baldilocks

Visions of Watergate Dancing in Their Heads

The New York Times is suing the Pentagon (subscription only) for acting as if there's a war on.

NEW YORK – The New York Times sued the Department of Defense on Monday, saying the government has refused to turn over records related to its domestic warrantless surveillance program. [SNIP]

The Times said a Dec. 16 letter to the Department of Defense requested all internal memos, e-mails and legal memoranda and opinions since Sept. 11, 2001, related to the National Security Agency spying program. The department is the parent agency of the NSA.

The newspaper said it asked for meeting logs, calendar items and notes related to discussions of the program, including meetings held by Vice President Dick Cheney and his staff with members of Congress and telecommunications executives. It also requested all complaints of abuse or possible violations in the operations of the program or the legal rationale behind it.

It's difficult to comment upon this story without using some sort of epithet.

Roger Simon thinks that it's some sort of ploy. He must certainly be correct because the NYT's lawyers couldn't possibly believe that they won't be laughed out of court.

The Big Media couldn't posssibly believe than any federal intelligence agency could be subject to its oversight and could be legally compelled to turn over TOP SECRET information to a Big Media entity (or any other uncleared persons). Nooo, they just have mind-blogglingly incompetent really uninformed lawyers who don't understand things like jurisdiction, intelligence, the classification process, etc. Yes, that's certainly it.

Because the alternative is even more frightening: the New York Times and its functionaries actually do know these things, but would rather permanently cripple the function of the NSA and all other US intelligence agencies rather than see President Bush win a victory over foe--even if that foe is pledged to kill us all.

See also:

Protein Wisdom
The Strata-Sphere
My Pet Jawa

(Thanks to Pajamas Media)

Octavia Butler

A lot of famous people have died this week—Don Knotts, Darren McGavin and Dennis Weaver--but I was most shocked and saddened to learn of the death of sci-fi/fantasy author Octavia Butler who was only 58. I was a big fan of her work, to say the least.

All of her stories featured black persons—sometimes that fact was essential to the story line; other times it was incidental. For me, her best work was Lilith’s Brood, also known as the ‘Xenogenesis’ series: Dawn, Adulthood Rites and Imago.

Her last work—which I haven’t read yet--is called Fledgling. I can’t wait to read, though I will dread finishing it, knowing that it will be Ms. Butler’s last.

(Thanks to D.C. Thornton)

Ports and Bigotry

When one gets behind in blogging, one finds herself with too many stories and situations to comment upon in an effective manner. Therefore, I will point you to the big story of the past week and to a bit of relevant commentary.

By now, everyone knows that the corporation Dubai Ports World (DPW) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is planning to take over terminal management of six US ports from the British corporation Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company--a majority stock acquisition. The initial uproar from both sides of the political spectrum was telling and, like many others, my first reaction upon learning of this plan was something like, “oh, HELL no.” When President Bush came out and vehemently backed the deal and signaling that he would issue the very first veto of his presidency if Congress passes a bill to block the acquisition, most Republicans were in shock; it was the ‘WTF’ heard ‘round the Right. As it turns out, however, neither President Bush nor the relevant department heads even knew about the plan initially. The deal had been handled and approved by Department underlings. (More about delegation of authority in a later post--and less than one week later. I promise!)

But as more and more information has been revealed about the prospective deal, it’s been obvious that it’s not a black-and-white proposition. At first, the story was that DPW would take over the security of the ports. However, upon further inspection it was revealed that security would remain under the auspices of the US government—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be specific; the US Coast Guard, US Customs and the Transportation Security Administration to be even more specific. (The recently revealed deficiencies in at least a couple of agencies under the DHS bailiwick are relevant, but they are a side discussion here; the main point being that our security will not be ‘out-sourced’ as certain legislators asserted that they would be.)

Another pertinent fact is the significant role that the UAE has played in alliance with the United States in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) since September 11, 2001. Simply put, the UAE has been one of our nation’s staunchest Middle East allies in the GWOT, outside of Israel.

However, there are opposing facts of note: two of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens and it is said that much Al Qaeda and other terrorist group funding flows through UAE banks and finds itself washed clean.

From that, third points come to mind: Richard Reid—the would-have-been Shoebomber--was a British citizen; many of the 9/11 hijackers plotted in Germany as well as in the US. Presumably, all of these terrorists sent their terror-plan funding through the aforementioned allies’ banking systems and through our own.

So what more could be said against the DPW takeover? It’s this: the UAE is a country governed by and composed of Arab Muslims. And that is the problem that most American observers actually have with the acquisition—some will admit it, but I’d wager that there are few in the Big Media who will be up front about it. Politicians who feel this way and who would admit such in public are practically non-existent, and understandably so. To admit to racist tendencies and/or religious bigotry in public is media and political suicide.

It’s the problem that I have with business deal, however. What else is there to do but admit it?

After all, in one of my very first posts on this blog—regarding the realization that 9/11 was a terrorist attack—were the words that I knew that the “f**king Arabs did this.”

And the fact that a country with the ethnicity ‘Arab’ in its name and composed of mostly Muslims taking over said ports is the real problem and it is the failing that most Americans—still fighting to clamp down on other racist and bigotry issues—don’t want to deal with.

But it is the issue.

Saturday morning, during FoxNews’ ‘Cost of Freedom’ line-up of shows, I listened as the lone Big Media person (that I know of)--Charles Payne--admitted to his Arab-bigotry in opposing the DPW deal. Tellingly, the man who mentioned it is black. He called it ‘personal hypocrisy’—he didn’t spell it out, but I knew what he meant. He, I, and all too many other black Americans butt our heads against ugly and annoying stereotypes constantly: each of us is an individual and are no more the same as lower-class persons of our same descent any more than are all white Americans the same as lower-class persons of theirs. Of course, the same standard applies to those of other decent. Or at least it should.

Will non-Arab/Muslims ever (again) be able to apply that standard *universally* to Arab and/or Muslim persons? I wonder how many non-black Americans asked themselves this question about their black countrymen forty years ago (or still ask it now).

But are these suspicions—these stereotypes, this bigotry, this racism—justified? These are the questions that those of us who hold all of these character failings must ask ourselves. And when we give ourselves honest answers in our heart-of-hearts, we must make decisions based on those honest answers.

As for myself, I don’t like the answers that I feel in my heart and in my logic-based mind--such as it is. DPW should not be blocked from acting in a natural and trusted business manner--if they have proved their trust-wortiness--but I hope that they are, simply for the safety of our nation. Who knows who could insinuated themselves into that business? Yet I know that this thought is based on an ugly bigotry.

What to do?

In a related matter, Gerard Vanderleun points to Glenn Reynolds-authored commentary in the Wall Street Journal (subscription-only) on the ineffective manner in which the White House has addressed the DPW controversy.

Glenn:

The White House, unaccountably, seems to have been blindsided by the furor over this deal, though most people's gut reaction was negative. As with the many bloggers like me who changed their minds, gut reactions can be overcome by evidence -- but the White House should have taken advantage of this early warning to have its arguments in order. It didn't. [SNIP]

The White House should not only have read blogs, but responded to them with information and arguments, rather than waiting for blog readers to weigh in. As Rich Galen observed on Wednesday, "It is an issue of this administration having a continuing problem with understanding how these things will play in the public's mind and not taking steps to set the stage so these things don't come as a shock and are presented in their worst possible light." Paying more attention to the blogs won't solve that problem. But it will help.

Gerard says that a White House blogger could have diffused the situation in its infancy.

What if there were an official Presidential blogger who had clearance for fly-on-the-wall access in the White House, within limits, but generally free to talk to and wander about and pickup information and impressions of what is going on.

Reverend Donald Sensing agrees that the White House needs to ‘get out more’ and submits an informal proposal:

As a thought experiment, I’d propose that a joint information office be established with the responsibility to integrate information from executive departments for distribution to the public. The “JIO” would have no authority to censor anything, nor would it have the authority to direct departments what to release to itself or the public. It would have the authority and budget to reuse information through multiple media in order to carry out the tasks above.

What media, you ask? Just some ideas:

Ad buys in print and broadcast media. Direct mailing. Internet. “Trailers” in movie theaters shown before the feature film. Radio spots. Public seminars. Certainly there are downsides, but the status quo must not continue.

Getting out in front of this controversy certainly wouldn’t have squashed much of the suspicions born of the type of bigotry mentioned above. However, much of the “outrage” could have been smothered early on had there been some official White House mechanism to get out into the information networks—blogs and other commentary—to see what the public has been saying about the DPW takeover.

As it is, the US Treasury Department—who approved the DPW deal in the first place—will be using a forty-five day waiting period to further inspect DPW in relation to national security issues. It turns out that DPW asked for this delay.

It seems that we find ourselves caught on those proverbially dilemma-horns.

Singing a Certain Song

If you’re a professional singer and you’re asked to sing the Star-Spangled Banner at the Super Bowl or the NBA All-Star Game or at one of the games in the NBA Finals, the NHL Finals or the World Series, do yourself and your audience's ears a favor: rehearse. Many times.

The temporarily-reunited Destiny’s Child sang the song at today’s NBA All-Star Game and, aside from wowing all of the male on-lookers by looking good (you go, girls), they sang a harmony-laden and excellent version of the Banner—they didn’t just rely on the fact they are very good singers; it was obvious that they practiced, over and over again.

In contrast, the duet between Aaron Neville and Aretha Franklin at the Super Bowl some weeks back was a dog-howler. (I know that someone will attempt to yank my sista-card for saying that out front, but my card has armed guards, so good luck getting to it.)

Frankly, all Star-Spangled Banner renditions must measure up to Whitney Houston’s magical 1989 1991 Super Bowl performance. I watched it in a room full of GIs at an NCO Club in Germany. Many tears were seen around the room after Whitney sang, including my own.

I was lamenting the other day that, while I never liked many of Whitney’s song choices, she was undeniably talented and that it seems that nearly every female pop vocalist is trying to be the next Whitney without benefit of having her pipes. Of course, Whitney doesn’t even have Whitney’s pipes anymore (though, if reports are correct, she is definitely in possession of another type of pipe or two.)

Sigh. Such is life.

Defanged Terror Measure

In the wake of closed briefings before both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, this Washington Post article reports that any further Congressional inquiry on the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is unlikely to happen. As the Post tells it, the decision may be due to a “full court press” by the Bush Administration (dubbed so by an anonymous Republican senate aide) to discouraged further inquiry, in spite of reports that John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the Senate intelligence committee's vice chairman has

…drafted a motion calling for a wide-ranging inquiry into the surveillance program, according to congressional sources who have seen it.

Many bloggers have exhaustively commented on the NSA program, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the exposure of the existence of the program via Big Media Sources, the New York Times and the Post. However, the most far-reaching and thoroughly-researched work has been done by Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom.

Tomorrow, the Senate Intelligence Committee is set to decide whether to conduct further investigation into the program’s legality.

However, even if the program is pronounced “clean,” it is now a useless weapon in the War on Terror, as Daniel Henninger of Opinion Journal pointed out last week.

If the purpose of the public exposure was to pull the plug on the pre-emptive surveillance program, mission accomplished. Be safe, Times Square.

Nice(ly) job(bed), Big Media.

(Thanks to Pajamas Media's NSA Files)

Officer Hulk

I read this yesterday...

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- The Incredible Hulk is now a county sheriff's department reserve deputy.

Lou Ferrigno, 54, who played the green-skinned monster on the CBS-TV show from 1977 to 1982, was sworn in during a ceremony Monday night.

"My father was a police officer with the New York Police Department; I've always had a high respect for officers," Ferrigno told The Associated Press.

...and the first thought that came to my mind was: isn't Lou Ferrigno deaf? Or maybe just hard of hearing, in which case, hearing aids would probably suffice. Otherwise I wonder how effective he would be in his new job.

At any rate, thanks for serving, Mr. Ferrigno and, no, I didn't know how fast I was going.

(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ)

Bragging

It was around 80 degrees here in LA. This isn't a photo of LA.

(Thanks to David in Maryland)

Not Presidential Material

The past few days just haven’t been good days for vice presidents.

First, on Saturday, Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally hits hunting companion Harry Whittington, 78, while the two were stalking little birdies in Texas. Though it appears that Mr. Whittington only received minor wounds—bird shot in the face and chest—the issues surrounding the publication of the accident are receiving much criticism. After Mr. Whittington received treatment from the vice president’s medical team—who travels with the VP regularly due to his chronic heart problems—Mr. Whittington was transported to the local medical facilities. Instead of immediately notifying the Washington press corps by putting out a statement from his office, Vice President Cheney deferred to the owner of the property on which the hunt had been proceeding—Katharine Armstrong—and allowed her to notify the local press. Because the local press waited to inform their colleagues in the nation’s capital, the Washington press corps wasn’t able to get the news out until the next day. So now the cries of ‘cover-up’ ring throughout the land--as if such a thing actually had a chance of being covered up.

And, to top things off, it appears that neither the vice president nor Mr. Whittington had all of the necessary paper-work to legally hunt in Texas.

In its report, the state agency that oversees hunting and fishing said it found neither Mr. Cheney nor Mr. Whittington had purchased the game bird stamp required to hunt quail in Texas. Both had valid hunting licenses, Mr. Cheney's a non-resident license.

The agency, in a release, said it has not been uncommon for game wardens to find hunters in the field without the required stamps since a new law took effect last Sept. 1. In those cases, hunters have been given oral warnings in lieu of fines or other penalties. Officials said that's common practice for up to a year after such a new law takes effect.

As if the Bush Administration didn’t have enough problems.

But then on Sunday, nearly right on cue—as if to remind us of the type of VP we had and the type of president we could have had--another vice president visits Wahhabi-Central Saudi Arabia to denounce the “racist” actions of the Bush Administration in the wake of 9/11.

Speaking at the Jiddah Economic Forum, an event staged by oil-rich Saudi royalty, [former Vice President Al] Gore indicted the American government for its "terrible abuses" of Arabs since the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington. Such treatment, he charged, played into the hands of al-Qaida.

And just what was the nature of these abuses? Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

Minor charges, eh? Okay. I suppose that actually enforcing the immigration laws of this country is an anathema to people like Vice President Gore. (To be fair, however, the Bush Administration has been horrible in enforcing these same laws as they apply to those from south and north of our borders—even considering the fact that a relatively small number of those actually have visas/green cards.)

But two things stand out about the former vice president’s charges. First, as the Investor’s Business Daily article points out

[f]ifteen of the 19 al-Qaida hijackers on that fateful day, a day that saw 3,000 Americans go to their fiery deaths, a day that created thousands more orphans, were Saudi citizens. Those hijackers lived undetected in this country precisely because immigration authorities had been permissive.

Arab Muslims subscribing to the Wahhabi sect of Islam--determined to create the "Caliphate on Earth" by any means necessary, including inflicting the most grievous wound [then] possible on the "Great Satan".

Second, what is indicated when a former US vice president travels overseas to any destination—much less the seat of Islamo-fascism—to criticize any action of his government—much less the steps it has taken to prevent further terrorist attacks in his country?

Both Presidents Bush’s and Clinton’s love-hate ratio were/are roughly evenly divided. It seems odd that both men would pick two such unsuitable men as their seconds-in-command. But the difference lies here: Vice President Cheney knows that he will not run for president in 2008, so he does what he wants. Former Vice President Gore nearly became president in 2000 and I suspect that he may be gearing up for a run in 2008. He pretty much watched his step during the Clinton Administration--likely due to his presidential plans--but in the wake of his narrow defeat in 2000 no holds seem to be barred for him. He, too, does what he wants, more frighteningly so than the present VP. Was he always like this or did 2000 derange him? Regardless, would you—even you leftists out there—want a man like the former vice president to lead this country?

There are many people who have been clamoring for the impeachment of President Bush due to the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. Consider who would be president, should such a misguided effort succeed. Additionally, there are some who think that Vice President Cheney should resign because of the hunting accident; fair enough—the shooting incident is ugly, no matter how accidental. Consider further, however, who might be appointed as VP, should a resignation occur.

It’s almost as if all the stars are in alignment against those who hate the Bush Administration, its actions and what it stands for.

I submit that all VPs should wear an ankle bracelet and a one-way comms device at least ten years after the end of their last term.

“No, Dick, don’t go hunting. The Left already thinks you’re a maniac.”
“No, Al, stay away from the Saudis. The Right already thinks you’re unhinged.”

Just a thought. :-)

UPDATE: Harry Whittington had a mild heart attack.

Any Time Now...

...we Christians will start rioting.

One problem with that, however: a portrait of the Virgin Mary covered in dung--and looking suspiciously Sambo-like--does absolutely nothing to shake the faith of those who believe in her Son as the Savior of mankind. Yes, it's offensive, but burning down the New York Times building or issuing some form of Christian fatwa--an idea that is completely foreign to this Christian at least--on the artist (Chris Ofili) would violate the tenets of everything in which Christians believe and bring absolutely no credit upon Jesus Christ nor his followers. The editors of the New York Times know this. That's why they feel total comfort in publishing a photo of this painting, but balk at showcasing the Danish cartoons in question.

BTW, lest one think that no editor of a major newpaper is brave enough to re-publish the Danish cartoons, note the Philadelphia Inquirer. And, in front of the Inquirer building, there are protests, and talks of boycotts--and rightly so. Both sets of persons--the Inquirer's editors and those who are offended--have exercised and are exercising their American rights of peaceful free expression. However, no reports of arson by Islamic extremists on such newspapers or upon Danish Embassies/Consulates in the US have surfaced. I wonder why that is.

(Other American newspapers which have published the cartoons include the New York Post, the New York Sun, the Rocky Mountain [Denver] News and the Riverside [CA] Press-Enterprise. Additionally, the editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walked off the job in the wake of the executive decision not to re-publish the cartoons.)

Meanwhile, Cheeseheads are seething over the desecration of their god, Vince Lombardi. I'm betting, however, that they'll wait for spring thaw to avenge their deity.

;-)

(Thanks to Michelle Malkin and LGF)

Pleased To Meet You

Pajamas Media is covering the hearings on the legality of the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program. Be sure to check out the 'NSA Files.' meanwhile it appears that Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) has been introduced to us.

Durbin: What outfit are you with?
[Paul] Mirengoff [of Power Line]: Power Line and Pajamas Media.
Durbin: 'Jamas Media?
Mirengoff: No. Pajamas Media.
Durgin: Oh, Pajamas Media. I'm not familiar with that publication.

[More exchange about Mirengoff's question. Apparently Durbin didn't want to answer]

Durbin: I don't know who you are.
Mirengoff: Well, Dan Rather knows who we are.

[LAUGHTER from the crowd.]

(Thanks to Roger L. Simon)

UPDATE: Watch the video.

A Ray of Hope

From a group of Arab and Muslim young people:

In the middle of all the mayhem surrounding the Danish cartoons controversy, a group of Arab and Muslim youth have set up this website to express their honest opinion, as a small attempt to show the world that the images shown of Arab and Muslim anger around the world are not representative of the opinions of all Arabs. We whole-heartedly apologize to the people of Denmark, Norway and all the European Union over the actions of a few, and we completely condemn all forms of vandalism and incitement to violence that the Arab and Muslim world have witnessed. We hope that this sad episode will not tarnish the great friendship that our peoples have fostered over decades.

Read more here.

As cynical as this may sound, I hope that these kids have their identities well protected.

(Thanks to Kathy Kinsley, commenting at Dean's World)

In Need of Reform(ation)

Last night, when I started to write my commentary on the world-wide rioting and arson directed at Denmark due to the publication of the Danish cartoons depicting the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in several ways that reflect the demonstrable terrorist ideology of many of his followers—for example, Muhammad wearing a bomb in his turban—I had little to no knowledge of the hypocrisy contained in the expressions of outrage that have been reported fro the past few days. Here’s how the original commentary began:

With the world-ride unrest that has followed the publication depicting a Danish cartoon image of the acknowledged prophet of the Islamic faith, Muhammad, there has been a blog storm of epic proportions (rightly) condemning the violence against Danish embassies and the call for the extermination of those who created and published the strips. But I wonder what the Danes in question expected when they decided to show the cartoon to the world.

One of the strictest taboos in the Islamic religion is that of idolatry. It’s right up there with pork-eating and alcohol-consumption. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the faith knows this. Another thing that is well-known is that certain members of the West are engaged in a Global War on Terror; terror perpetrated by Islamo-fascists in all too many parts of the world: Bali, Kenya, the Philippines, Madrid, Iraq, London, New York, Washington and the skies over Pennsylvania, USA.

Considering the ideology and mindset of the Islamo-fascists and those Muslims over which they hold sway, the publication of the cartoons was only slightly less incendiary than violating Saudi airspace, over-flying Mecca with USAF B-2s and bombing the Ka'aba with ham hocks.

But then I discovered that images of the prophet Mohamed are nothing new. Countless times, over many centuries, Muhammad has being painted both with reverence and scorn, by Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

From Ottoman religious icons to market stalls in Iran, from the US Supreme Court building to the South Park cartoon, Muhammad has been frequently portrayed in flattering and unflattering lights.

Many painters, including William Blake, Gustave Dore, Auguste Rodin and Salvador Dali, have depicted Mohammed in illustrations of Dante's Inferno, where the Muslim prophet ends up in hell with his entrails hanging out.

Depictions of Mohammed were common during the Ottoman Empire, when the taboo on portraying him was less strong, although often his face was left blank. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts has a 16th-century picture of Mohammed in a mosque, wearing long sleeves to hide his arms and hands.

A 14th-century Persian miniature shows the angel Gabriel speaking to Mohammed, whose face is shown. Medieval Islamic pictures often echoed Christian iconography. The University of California has a 14th-century Turkish painting of the newborn Mohammed in his mother's arms, like pictures of the Christ child.

The taboo is stronger in Sunni Islam than Shia -- and even today in Iran, which is mainly Shia, pictures of Mohammed can be bought illegally in markets.

So what is different now than, say, in 14th century Turkey or in the mid-twentieth century of Salvador Dali’s portrait? Two things: the obvious fact is that information is transmitted infinitely faster than ever before, even though the Danish cartoons in question were published in September of last year. Noting this 'delay in outrage' over the portrayals leads to the other obvious fact: it points to the present-day virulence of Islamo-facism.

(That it has been months since the cartoons first appeared suggests that proponents of the Islamo-fascism were waiting for a strategically-opportune time to inflame the faithful.)

Islam is in the same stage of development that Christianity was in when proponents of the latter religion were burning so-called witches and other “infidels” at the stake. I don’t know whether Islam’s adherents have always been so violent; whether they had been evolving toward a Luther-style Reformation and took a step (or many steps) backward or whether the regression into barbarity has been unswervingly linear. However, Christianity developed beyond that barbaric state, mostly due to its clerics *and* its laypersons actually having access to the Bible, actually reading it and applying its tenets to the church and everyday existence, respectively.

I won't presume to say whether Muslims will be able to search their scriptures and find 'new or deeper truths' which refute the violent reaction to those who criticize their religion in whatever manner, respectful or not. That's up to Islamic scholars and to educated and thoughtful Muslims.

In the meantime, as Muslims threaten and carry out violence to Danes all over the world, as they torch Danish embassies in Damascus and Beirut, I can only echo the sentiments of Cox & Forkum--authors of a Muhammad cartoon of their own--that a few disrespectful Danish cartoons are the least of Islam's worries when it comes to the religion's public relations issues.

And, yes, it's noticeable that all of the signs appear to be written by the same person. Apparently there's at least one jihadi with excellent command of the English language as well as very neat handwriting. I certainly hope that our intelligence services can make some use of that observation.

(Thanks to Pajamas Media, Little Green Footballs and Lucianne)

Of course there are all manner of interesting commentary out there. Here are a few.

Francis W. Poretto lambasts Islam along with the US State Department; the latter for condemning the Danish cartoons as offensive. Well, they are offensive, but not nearly as offensive as...do I have to spell it out?

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred opine on the responsibility--and avoidance of same--of people and of peoples.

Big Pharoah illustrates how obsessed many Muslims are with the Jews. Additionally, found in the comments of another post at Big Pharaoh's place is this, allegedly from a Danish newpaper:

Undskyld, fordi vi gav jer husly og hjælp.
Undskyld, fordi vi giver jer en uddannelse.
Undskyld, fordi vi hjælper jer økonomisk.
Undskyld, fordi I frit kan dyrke jeres tro i vores kristne land.
Undskyld, fordi vi sender hjælp til jeres lande.
Undskyld, fordi vi ikke kræver blodhævn for morderne på vores landsmænd begået af muslimer.
Undskyld, fordi vi ikke render rundt med sprængstoffer på kroppen, når vi føler os krænget.
Undskyld, fordi vi ikke bare gør, som jeres tro siger.

Men en undskyldning for at ytre os i vores eget land og efter vores egne love - den får I aldrig.

Big Pharoah's guest translated it as follows:

Sorry for giving you shelter and help
Sorry for giving you an education
Sorry for helping you financially
Sorry for letting you do your own religion in our [C]hristian country
Sorry for sending help to your countries
Sorry for not demand blood-revenge on the murders on our countrymen by [M]uslims
Sorry for not running around with explosives on ou[r] bodies when we feel pushed aside
Sorry for just not doing what your religion says.

but an apol[og]y for using freedom of speech in our own country with laws that says we can, THAT you'll never get

(I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the translation or of the "apology's" origin, but there you have it.)

Mmmm, Foot

Scott writes:

For all you people who think Cindy Sheehan is such a piece of trash, why don't you call up your local recruiter and join up? How about putting your keypads where your mouths are?

I've been there and done that and Cindy Sheehan has lost a child and has all the right in the world to do what she is doing. What has any of your sacrificing been? Slapping a magnetic YELLOW ribbon on your SUV I bet.

And I just love it when you rightwingers use civil rights to make your points, when it is clear how you really feel by your actions.

One of the reasons that I took down my photo and put the South Park cartoon of me way down on the page was to reel in fish like Scott: those who are so ill-informed and close-minded that they could never imagine that someone like me—a black woman—could opine from the right side of the political spectrum.

Scott, let me tap you on the shoulder and clue you in on something: I am the epitome of what the Civil Rights Movement hath wrought. However, I must applaud you for judging me by the content of my character. LOL

By the way, Scott, your comment demonstrates that your poor detective skills failed to reveal yet another important fact about me. However, thanks for the Public Service of standing as an object--and abject--lesson to others. Maybe you’ll get someone to send you flowers.

UPDATE: Scott and I have come to an understanding (via email), at least about some things. He returns to the comments of this post to flesh out his position, however, on why Mrs. Sheehan shouldn't be publicly criticized.

Two Women

Once there was a woman who was married to a man. Alongside her husband, this woman protested the injustices which were inflicted upon a segment of American society to which she and her husband belonged. The woman and her husband challenged all other Americans to live up to the ideals on which their shared country was founded. They marched, demonstrated, protested and boycotted—this was always done, however, under the rubric of non-violence and of lawful, peaceful protest: women coiffed their hair and wore their Sunday best and men wore business suits and ties to face down those who would deny them their God-given, inalienable rights. It was important to assert these American rights while behaving as ladies and gentlemen. That tactic served the movement well; it stood in stark contrast to the monstrous behavior of those who beat, shot, bombed, arrested and turned fire hoses onto these demonstrators/protesters--sometimes under the banner of law. Observing these opposing behaviors, how could thinking, loyal and fair-minded Americans—citizens of a nation which claimed to be founded in freedom—condone the abuse those of its citizens who only wanted to enjoy that freedom?

For these noble efforts, the husband was murdered. However, in the many ensuing years, the woman came to stand as a symbol for her husband’s sacrifice. Even as others have attempted to denigrate her husband’s reputation and/or inappropriately co-opt his mission, the woman remained a classy representative for him: never loud or brassy and always choosing to symbolize the moral and very American cause for which her husband gave his life.

Some thirty-five years later, another even younger man is killed by still another set of terrorists. This young man also made a voluntary decision to stand up for the right of others to live in peace and in freedom—this time not of Americans, but the cause was no less worthy. However, in the wake of his death, a member of his family—his mother--chooses to stand in opposition of that young man’s life’s work.

Yesterday, on the same day that the first woman, Coretta Scott King, died peacefully in her sleep, the mother of this young man was also arrested for dissenting. But in this matter, as in nearly all of her other means of protest, the second woman continuously forgets one of the most important lessons that the Civil Rights Movement demonstrated for all other movements: don’t alienate the vast majority of the onlookers. The second woman chose to attend the 2006 State of the Union speech—invited into the Congressional Gallery by US Representative Lynn Woosley (D-CA)—wearing a tee-shirt bearing the number of troops which have been killed as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Any sloganeering is against the rules of attendance in the gallery. This woman was asked to cover her shirt. When she refused to do so and refused to leave the gallery, she was arrested. This might sound like a heavy-handed measure unless one is familiar with the laws which cover the matter. It might also sound as if the woman—Cindy Sheehan--were being persecuted for her well-documented opposition to the Iraq War and virulent antipathy towards President Bush unless one finds out that a congressional spouse was also asked to leave the gallery for the same reason. (Ironically, the congressional spouse’s tee-shirt exhorted observers to ‘Support the Troops.’)

But what can we take from observing the behaviors of Mrs. King and Mrs. Sheehan? What can we learn about what each woman thinks of Martin Luther King and Casey Sheehan by looking at what they have done since the two men were killed? There are many similarities, but all too many differences; three of the latter stand out.

1. One consistently stood by the cause of her deceased loved one; the other asserts that her loved one was duped into joining his cause.
2. One remained proud of the fact that her loved one gave his life for the liberty of a given group; the other seems intent on making meaningless and futile the sacrifice made by her loved one’s mission to liberate still another group.
3. One had always conducted her public self in a manner that gave credit to her loved one, the rest of her family, their cause and to her country. The other uses profanity, vulgarity and epithets to assert her points and cavorts with avowed enemies of her country. Even those who support Mrs. Sheehan and her cause drew the line after she called President Bush a terrorist while in audience with Venezualan President and chronic BDS sufferer Hugo Chavez.

Regardless of what you may think of the cause(s) in which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Specialist Casey Sheehan (USA) enlisted themselves, each of the women in their lives staked out a position in relation to their respective fallen. And, while the contrast between their styles may seem trivial, it’s important for two reasons: the ability to convince others that one’s point of view is correct and one’s internal belief in the justness of one’s cause. From my perspective, those whose cause is most assuredly just have no need to be rude and harsh.

I’m betting that, before she died, Mrs. King was able to take comfort in the fact that she honored her husband’s Dream and saw many aspects of the same become reality.

Perhaps Mrs. Sheehan will be able to say that she lived to ensure that her son’s death had some meaning, but I doubt it. However the Global War on Terror plays out, Mrs. Sheehan has made a mockery of the things in which Specialist Sheehan believed. And for that, I continue to pity her greatly.

Rest in Peace, Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Casey Sheehan.

As for you, Cindy Sheehan, I still wish you Peace in life. You’re going to need it.

(Thanks to Patterico)