Month: December 2009

I like this kind of attitude toward trust-fundies with powder shoved down their privates and syringes that don't work:

In fact, there is a growing tinge of mockery of this terrorist for toasting his testicles. This dude who can’t light a fuse is gonna raise the terror threat level to orange? Please. It strikes me as practically British – laughing at the Nazis all the way to the rubble pile in the East End. We’re laughing at Al Qaeda, for the first time, in unison, as a country. Think about that.

Make no mistake – in the Muslim world to which Al Qaeda attempts to speak, this episode is a total humiliation, seen as such, and will hurt Al Qaeda. I can’t think of a more effective way to scupper Al Qaeda recruitment than to turn one of their attacks into a worldwide joke. Yes it will enrage them. Yes, they will try harder to hit us again. But now, we have leadership that can crush them, by turning Al Qaeda’s weaknesses into our strength.

We should remain vigilant; but we should also remain contemptuous. Allowing these rich, theo-fascist losers to wield any fear over us is beneath us.

Manila, Philippines, 12 pm

You usually don't want to mess with Virginia Postrel.

Goldblog:

The real question is: Why is an American diplomat criticizing a foreign ambassador for his choice of speaking engagements in America?

Because she is allowed to answer questions in a press interview and because the ambassador should stay out of domestic American politics and not join in a campaign to torpedo a rival to AIPAC. The way in which Oren acted as a faction leader in American Jewish politics, rather than as a neutral representative of his country, open to all people of good will toward Israel, was obnoxious and undiplomatic. And his position is of far more importance than Rosenthal's.

A classic Palin-style attack in the custody proceedings over Tripp:

Respondent denies that he issued a tweet about using marijuana on October 23, 2009, on a popular social network. He does not have a twitter account on any network and made no such statements about the use of marijuana. The twitter account is a fraud.

He's a nineteen-year-old up against one of the most powerful and easily the most famous celebrity in Alaska. No wonder he wants a little sunlight:

Johnston fought to allow the custody matter to unfold in public, saying in a sworn statement that doing so would help put everyone on best behavior. He noted that Van Flein also represents Sarah Palin.

"I know that public scrutiny will simplify this matter and act as a check against anyone's need to be overly vindictive, aggressive or malicious, not that Bristol would ever be that way, nor that I would. But her mother is powerful, politically ambitious and has a reputation for being extremely vindictive," Johnston said in his affidavit. "So, I think a public case might go a long way in reducing Sarah Palin's instinct to attack."

Johnston said he didn't want to hurt or embarrass his son — or Bristol. He thinks Sarah Palin, not Bristol, is acting with "sheer malice," Butler wrote in a court filing.

"He feels Sarah Palin, through her lawyer, under the guise of Bristol Palin's name, would run roughshod over his very bones," Butler wrote.

Bristol Palin responded in a sworn statement that Johnston's assertions and fears about vindictiveness and meddling are off base.

"None of this is true; my mother is not involved in this case," except as a grandmother, she said in her statement.

A reader writes:

I think you need to reevaluate your perspective on Napolitano. I'm certainly no fan of policies of the institutions she heads, for all the reasons and more that Goldberg posted about, but for the very same reasons I find the call for her resignation to be misplaced.

The core problem with calling this a "failure" is that the system that "failed" wasn't setup to detect this attack. Sure, the intent is there, but no one (well, almost no one) ever wants an attack to succeed, so that's not saying much. But none of the procedures in place were designed to stop this attack.

Therefore none of them failed.

The complaints about the warning from the father are similarly off-base. 

I don't know how many warnings DHS handles a say, but I'd guess it is easily in the hundreds. No doubt, the vast majority are vague, and the target likely harmless. The father, as far as I can tell, had no specific information, just rumors and possibilities. No doubt, DHS does not have the resources to follow such leads. Nor should they, least we fall into a police state. No security system is perfect. Trying to make such a system will only lead to completely horrendous procedures.

DHS has an impossible job. If the head of DHS has to step down everytime a terrorist gets through the current security measures that job will only become even harder.

He was detained again yesterday by the thugs who run Iran. Here’s a refresher on who he is. Here’s a clip from the Daily Show last June, when Yazdi was previously dragged into jail:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Ebrahim Yazdi’s Arrest
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Pray for him and all those patriots now facing unimaginable fear in the jails of this thugocracy.

Yes, the Dish's reach is wide:

I'm a regular reader of your blog; a Nigerian who lives in Canada, and I am currently spending the Christmas holiday in Nigeria for the first time in years.

The reaction here to the Christmas day would-be bomber of NWA Umar Abdul Mutallab has been one of mixed anger and embarrassment. There's no doubt that its an isolated incident. Never before has Nigeria been remotely linked with "terrorism" or "suicide bombing". My dad did not even believe that the boy was indeed Nigerian, pointing out his generic-sounding Arabic name, until more details and photographs began to surface.

Nigeria is known for various things, ranging from Nobel-laureates to 419 Internet scams, oil-exportation to occasional violent crime, but suicide-bombing has never been imaginable. The news stations here show people demanding that he be "done away with" or "given what he deserves". A senator even released a statement saying that he be disciplined according to the US Justice system.

Although Nigeria is generally a diverse, secular country; people here are very religious. The South is full of Christians who do like to party; while the more conservative North is full of Muslims, who are generally moderate, but for some regions where the more extreme muslims reside, and Sharia is practised.

The interesting thing about Mutallab is that, like most Nigerians, he shouldnt have any beef with America. Both countries get along fine, and just a couple of weeks ago, American artists like 50 Cent, Keri Hilson, and Ciara were in Nigeria for a couple of concerts. The common denominator between this very unlikely UK-educated wannabe-terrorist and the stereotypical terrorist we have become used to is plain and simple: religious fundamentalism. It is very dangerous, and as long as it exists, it will spur any nut (Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Arab, Black, White, British, Nigerian, or Chinese) to do crazy things.

A reader writes:

I agree with your other attorney reader that there isn’t much terribly odd in the list of pleadings, particularly given the background population (i.e., the former Governor of Alaska). I wanted to clarify that I expect the motion for a “protective order” in this context was not from Levi, but from publication of the pleadings.

I am not admitted in Alaska, and without researching the rules used there, I cannot cite them, but given the other documents filed concurrently with the motion, that is my belief. Had Van Flein sought to “protect” if you will from Levi, the motion would most likely have been for a “restraining order.” The term of art “protective order” generally denotes the protection of information, contained in documents, and that use is consistent with the motion for proceeding under pseudonyms. It can be confusing to the lay public as restraining orders are often colloquially referred to as “protective orders,” and the term is indeed used that way legally in some jurisdictions. However, traditionally the term refers to protection of documents, and I am reasonably certain that is its use in the case known in Alaskan courts as 3PA-09-02261CI Palin, Bristol vs. Johnston, Levi.