One Year After Pearl Harbor: Now that we're almost a year out from 9/11, I think it's worth examining what was happening in America one year after Pearl Harbor. Here is just some of Adam Keiper's column from National Review about the subject...

"The official ceremony in Los Angeles started with "the hauntingly sweet strains of 'Taps,' the fighting man's requiem, played by a Navy bugle corps." This was followed by a moment of silence, then a series of speeches. During the course of the day, fully 50,000 people visited a Japanese submarine, captured at Pearl Harbor, that was on exhibit in L.A. - "a ghastly monument to the bloodshed on the day she crept with other Jap craft for the stab in the back at Pearl Harbor," according to the Los Angeles Times. An aerial parade of military planes soared overhead. The city also held a realistic air raid drill, in which a mock village was attacked and evacuated before being burned to the ground.

Other countries marked the anniversary, too. Winston Churchill spoke in remembrance of Japan's attacks in the Pacific, promising that Japan would be "stripped of her conquests, punished for her treachery, and deprived of her powers of evil." Several countries in Latin America held sympathetic observances, like Argentina, which set aside the anniversary as a day of 'homage to Roosevelt.'"

When you look at our nation today and see former Democratic Presidents like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton undercutting the war, the Bush 41 crowd trying to protect their "legacy", marxist students at Berkeley trying to disassociate themselves from the American flag, and washed up writers like Norman Mailer railing against "Patriotism" you can't help but think our nation has lost part of the character that helped make us great. There are still plenty of people who believe America is still worth defending but it's sad to know that there are so many people, particularly on the left in America, who no longer believe that. That certainly wasn't the case back in WW2 and I can't help but think that the Vietnam War is the root of this lack of fealty to America from so many of it's own citizens.

So Ann Coulter Is 'Mean'?: Despite the fact that Ann Coulter sells a lot of books, she is not all that popular around the blogosphere. The general rap on her is that she's "mean." I can't say that I disagree with that assessment although if it were honestly applied it would probably take in a 1/3rd of all the big-name liberals and Democrats out there including Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Robert Byrd, Bill Clinton, James Carville, Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky, Cynthia McKinney, etc, etc, on and on, for 5 or 6 more lines at least. In fact, I have long said that Ann Coulter has generated so much attention because she "argues like a Democrat" albeit with a lot more logic thrown in than you'll ever hear from any of the people I listed above.

Now Ann was recently fired from the "Centre Daily Times" and the editor took the time to make public his reasons for firing her. I think his letter proves part of my point about Coulter "arguing like a Democrat" (or at least arguing like a left-wing journalist). Let's take a look at some select excerpts starting with the reason why he fired Coulter...

"Your Friday column, in which you declared that liberals are "no good," then trashed the entire Kennedy clan as a collection of "heroin addicts, convicted killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks," crossed that line. I'm not going to defend the Kennedy family or liberals; either group can argue with you if they'd like.

But, Ann, you're mean -- vicious, really -- which is why we do not believe that you in any way serve the public good."

The fact that he's getting offended that Coulter called liberals "no good" is hilarious. Do you know how regularly Republicans and Conservatives have been vilified as racists, warmongers, as anti-old, anti-poor, as haters (this will be relevant in a second), as the type of people who would let terrorists fly planes into the WTC to make more money for our buddies in the defense industry, etc? It's an every day thing but if Ann Coulter says liberals are, "no good", then, "woah, she stepped over the line." As far as the Kennedy stuff goes, it's all common knowledge, and it's all true. Maybe it might be impolite to say so, but I've never heard and Democrats pulling back from mentioning that GWB got a drunk driving conviction. It's the same thing. But now I'm going to repeat the last line and then I want you to check out this next line from Unger...

But, Ann, you're mean -- vicious, really -- which is why we do not believe that you in any way serve the public good

On a late summer morning almost a year ago, all of us -- Republicans, Democrats and everyone else -- witnessed what hate is capable of.

So now he's comparing Coulter saying liberals are, "no good" and her accurate slaps at the Kennedy clan to the people who carried out the terrorist attacks of 9/11?!?!? And Ann Coulter is the "vicious" one? Geeze...but he goes on...

"Hate is easy; love is hard.

Our great nation gives you the freedom to hate all you want and even to make a buck off it if you can. But, even better, it gives us the right not to have to listen."

"Hate is easy; love is hard?!?!?" What sixties peacenik rally did this guy pick that up at? I am now picturing this guy with a shaggy unkempt beard, wearing tie dyes and typing up this editorial while listening to "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" Also, yes this, "great nation gives you the freedom to hate," and it also gives you the right to show absolutely no class by publicly firing someone for writing an editorial you disagree with while slandering them as a "hater."

Also, while you're reading today's self-congratulatory editorial from Unger where he declares that everyone loves him for firing Coulter, I'd like you to consider what would have happened if the ideological poles were reversed on this one. I wonder what Unger and the rest of the left would say if the Washington Times were to publicly fire a left-wing editorial writer for saying Republicans were "racists" and criticizing the Bush clan, while comparing them to the 9/11 terrorists?!? Can't you just hear the gnashing of teeth now and the cries of "censorship"? Personally, it doesn't bother me that Unger fired Coulter because having the freedom to hire and fire who you want to is part of the free-enterprise system. But listening to this blowhard trying to castigate Ann Coulter for being "mean" while writing a tacky and nauseatingly hypocritical editorial is a wee bit much even for someone as jaded about the media as yours truly.

Brass Knuckles Webzine Has Perished: I have decided to cease updating Brass Knuckles Webzine. It was the 2nd web page I created and I ran it for three years but it never really took off. It has run as high as 3500 users per day on an average day but lately it's dropped all the way down to the 2000 daily uniques level. While RWN has been growing at about 50% per month since April, BKW had a short surge and then belly flopped back to where it was a year ago. There are more details about all of this that you can read at BKW, but to make a long story short I've decided that RWN is the future. I'll be porting some of the relevant humor and interviews over to RWN but you don't have a lot of time left to check out BKW in all it's glory...

Carter & Clinton's Gift To The Republicans: Since Clinton and Carter have both come out against the war Republicans should exploit it to show the difference between Republicans and Democrats on the war. A political commercial that went like this might be just the ticket...

(Pic of Jimmy Carter comes up on the screen - deep ominous music plays in the background) Ex-President Jimmy Carter has told us that, "there is no current danger to the United States from Baghdad." Yet wasn't this the same President who told us something similar about Iran (pic of Carter replaced by protesting Iranian mobs burning American flags -- "Death to America" chants heard in background) before his inaction allowed a government friendly to the US to be toppled and replaced by the world's foremost terrorist regime, a regime which took American hostages?

(Pic of a grinning Bill Clinton comes up on the screen) Ex-President Bill Clinton has also come out against a strike on Iraq because he says we need to, "finish the job with Osama bin Laden before taking on Iraq." (Cut to one of the Osama Bin Laden videos) But isn't this the same Bill Clinton who thought Osama Bin Laden was such a negligible threat to America that he turned down an offer from Sudan to hand him over to America in 1996? Can we really trust his judgement about Iraq's danger to America?

(Cut to picture of George Bush standing in front of an American flag, in front of a cheering crowd. An instrumental of "Proud to be an American" plays in the background) Republicans like George Bush say that allowing Saddam Hussein and the terrorists in al-Queda that he supports and shelters to continue to seek access to nuclear weapons risks countless American lives. Hussein is an aggressive dictator who's used weapons of mass destruction against Iran and even his own people. His al-Queda allies killed almost 3000 people on 9/11 and could kill millions if Saddam achieves his goal of building a nuclear weapon. George Bush and the Republican party say that Saddam Hussein and al-Queda are dangerous and that they have to be stopped. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and the Democrats say Saddam and the terrorists he's supporting are nothing to worry about.

On November 11th, you'll have a chance to show who you trust at the ballot box and millions of American lives may depend on the outcome...

Turning The 'War On Terrorism' Into Vietnam: The anti-war crowd in America and Europe are unwittingly doing everything in their power to ensure that America repeats all the mistakes of Vietnam while fighting the 'War on Terrorism.´ (Cont)

The Charles Johnson Interview: Charles Johnson's "Little Green Footballs" web page is one of the most popular political blogs on the net. Recently, I had a chance to interview him by email and we discussed several things including the content management system he's creating, how the Israel/Palestine conflict can be solved, and Europe's reasons for being so stridently anti-Israel. Read and enjoy...

Attack Of The Foreign Policy Failures: Perennial embarrassment Jimmy Carter chimed in on the Iraqi invasion earlier today and now Bill Clinton, the man who refused Sudan's offer of a gift wrapped Bin Laden, explains why we shouldn't hit Iraq...

"Former President Bill Clinton urged the Bush administration Thursday to finish the job with Osama bin Laden before taking on Iraq.

"...I also believe we might do more good for American security in the short run at far less cost by beefing up our efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere to flesh out the entire network," Clinton said"

Of course, since Osama may have been turned to soup by US bombs at Tora Bora it's entirely possible that we'll NEVER have definitive proof that he's dead but that's not Clinton's real motivation for suggesting it anyway. This is just a delaying tactic Clinton is using to try to obstruct the defense of America while providing himself a little cover in case the terrorists attack again. Clinton is the latest Democrat to prove that Ann Coulter was right when she said,

"Not exactly smashing stereotypes of liberals as mincing pantywaists, the left's entire contribution to the war effort thus far has been to whine."

(***Update: Reader Mike Cakora writes...

That makes as much sense as ignoring Hitler while fighting Japan during WWII. "Hey Britain, we'll be right over as soon as we finish off the Emperor. See if you can hang on until 1944.")

Jimmy Carter's Wisdom In Reverse: Jimmy Carter took a little time away from his regularly scheduled duties (building houses & being used as a propaganda tool by brutal dictators) to stomp all over the Bush administration's foreign policy. Now of course the first thought most people probably had after hearing that was, "Jimmy Carter was the worst President of the last century and his foreign policy was an unmitigated disaster. He gave away the Panama Canal and he was humiliated by the Iranians. Who cares what he thinks?" While Jimmy Carter was a simply awful President, I have long maintained that Jimmy Carter is a very useful reverse barometer. Since Jimmy Carter is almost always wrong, especially when it comes to foreign policy, we can be almost certain that doing the OPPOSITE of what Carter suggests is the best way to go. Let's look at some select sections of his latest editorial and you'll see what I mean...

"...We have ignored or condoned abuses in nations that support our anti-terrorism effort, while detaining American citizens as "enemy combatants," incarcerating them secretly and indefinitely without their being charged with any crime or having the right to legal counsel. This policy has been condemned by the federal courts, but the Justice Department seems adamant, and the issue is still in doubt. Several hundred captured Taliban soldiers remain imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay under the same circumstances, with the defense secretary declaring that they would not be released even if they were someday tried and found to be innocent."

From this we can reliably ascertain that the "enemy combatants" would promptly blow themselves up in pizza parlors if they are released and that keeping the Taliban soldiers in jail is the only thing preventing Afghanistan from falling back into chaos. See? We're learning things already....

"As has been emphasized vigorously by foreign allies and by responsible leaders of former administrations and incumbent officeholders, there is no current danger to the United States from Baghdad."

This means that Saddam Hussein is only weeks away from developing nuclear weapons and has probably arranged to have tons of anthrax died red so it can be placed into every packet of cherry flavored Kool-aid in America! That monster!!

"Peremptory rejections of nuclear arms agreements, the biological weapons convention, environmental protection, anti-torture proposals, and punishment of war criminals have sometimes been combined with economic threats against those who might disagree with us. These unilateral acts and assertions increasingly isolate the United States from the very nations needed to join in combating terrorism."

Signing all these agreements would turn us into another Sweden and then all the nations that we need to fight terrorism would refuse to help us! He's right again -- in reverse!!

"Tragically, our government is abandoning any sponsorship of substantive negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis...This indicates a radical departure from policies of every administration since 1967, always based on the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories and a genuine peace between Israelis and their neighbors."

Of course, what Jimmy is saying in reverse here is that the last thing we need to do is stick with the status quo when "every administration since 1967" has tried it and has accomplished absolutely nothing...

Remember my friends, watch what Carter says about foreign policy closely and then do the opposite and you'll rarely make a mistake....

Reuters Bashes America: You can just feel the loathing for America coming through in this Reuters' pic and caption...

Recovery and debris removal work continues at the site of the World Trade Center known as "ground zero" in New York, March 25, 2002. Human rights around the world have been a casualty of the U.S. "war on terror" since September 11. REUTERS/Peter Morgan

Could we expect any less from a news agency that won't even use the word "terrorist?"

Link via Fark.

The Right Wing News Guide To Rain Forests: Since we here at RWN have gotten a bad rap because of our "rabid anti-tree-hugger stance"," I decided to punch up a guide to the rain forests. Come all you babes in swaddling out there and suckle at the teat of knowledge.

The Kyoto Accord Is Useless So We Better Sign It Anyway?: Before we get into this editorial, I feel the need to warn those of you who are webmasters, who have tests tomorrow, or those of you who really need to be mentally sharp in the next 24 hours: DON'T READ THIS ARTICLE from the Times Online by Anatole Kaletsky. It's a black hole of idiocy from which no intelligent thought can escape. Quite frankly, I'm shocked that something this illogical could ever make it into the mainstream press (and that's saying something). Well, you can't say I didn't warn you....

Kaletsky starts out by opining that the nation that signs the Kyoto Accord will "change history." So he must think that only the Kyoto Accord can forestall global warming right? Wrong....

"I do not believe, any more than George W. Bush does, that the Kyoto Protocol will prevent climate change. And I have no more idea than the US President whether the world is really getting hotter or colder - and if so, why this is happening and whether it is a real threat to mankind's survival or "just one of those things".

So after making Bush's case for not signing the Kyoto Accords for him, why does Kaletsky want it to go into effect? Mainly, just to stick it to America. In fact, he thinks it's great that Colin Powell was booed at the Earth Summit...

"For the world to thumb its nose at America - whether by childish booing of US leaders or, more constructively, by simply ignoring American policies on energy and global warming - is a healthy reaction to the arrogance and unilateralism of President Bush."

Considering his previous statements in this piece shouldn't he be encouraging the rest of the world NOT to sign instead of calling Bush "arrogant" for not signing what Kaletsky himself admits is a bad treaty? Kaletsky then goes on to say that it's more important that the rest of the world comes to an agreement without America -- even if it's a bad one...

"Every time Washington opposes or repudiates an international agreement which the rest of the civilised world chooses nonetheless to observe, America's global dominance is weakened in several ways. Other powers become more confident as they take over the mantle of leadership. This has been particularly true of the EU, for better or worse....And the world finds it can get things done more quickly and consensually without US participation."

Yes, but if under EU leadership the world finds it can do really stupid things, "more quickly and consensually," isn't that a bad thing? Sigh...Kaletsky then goes back to obliviously making the case for American unilateralism...

"First, Kyoto does not purport to be a final solution to climate change, which in any case is not yet clearly defined. The small emission cuts mandated, even if they were observed by America as well as others, would have no perceptible effect on greenhouse concentrations."

Well since Kyoto is useless then America should definitely sign right up and...hey wait a second....that makes no SENSE AT ALL. So what is the point of Kyoto in Kaletsky's opinion then? Kaletsky spends five paragraphs basically saying that it will force new technology to be created and that will force American companies to fall behind giving European and Japanese companies the edge....

"American companies that fail to commit themselves to the necessary research and to change their business practices will suffer enormous competitive disadvantage, especially if they try to sell their goods in Europe, Japan and other markets where emissions are more and more tightly controlled. US multinational businesses will have to invest heavily in the campaign against carbon emissions. They will have to play by the same international rules as their European and Japanese rivals. But this will be a global game whose rules America can no longer control."

Serious question here: why would American companies, "fail to commit themselves to the necessary research and to change their business practices?" They became powerful, rich, and influential corporations by being smart enough to do the research and change their business practices where necessary in the first place.

Besides, a more likely scenario is that American companies will make much more profit by producing cheaper and more efficient products while European and Japanese companies are strangled by burdensome Kyoto related restrictions and rules. Then not only will American companies have much more money to pour into research, but they'll be able to just buy out any exciting new technology that comes along because they'll be making billions of dollars while European companies struggle to survive while using inefficient technology that emits less "carbon emissions."

To make a long story short, this piece of idiotarian rambling isn't fit to grace a high school newspaper, much less the Times Online.

Ex-PA minister: Arafat missed chance at Camp David: I find this to be very interesting...

"Former Palestinian Authority cabinet minister Nabil Amer published a letter Tuesday addressed to PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, holding him responsible for the state of chaos in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and accusing him of missing an opportunity to reach a deal at Camp David.

"Were we sincere about what we did? Were we right in what we did? No, we were not. After two years of bloodshed, we are now calling for what we rejected. Perhaps because now we realize that it is impossible to achieve."

But wait a second, haven't the Palestinian apologists been trying to telling us that the Camp David deal was so rotten that the Palestinians couldn't possibly have accepted it? Yet here is a former Arafat cabinet minister who not only says they should have taken the offer, but also says he is partially to blame for it's failure.

Furthermore, have you considered what convinced, "one of the main defenders and spokesmen of the PA and Arafat," to turn on Arafat like this? I think Amer's attitude adjustment, Arafat's unpopularity, the decline in terrorist attacks, the upcoming elections (we hope), and the increasing popularity of peace are all a direct result of what I think of as "Operation Defensive Shield 2" and Bush's big speech about the requirements for a Palestinian state. Once the pandering stopped and once the Palestinians realized that terrorism was an IMPEDIMENT to getting a state instead of something that would help them achieve a state faster, things started to change for the better. I'll grant you that there is a long way to go and that progress is slowly inching forward but at least they're going in the right direction for the first time since the latest Intifada started back in late 2000.

The 'Ashcroft's Internment Camps' Myth Lives On: Nat Hentoff at the Village Voice echoes Johnathan Turley's hysterical rant about John Ashcroft's non-existent camps (drawing of people in Japanese style internment camp included). He finishes with this bit of rhetorical flourish....

"Meanwhile, as the camps are being prepared, the braying Terry McAuliffe and the pack of Democratic presidential aspirants are campaigning on corporate crime, with no reference to the constitutional crimes being committed by Bush and Ashcroft. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis prophesied: "The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people." And an inert Democratic leadership. See you in a month, if I'm not an Ashcroft camper."

This is despite the fact that I totally debunked Turley's wild claims in a previous editorial. If Hentoff would have done any sort of research he would have found my article which is #7 on Google if you search for "Ashcroft" & "Camps." (Hentoff's editorial in the Village Voice is #8).

Interestingly enough, there is now an article on CNN decrying Ashcroft's imaginary camps while mentioning the WSJ article (it says it was published Aug 14th but it didn't show on Google even a week after that date). It doesn't look as if the author in that piece made the connection either....

"Jose Padilla is currently being held in a Naval Brig at Goose Creek, South Carolina. The Goose Creek facility has plenty of vacancies. Indeed, according to a Wall Street Journal report, it has a special wing that could be used to jail up to twenty U.S. citizens deemed "enemy combatants" by the government.

And Goose Creek may not be the only location. An LA Times editorial recently suggested that the proposal for detention camps is broader."

The author goes on to again claim that the Bush administration is going to create Japanese style internment camps ostensibly using Turley's article as her source...

"We have lived to regret the internment of our fellow Japanese-America citizens during the World War II. With its 1971 legislation requiring Congressional approval for future internments, Congress indicated clearly that we have learned from our grave mistakes and should not repeat them. Yet the Bush Administration, including its Attorney General, wants to do just that."

I thought bloggers, not the mainstream media, were supposed to be the sloppy and irresponsible ones who never fact-checked anything?

Environmentalist Wacko Quotes: Environmentalist wackos are anti-progress, anti-capitalism, anti-American, anti-poor, make spectacularly incorrect predictions about the climate, and quite frankly some of these people have MORE FRIGHTENING beliefs than al-Queda (I haven't heard any Al-Queda spokesmen talk longingly about a planet without humans on it). You may think I'm exaggerating, but you won't after you read these quotes...