our legacy be to tell the truth as it was Jeane Kirkpatrick’s.
70 percent "disapprove" specifically of his handling of the situation in Iraq, his worst-ever mark.
So what to make of this? Well, what's going on with the "situation in Iraq" right now? We're of course bombarded with stories from the MSM about how bad it is and that victory is hopeless, but what is Bush doing? First, he fired Rumsfeld and brought in a new Secretary of Defense. Then, he gets a report from Jim Baker with advice on what to do, which is basically to surrender and, while we're at it, get rid of the Jews, and Bush thanks them for their service and says he will give their suggestions serious consideration.
My question: This 70% that disapprove...what exactly do they disapprove of?
For the past four years there has been no shortage of news and views on Iraq and the long-running war there. What’s been missing: a one-stop-shopping clearinghouse for nonpartisan information, including material coming out of Iraq itself from natives of that country, not from foreign correspondents.
Now that need is finally being addressed in the form of IraqSlogger, in Beta at www.iraqslogger.com, but due to be officially launched next week. Its director is the former CNN news division chief, Eason Jordan, who quit that post suddenly in 2005 after 23 years with the company. The name of his new venture, he says, was inspired by a Donald Rumsfeld reference to this war being a “long, hard slog.”
The concept, Jordan tells E&P, “grew out of the feeling that I think many people shared that there was no one place to go. Individual news organizations do terrific work but you can spend the better part of a day going from one site to another and one TV outlet to another,” searching for a full picture.
“Iraq is the story of our time,” he declares. His goal for the site is for it to become nothing less than “the world's premier Iraq-focused information source” -- and with no “political slant.”
Those of you that have read my blog these past couple of years know that I have utter contempt for the MSM. Strange considering I have a Bachelor's Degree in Journalism and will soon have a Master's Degree in the same field. I worked in television for over 10 years, why then do I have such a problem with the media?
The long answer would take days to go over...the short answer can be summed up in two words: Eason Jordan.
This is the man that admitted covering up Saddam Hussein's crimes in order to maintain a bureau in Baghdad. If that wasn't bad enough, in early 2005 he made the charge that U.S. soldiers in Iraq were targeting journalists. The Blogosphere furor over the latter incident led to his resignation from CNN. Now he has the nerve to start an Iraq news website and claim there will be "no political slant."
This man is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with Journalism.
"Assad clearly indicated the willingness to cooperate with the Americans and or the Iraqi army to be part of a solution" in Iraq, Nelson told reporters in a conference call following the meeting. The U.S. says foreign fighters often enter Iraq across that boundary.
Excellent! Tomorrow Nelson is scheduled to hold a sit-down meeting in Hell with El Diablo. There's talk in the beltway that ol' scratch is offering up his services in Darfur.
I remember when Georgia Senator Paul Coverdell died and the Republican Senate Majority dropped to 51-49. This paved the way for Jim Jeffords to defect and you know the rest. I'd rather see the GOP in the majority in the Senate, but not this way.
UPDATE: Spokesman denies.
Shock! Horror! Panic!
Please. This is what smart people have known all along. Only idiots who get their news from CNN think this should be a short-lived venture. It takes generations to change a culture.
TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's conference questioning the Holocaust came to an end Tuesday, but not before hearing former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke say that gas chambers were not used to kill Jews.
"The Zionists have used the Holocaust as a weapon to deny the rights of the Palestinians and cover up the crimes of Israel," Duke told a gathering of nearly 70 "researchers" in Tehran at Ahmadinejad's invitation.
"This conference has an incredible impact on Holocaust studies all over the world," said Duke, a former state representative in Louisiana who twice ran for president.
"The Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder," Duke told The Associated Press.
Here's the question I pose. All you guys at Democratic Underground and Daily Kos who just swoon over Ahmadinejad...his beard, his clothes, the way he walks, the way he talks, the way he sticks it to "Bushitler," how does this feel? How does this taste in your mouth? Hmmm?
However, Delay is starting his own grassroots organization to counter the Clinton loyalists and this may be his way of getting it in the news.
Democrats tidying up a cluster of unfinished spending bills dumped on them by departing Republican leaders in Congress will start by removing billions of dollars in lawmakers' pet projects next month.
The move, orchestrated by the incoming chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees, could prove politically savvy even as it proves unpopular with other members of Congress, who as a group will lose thousands of so-called earmarks.
"There will be no congressional earmarks," Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said Monday in a statement announcing their plans, which were quickly endorsed by incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D- Nev.
Robert Byrd is a major force behind the Democrats plan to eliminate pork? Does anyone else think this is like putting the fox in charge of hen-house security?
The MSM has spoken...Barack Obama is The Chosen One.
Kirkpatrick got a lot of grief from the Left for her alleged sympathy and preference for "right-wing authoritarian" governments over "left-wing Marxist tyrannies." This is a simplistic and disingenuous take on the situation. What Kirkpatrick is saying is what would you rather have, a pro-American government with some freedoms or an anti-American government with no freedoms? Most of us (at least on the Right) would say we'd like "option C", a pro-American government with many freedoms. But that's not always an option, so you have to pick your poison, and between the respective choices of the Shah and the Ayatollah and Somoza and Ortega, it's not choice at all, at least for those of us who love and appreciate freedom.
Joe Conason, columnists for the New York Observer, took umbrage with me the other day for implying that he was a fan of Hugo Chavez. I made this charge in a roundabout way to see if anyone would remember a column he wrote during the short-lived coup that put Chavez out of power for a few days in 2002. Conason was annoyed with the Bush administration for "not standing up for a democratically elected president." Please. Everyone knew then what is painfully clear now: that Chavez is (and was then) a tyrant (Communist, Marxist, Stalinist, Nazi...you pick the label) and having him out of power would only be to the benefit of Venezuela.
But Chavez is a good Leftists and the American Left has a long love affair with Leftist dictators, whether it be Castro, Ortega, Stalin, Gorbachev, et al. Now if your dictator is more of the Right Winged persuasion like say, an Augusto Pinochet, then it's off with his head!
A dictator is a dictator, whether he's "elected" or not.
UPDATE: Conason responds:
"Hard to say which is worse - your reading comprehension or your personal integrity. To take the simplest example, the phrase you put in quotation marks above did not appear in my column. It's a trick you can attempt only because there's no link to the column you are supposedly quoting.
I would be happy to send that column to any reader who'd like to know what it actually says. My email address is jconason-at-observer.com."
There is no link because the New York Observer's archives are subscription only. I did not republish any any of it on my website because of that fact, but very well, you have forced my hand...here are the first two paragraphs of the column in question (which I paid for):
It was a good week for democracy in, and not such a good week for democracy in and .
Beyond those immediate observations, we know far less at the moment than we need to know about the events leading up to the coup and countercoup in . Who was killed in the violent street demonstrations of April 11? Who did the shooting? When did the State Department learn that a coup was imminent? What did our diplomats (and military attachés) say to the plotters? Why did the and the National Security Council ignore our treaty obligations to oppose the unlawful overthrow of an elected President? (Emphasis mine)
Joe is correct. I shouldn't have paraphrased his words and for that I apologize. The two statements have the exact same meaning, but that's still no excuse. I do however suggest that everyone take Joe up on his offer and have him send the column to you directly. It's speaks for itself.
UPDATE: A couple of liberal bloggers, The Liberal Avenger and Lawyers, Gun$ and Money used this post as an example of a Pinochet apologist. G-d I love pissing off Leftists! Anywho, Pinochet was a murderer, no question, and while he agreed to elections in 1990, he did so never imagining he would actually lose. But he did and he knew which way the wind was blowing. Now Chile is the most successful democracy in South America with an excellent economy. This would not be the case if the Left had remained in power. After all, the Left was also complicit in Salvador Allende's death.
Bill Bennett, a former secretary of education under Reagan, the nation's drug czar under the first President Bush and a leading conservative opinion-maker, called her "very forceful, very strong, a daughter of Oklahoma, great sense of humor. She held her own."
Bennett said the Iraq Study Group so prominently in the news "would have been better with Jeane Kirkpatrick on it ... She had no patience with tyrannies, said they had to be confronted, you couldn't deal with tyrannies, that there were some people you could work with - these people you couldn't."
Let's hope she's not the last of her kind.
Two US college students featured in the smash-hit comedy movie "Borat" suffered damage to their reputations after appearing in the film, a lawyer representing the pair said. Olivier Taillieu told a hearing in Los Angeles that the two students -- whose names were withheld -- would never have agreed to appear in the spoof documentary if they had known it would be screened in the United States.
"One would be more willing to make a fool of himself if he knew his friends
and family members weren't going to see it," Taillieu said.
In "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan," British comic Sacha Baron Cohen plays a fictional Kazakh journalist blundering across America in search of cultural enlightenment.
The movie has become a worldwide box-office success since its release but has angered several of the unwitting members of the public who appear in the critically acclaimed satire.
The two students suing the movie's makers in Los Angeles appear in the film when Borat hitches a ride in their motorhome. The scene shows the men appearing to get drunk and watching the infamous Pamela Anderson-Tommy Lee sex videotape.
Okay, can someone explain to me what I'm missing here? These college students, frat boys, are embarrassed by their performance in the film? Has college changed dramatically since I was there, because in my day, some frat boys featured in a major film while drunk and watching porno would be considered gods on campus. When I first saw the movie, I thought to myself, "These guys must just be the shit now." Instead they're saying it's brought on hardship. I don't get it.
This is the triumph of the therapeutic, where bipartisanship — a hug across the aisle — has become a higher value than justice. The crisis of the house divided has been inverted; we no longer are worried about the crisis but the House, the moral, the good, and the just take a backseat to collegiality. Does history really give a hoot about bipartisanship? Who cares whether they are getting along? The task is to do the right thing, especially in war. But, when relativism is the highest value, agreement becomes the highest goal, regardless of right and wrong. And, woe to those who disagree, they will be sent whence they came — the outer reaches of “extremism.” This is the tyranny of the “best people” today’s equivalent of the Cliveden set.
And the Driveby Media slept.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), testified this morning at a special hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The hearing examined climate change and the media. Bellow are excerpts from his prepared remarks.
"In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.
"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."
"In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph. "Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.
"There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed."
Here's the bottom line. Gwyneth Paltrow is rich. Rich people can live just about anywhere on earth and live on their terms. If I had millions of dollars in the bank, I'd enjoy Britain a great deal...not so much on my current salary. Fact is, if you're middle class or lower, there's no better country to live than America...and you certainly wouldn't want to trade a American middle class lifestyle for a European version. Paltrow's attitude is nothing new. Gore Vidal lives in Italy because he can't stand American culture, but he's rich. He can live in Italy comfortably. Let him try it on construction worker's salary.
This, George Clooney, is yet another example of why Hollywood is out of touch.
The Stalinists are on the march.
MORE: Jay Tea over at Wizbang is looking for nominations...serious or otherwise, for the next U.N. Ambassador.
Meanwhile, the Driveby Media seems to be turning its back on Hillary and doing what it can to make Barack Obama the next president. What does Obama offer? Nothing except that he's a good looking black man and he's a liberal. Doesn't matter. The MSM loves him so they demand that we love him and his empty suit too. It might make sense for Hillary not to run. After all, someday the Devil will come to Ted Kennedy to collect payment and he'll be gone. She could take over the shadow presidency that he's held for decades.
These times remind me somewhat of the late 70s. Granted things aren't nearly as bad at home now as they were then, but the country is in desperate need of leadership. Ronald Reagan worked hard during the Carter presidency spreading the word of his philosophy. The time is ripe for someone to play this role, whether it be Giuliani or Romney or whoever, someone needs to come forth and say, 'no, this is wrong.'
I've blogged some on the Gramsci Effect over at Astute Bloggers playing off an excellent post from Punditarian. I'm constantly amazed at how well the enemies of freedom have been able to undermine our will to recognize our enemies, much less fight them. The fact that Jim Baker is considered to be from a school of foreign policy known as "realism" is one of the greatest Orwellian jokes of our age. Men of his ilk are in complete denial.
I take some solace in the fact that all history is cyclical and for every Carter there is a Reagan, but one always fears a true end of history.
In all seriousness, I'm stunned at what is happening. I have a Bachelors Degree in Journalism and am close to having a Masters Degree in the same field, yet my profession of choice is now predominantly the enemy of freedom and free expression. Think about that for a while.