25 thoughts on “Indian PM’s daughter says Bush personally authorized torture”

1. I think the US government can keep an ACLU staff lawyer separate from the Indian government! Amrit Singh is effectively an American.

   Also, since the election is over, I don’t think this scandal will stick. The Times is carrying this as an FBI scandal, not a Bush scandal.

   I would love to be wrong.

2. President Bush personally authorized torture at Abu Ghraib

   The language here is rather sloppy. Even if the text of memo is accurate, Bush did not tell the people there to go buck-wild with sexual torture. The memo says:

   he President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and “sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.

   Which is a FAR cry from:

   Senators note that there are photos of Pfc. England naked, having sex with several military guards, sometimes in front of the Iraqi prisoners.

   There’s no way the SecDef or the President signed off on having England participate in group sex in front of prisoners. That’d be a pretty bizarre form of “torture”, don’t you think?

   I think the events are most parsimoniously explained by some psychos (England & Graner & the others indicted) who got out of hand. There’s a HUGE difference between sleep deprivation and sexual torture, and given the sensitivity of the issue it is inaccurate to lump it all under “torture”.

3. also, I think the ACLU abandoned whatever pretense it had of being a “civil liberties” organization after it went to bat for this:

   The ACLU altered noise ordinances to allow five times daily call to prayer in Arabic in a non-Muslim town in Michigan:

   The change in the ordinance occurred in response to a request that the Wayne County city allow a Muslim call to prayer five times a day. In an effort to accommodate members of the Muslim faith, Hamtramck has allowed a practice that would not have been possible under the original noise ordinance. That ordinance…makes it unlawful “for any person to create, assist in creating … any excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise, or any noise which either annoys, disturbs….”

   and this:

   In a May 19 letter to each supervisor, the ACLU of Southern California argued that the “Latin cross” on the seal is a “sectarian religious symbol that represents the beliefs of one segment of the county’s diverse population.” The ACLU contends the inclusion of the cross on the seal represents a violation of the constitutional mandate on the separation of church and state.

   So the ACLU determined that a tiny cross on a little noticed seal (see if you can even find it) was worth suing the county over…yet the legitimation of a five times daily call to prayer in Arabic over a non-Muslim town – starting at 6am in the morning and ending at 10pm – was worth overturning the existing noise ordinance!

   There’s only one conclusion: the ACLU uses faux universalism as a shield to advance a hateful, anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Christian agenda. When it’s a Christian symbol, no issue is too trivial to litigate over. But when it benefits the enemies of Western Civilization – the people who’d institute sharia in North America – the ACLU is on the spot. Falsely accusing the president of ordering sexual torture at Abu Ghraib is exactly the kind of posturing that will inflame Muslims and get American troops killed…and for what? So the ACLU can feel good about speaking truth to power?

   I mean, perhaps in some universe a tiny christian cross on an unnoticed seal is less intrusive than a FIVE TIMES DAILY CALL TO PRAYER IN ARABIC. But for those who don’t live in that universe, the ACLU has nil credibility. They are anti-American leftist partisans and nothing more. More here.

4. The ACLU would be a more credible critic of the Bush administration if it had raised any objections to some measures taken by the Clinton administration. Specifically, the Hakim Murad case. It is pretty well established that when Murad was arrested in the Philippines (after a fire broke out in apartment, bringing authorities to the scene), he was tortured by Filipino authorities (Tactical interrogation they called it), under American observation. Of course, in this case, the torture led to Murad detailing planes to blow up nearly a dozen airliners over the Pacific on the same day. To confirm this, and to get relief from the abuse, Murad gave the location of his Manila apartment.

   “According to journalists Marites Vitug and Glenda Gloria, who both wrote the book Under the Crescent Moon, agents hit him with a chair and long piece of wood when Murad didn’t talk. They forced water into his mouth, and crushed lighted cigarettes onto his genitals. Murad’s ribs were completely cracked. Agents were surprised that he survived. According to an investigator, he finally confessed out of fear of Jews after an agent masqueraded as the Mossad and told him that he was being sent to Israel.”

   While all these counter-terrorism activities, employing questionable methods, were taking place, the ACLU was nowhere to be found. Most law enforcement pros will say that torture is counter-productive, because the victim will say anything to make the pain stop. The ACLU seems to draw no distinction between brute physical pain and humiliation.

   Probably the most biting criticism of the ACLU came from comic Dennis Miller. While appearing on The Tonight Show back in 2002, he urged the ACLU that if it was so concerned about the dangers of profiling, it should start its own airline – they could ask no questions and check no bags, and see how many people fly it. While it was a joke, it does point out the main problem with the ACLU – it’s soel purpose is to restrict the actions of other people. It takes no responsibility – it does not provide security to a local neighbrohood or airport – but like a nagging parent, feels free to dispense unsolicited advice.

   As for teh ACLU’s tratement of different religious groups, personally, I get annoyed at seeing Pat Roberston on TV, but I get to change the channel. Having to hear Allahu Akbar over a loudspeaker is far more annoying, but I would have no place to go. Where is the Freedom From Religion in that?

   Operation Bojinka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bojinka#Murad.27s_Confession

5. gc, of course the memo cited above would not specify it was OK to use sexual humiliation as a form of psychological intimidation or worse. But you are missing the point.

   The reason England and her ilk committed these acts is because (1) her superiors blessed such behavior with their tacit approval, by ignoring it — which in itself encourages more of the same behavior; and (2) the US military in general — particularly in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay — has trampled on basic human rights in the name of democracy, freedom, and the ‘war on terror.’ England and others were small potatoes in the overall scheme of things.

   Do you really believe that England and others are “some psychos who got out of hand” as you put it? The point of the FBI email is that tacit approval for such techniques came from the highest level — through an Executive Order no less. It is a further indication of how deep this cancer goes.

   Finally, re: the ACLU — “anti-American leftist partisans”? Please. They fight for everyone’s civil liberties, last time I checked. And what on earth is a ‘non-Muslim’ town? Are there are any ‘Muslim’ towns in the US? You equate Muslims in Michigan wanting to exercise their religious freedoms with those who’d “institute sharia” — pretty inflammatory statement, that. Maybe you’d care to explain yourself — then again, I’d rather not read any more of the same.

6. “But for those who don’t live in that universe, the ACLU has nil credibility. They are anti-American leftist partisans and nothing more.”

   The ACLU has only one agenda. Defend The Bill of Rights at all costs. They even defend pricks:

   31 May 2004- In an interview with Time magazine, Rush Limbaugh declares himself a longtime fan of the ACLU after they filed an amicus brief on his behalf in his prescription drug case: “In a situation like this, I think it’s safe to say I welcome its support, and I don’t find it hypocritical at all, because I am not anti-ACLU. If the ACLU wants to go after, say, nativity scenes or this sort of thing, I may take issue, but there are other areas where I’ve supported things it has done.”

7. You equate Muslims in Michigan wanting to exercise their religious freedoms with those who’d “institute sharia” — pretty inflammatory statement, that. Maybe you’d care to explain yourself

   I think the explanation is pretty clear – they are intrusively broadcasting a prayer 5 times per day in a foreign language over a town whose inhabitants do not share their religion. Furthermore, they altered the noise ordinances in order to do this…and they explicitly said they would keep broadcasting the prayers even if the ruling went against them (see Masud Khan, also below).

   The local Muslim community in this Detroit suburb, now estimated at about 20,000 people, persuaded the Town Council to change the “noise law” to permit five area mosques to broadcast over loudspeakers tape recordings of the Islamic muezzin’s adhan, or call to daily prayers — chanted in Arabic. (none) These 2-minute-long tapes are to be broadcast five times daily, between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and are directly aimed at the Islamic minority, in the middle of what has been a predominantly Polish community. This move has understandably upset the much larger Christian community, which objects to the invasiveness of these sounds at all hours during the day and evening, in a foreign language and to an unfamiliar deity. Stripped of its repetition, the adhan declares: “Allahu Akbar (God is most great). I bear witness that there is no God but Allah. I bear witness that Mohammed is the Apostle of Allah. Come to prayer. Come to success. Allahu Akbar. There is no God but Allah.”

   Now, you tell me with a straight face whether the ACLU would have gone to bat for Christians who wanted to broadcast “Jesus is Lord” in Aramaic over a Jewish town on Long Island. Point: if we don’t nip this bullying of the majority by a hostile, unassimilated minority in the bud, we are going to see the same thing they’re getting in Canada – sharia in North America:

   “WeÂ’re talking about arbitration based on certain religious principles . . . similar to our Charter values of equality, freedom and justice,” she told reporters at a news conference. “What exactly are these Muslim principles?” asked Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress. “For her (Boyd) to come here and lecture Muslims as to what Muslim family law is, and Sharia is, is despicable and racist.” … “Tomorrow in Tehran, in Jeddah, in Pakistan, in Kabul, in Sudan, every newspaper will say that Sharia has been approved by Canada,” predicted Fatah. “They will not come to this press conference to hear, ‘Well, weÂ’re not talking about Sharia, weÂ’re talking Muslim principles.Â’ ”

   Anyway, since you think my statement is “inflammatory”, let’s make a little bet. Why don’t you call up the imam of the local Hamtramck mosque and ask him whether he approves of sharia in Canada? Why not poll the congregation?

   I’m absolutely serious. Let’s put down $100 on this right now if you think support for sharia will be less than 50%. But before you place that bet, you might want to hear what the guys at that mosque had to say for themselves:

   The al-Islah mosque began the call to prayer in May. Masud Khan, secretary of the mosque, said the broadcasts would have continued whatever the outcome of Tuesday’s vote. At least one other Hamtramck mosque also has begun the broadcasts via loudspeakers since May.

   So what about it? Was my statement “inflammatory”, or was it true? These guys have already indicated their total distaste for the American system of laws by indicating that they would keep up their provocation – which they only started in May, hardly a longstanding tradition – even if the ruling went against them. If they’re willing to flout the law for such a trivial matter, do you REALLY think these guys would place the Constitution before the Koran?

   The question answers itself.

   the US military in general — particularly in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay — has trampled on basic human rights in the name of democracy, freedom, and the ‘war on terror.’

   See, this is the yawning philosophical gap between you and I.

   I don’t believe there is an equivalence between the US military and the jihadists. I believe America is and has been a force for good in the world, and that Zinn & Chomsky are liars and Communist Holocaust deniers. All the stuff about “American imperialism” during the 20th century presumed that the Soviets weren’t a threat, and that the Communists didn’t kill 100 million… just as the talk today about Americans “trampling human rights” ignores this:

   Free Elections in the Arab World Occur Only in Occupied Iraq and Palestine In an article titled ‘Democratic Occupation?’ columnist Salama Ni’mat, the Washington, D.C. bureau chief for the London Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat, wrote: …”It is outrageous, and amazing, that the first free and general elections in the history of the Arab nation are to take place in January: in Iraq, under the auspices of American occupation, and in Palestine, under the auspices of the Israeli occupation. “[It is just as] outrageous that the Arab League, which represents the will of the regimes of 20 [Arab] countries from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf, wanted the Iraqi opposition to be invited to the Sharm Al-Sheikh conference, so as to ensure that all Iraq, with its entire political spectrum, would be in attendance to represent the Iraqi people. It matters not at all that other Arab oppositions have not been invited to any Arab League meeting or to its many summit conferences, throughout the history of the Arab peoples.”

   America is held to an impossible standard, while Islamic fundamentalists are held to no standard whatsoever. In fact, Abhi just said yesterday that the claim that Islamic countries were disproportionately violent and theocratic made him “nauseous”…implicitly denying the manifest truth of the statement.

   If you click that link, I challenge you to tell me with a straight face that America is just as bad as what we replaced in Afghanistan.

   Point: There is a difference between productive self-criticism and an inversion of reality. If the USSR, or China, or bin Laden’s desired caliphate, or Nazi Germany, or some similarly ill intentioned group ever became top dog, you’d pine for the “Americans who trample human rights” in a hurry.

   I mean – aside from Abu Ghraib – what “trampling of human rights” are you talking about? The Guantanamo leisure camp where prisoners gained 13 pounds on halal food? The elections that we’re holding in Afghanistan and Iraq?

   The most politically free Arabs in the world are those living in US occupied countries. Amazing, but absolutely true.

8. The ACLU has only one agenda. Defend The Bill of Rights at all costs.

   Ok, Abhi. You tell me: would the ACLU would have gone to bat for Christians who wanted to broadcast “Jesus is Lord” in Aramaic over a Jewish town on Long Island?

9. From the ACLU website:

   Today our most fundamental freedoms are in jeopardy. Only a bold, spirited movement of people like you who refuse to surrender your freedoms can protect our civil liberties. On January 20th, George Bush will pledge to uphold the Constitution. Our goal is to recruit 100,000 new ACLU supporters by that day to proclaim “I REFUSE TO SURRENDER MY FREEDOM” by taking this simple pledge: “I pledge to join with over 400,000 ACLU members and supporters to help ensure that the President, his administration, and our leaders in Congress fulfill their duty to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution. By reaffirming my commitment to the American values of justice and liberty for all, I am enlisting in a powerful movement to defend our freedoms against assaults on our civil liberties.” Let’s make it clear to those who seek to take away our freedoms that they are on the wrong side of the law… the wrong side of core American values… and the wrong side of history. Take the pledge now and stand strong in support of freedom.

   For those of you out there that are freedom lovers like myself, I urge you to sign the pledge and consider a donation so that they can keep up the good work: http://www.aclu.org/refusetosurrender/?orgid=EA111704A

10. Among the many freedoms the ACLU is out to “protect”, will the freedom to criticize a faith founded by an expansionist Arab without fear of physical harm be one of them? Or are we free to only criticize other faiths? After all, if Muslims can broadcast that there is no God but Allah, could I politely retort with a megaphone, “Durga would like to disagree with you?”

    While the ACLU protects America from the gathering storm of Boy Scouts bent on a homphobic rampage, it seems to turn a deaf ear to the anti-gay rantings emanating from American, sex-segragated mosques.

    One interesting tidbit about the founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin. When he was not spending time opposing US involvement in World War I (another blatant demonstration of American militarism), he was an early and enthusiastic supporter of left-wing cuases.

    “ACLU attorneys helped to reshape American constitutional law, with the idea of the First Amendment providing a shield for “preferred freedoms” beginning to take hold. All the while, Baldwin continued to back a number of left-wing endeavors, supporting various United Front and Popular Front enterprises, writing about and visiting Soviet Russia, and urging that radicals and liberals in the United States join together to fight fascism, racism, and poverty.” (Source: “Notable American Unitarians, Harvard Square Library” http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html)

    In Baldwin’s defense, “…Baldwin orchestrated a campaign to revise the ACLU charter. Henceforth, those affiliated with totalitarian organizations would not be allowed to serve on the ACLU board.” Wow, what a swell fella!

    Later in his life, he would continue to support left-wing despots, so long as they did not engage in torture – using legal devices to deny freedom was enough. Among his friends – Jawaharlal Nehru, and what a great PM he was. No economic liberty meaning no economic growth, not a dent in illiteracy, and losing territory to Pakistan and China – quite a record for the last Englishman to rule India.

    Earl Browder, who was general secretary for the American Communist party from 1930-44, described the ACLU as “a transmission belt” for the party. He certainly believed that the ACLU provided the legal skill to pursue an agenda through courts that the could not win at the polls.

    “Civil liberties, like democracy, are useful only as tools for social change.” – Roger Baldwin

11. hmmm…. some smoking gun… Some more excerpts from the supposedly Radioactive Memo –

    no BOC employee during our three rotations witnessed the abuse at Abu Ghraib that is now the subject of ongoing investigations nor any conduct in any theater that went beyond the parameters set by the applicable Executive order. Although we have no reason to believe that any of our personnel disobeyed instructions and participated in interrogations that utilized techniques beyond the bounds of FBI practice but within the parameters of the Executive order (e.g. sleep deprivation, stress positions, loud music, etc.), some of our personnel were in the general vicinity of interrogations in which such tactics were being used, and because of their proximity to the sites of these interrogations, heard or saw things that would be indicative of interrogators utilizing the techniques authorized by the Executive Order. Examples are loud music, interrogators yelling at subjects, prisoners with hoods on their heads, etc. We emphatically do NOT equate any of these things which our personnel witnessed with the clearly unlawful and sickening abuse at Abu G that has come to light.

    Sheesh, the last line – the part the ACLU conveniently excludes from their press release faithfully carried by big media – emphatically contradicts the ACLU’s entire thesis. As they say, you learn far more about someone’s pretenses by what they don’t say vs. what they do say.

    The line for “abuse” does seem relatively straight forward –

    an Executive order signed by President Bush authorized the following interrogation techniques among otehrs – sleep “management”, use of MWDs (military working dogs), “stress positions” such as half squats, “environmental manipulation” such as the use of loud music, sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc. …We will consider as abuse any physical beatings, sexual humiliation or touching, and other conduct clearly constituting abuse.

12. Abhi, thanks for that post. gc, obviously I’ve touched a nerve and I’ve got some thoughts on your long rant. You’ve got some interesting comments, but an Abu Ghraib posting has devolved into ACLU bashing. So let’s get back on track, shall we?

    First, re: ACLU, they fight for everyone as Abhi rightly reminded us. So they took up the case in Michigan on behalf of a Muslim community wanting to protect its freedom of religious expression. Excuse me, but I thought that was the ACLU’s job?? You’ve singled out this Michigan case to bolster your anti-ACLU argument and conveniently neglect other instances where the ACLU has fought for the same rights for other minority religious groups. Heck even Presbyterians are calling them for help!

    Then you equate this with the story from Toronto re: insertion of sharia principles into the legal code. You mean to say supporters of Sharia law can’t try to influence people like the hapless ex-judge who released that ill-informed report? Read that article again gc. Nowhere does it say the report’s recommendations will be adopted into law. Your alarmist tone in your first post suggests that hordes of Koran-thumping mullahs will soon infiltrate the US, backed by the ACLU, and increase the religious noise pollution in our non-Muslim cities. Try taking off your blinders for a few minutes and you’ll see this scenario is borderline ridiculous/paranoid.

    Sure, if we put money on the imam & congregation at that Michigan mosque, they may vote in favor of Sharia. Would their vote reflect the sentiments of the majority of middle of the road, non-Sharia advocating Muslims? I doubt it. Would their support for sharia imply their imminent takeover of our cities and country, aided and abetted by the ACLU? Again, I don’t think so. Try toning down your rhetoric a tad.

    Finally, since when does criticizing the US military’s abuse of power equate to turning a blind eye to the obvious abuses and crimes of ‘jihadists’, as you call them? We need to get real here. Abuse of power is the same no matter who does it, where it is done, and in whose name (Allah, democracy, Jesus Christ, you name it.) Public executions in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are equally abhorrent when compared to the atrocities committed in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. By investigating who’s potentially reponsible for the US maltreatment of prisoners of war and innocent civilians, the ACLU is doing its job and I support them 100%.

    And if you have any doubts about what exactly happened in Abu Ghraib — re: ‘trampling of rights’ — a subject that libertarians should take a keen interest in — check out Aaron Delgado’s story here.

13. oops, here’s that Aaron Delgado link

14. So they took up the case in Michigan on behalf of a Muslim community wanting to protect its freedom of religious expression.

    come on. freedom of religious expression stops when you have no choice about exposure to said expression. whatever overreaches GC made, you know he has a point here, the ACLU and many liberals would freak out if an evangelical church blaired out ‘jesus is lord’ all over a town.

    the ACLU tends to not be very in favor of creches, menorahs and other such things in public places during the holidays…well, i thought the airwaves were public?

15. I think the US government can keep an ACLU staff lawyer separate from the Indian government!

    This isn’t about the bureaucracy, it’s about retribution. The Bush permanent campaign team is very bhaiyya.

16. No choice about exposure to religious expression? How so? If the Polish community isn’t happy with the situation, they have a right to complain. It’s ultimately up to our legal system to define what is within one’s rights and what constitutes freedom of expression. Why vilify the ACLU for doing its job?

17. Why vilify the ACLU for doing its job?

    i’m not villifying the ACLU, i’m saying that selective about what rights it chooses to defend, to portray it as a generalized civil libertarian outfit is probably not tenable. if you want to defend the right to publish porn, call the ACLU, but if you want to defend the right to bear arms, call the NRA.

18. The gripe with the ACLU exists with the incosistency of its representation in civil liberties cases.

    They have done a good job in many cases where there was a problem, however they have done plenty of disservice also in not representing many other cases or pushing an agenda that has become more ideological in nature of “what should America look like” and attempting to legislate through the courts. Gun laws are an excellent example where the NRA has taken the mantle to fight. Plenty of conservative groups are now fighting cases that clearly the ACLU should be on the same page with, but unfortunately they simply stay out of it.

    The Los Angeles county seal with the cross in it is a good example of them pushing an anti-christian agenda, which in many ways constitutes a prejudice. A pagan goddess is ok, so is a star, but the cross violates seperation of church and state? Nativity scenes in schools or the mention of Christmas violates church and state ( Chirstmas is Federal holiday), but the celebration of minority holidays like Id or Hannukah is ok?

    Their basic assumption is that the Christian majority is oppressive. Fine, either take a stand that France has and ban all relgious symbol from public schools (which I do not support) or let EVERYONE have an equal shot (which was the original idea), yes, this means the ‘oppressive christians’ also get to celebrate their holidays.

    Consistency is the key and the ACLU as of late have been very incosistent in applying their own rules to ‘protect’ civil liberties. I am not a Christian nor religious, but if you want to go around as the self appointed protector of civil liberties then they should not push their own hypocratic agendas under the guise of trying to protect people.

    What are they going to do next, attack the Churchs (and obviously pass upon the Mosques) for not allowing Gays to be ministers or preachers?

19. ACLU also defends the civil liberties of Christians: check this for an example

    i know it is only one … too drunk to research more right now but i’ll find them later if u want (email me)… but it shows that there is no overarching antichristianagenda going on with ACLU

    oh here is another… intrareligious stuff but it’s still protecting a christian to be the kind of christian he wants

    they are here to protect our rights….. i would be VERY glad there is an organization out there with the legal know how to DO this, even in these days…

    if u want to find more… try this link… view all.. surely there are more

    aclu is not evil… i actually disagree with their support of the call to prayer case… but that does not mean i hate them and all that they do.

20. The Los Angeles county seal with the cross in it is a good example of them pushing an anti-christian agenda

    It’s not anti-Christian in the least. Putting a religious symbol on a government seal was overreaching in the first place. Separation of church and state.

21. Conservatives like gc, vinod and rabiz don’t think twice before barking like mad dogs at the ACLU. If only they can come up with better reasons to defend the barbaric atrocities of the Bush regime

    “We are once again marching to the US embassy to protest the continuing and heightening brutality of the Bush regime towards the Iraqi people,” Rita Baua, secretary-general of the ILPS-Philippines Chapter stated at the start of the march towards the US embassy today. Baua was referring to the bombing of mosques, firing on vehicles bringing wounded Iraqis to the hospitals, firing of rockets at civilian communities and residential neighborhoods, thereby killing, maiming, or wounding innocent children, elderly, women, especially in Fallujah which is being punished by the US for the killing of four US soldiers. According to the ILPS Philippines Chapter leader, Fallujah is being sealed, besieged. Reports indicate that 280 Iraqi have been killed and 400 wounded in Fallujah alone, and 460 in the whole country since last week. Furthermore, there is neither supply of water and food.”

    Our staunch critics of ACLU are great believers in the wonderful philosophy of conservatism – a doctrine that has long been bankrupt as Brad DeLong points out

    Of course conservatism is not a reliable friend of human liberty. Conservatism is a combination of four currents: “change is bad,” “things were better when my grandfather was a boy,” “what our ancestors have handed down to use may be false, but we shouldn’t inquire into it because it is useful,” and “I’ve got mine, Jack, and the lower orders need to be more respectful.” These are not the soil in which the tree of liberty grows.

    Brown sahibs like gc, vinod and razib can support a system of unequal exploitation obviously because they are great believers in the trickle down economics, expounded brilliantly by Bill Maher

    “Republican philosophy is based on the fact that a tiny percentage of fat-cats can convince millions of people, who could never be fat-cats that they might. How else do you sell ‘Trickle Down Economics?’ How else does that sound good? They are practically saying, ‘We’re pissing on you.’”

    Further Matthew Yglesias clearly shows that conservatives and Islamic Jihadis think alike (well exemplified here by the depraved mindset of gc, vinod and razib) – both constantly play victim and feel subjugated

    • Political leaders and media figures suffer from a “proneness to exaggeration.” • Rather than confronting awkward facts, there’s a “tendency to substitute words for action and a desired outcome for a less palatable reality, or to indulge in wishful thinking” • Related is the “tendency to blame others” (especially Bill Clinton or the ‘liberal media’) for problems. • An odd “pervasive belief that God provides and disposes of all human activity.” • Much of this related to their “often cavalier attitude toward safety precautions” as seen in the preference for ‘going on the offense’ rather than engaging in proper homeland security.

    To hear these conservatives whine constantly, a neutral observer would actually believe John Kerry won the election. Take for example a frequent whine by the likes of vinod – the liberal media elite who constantly spin and distort news to their own sinister ends. As David Croteau shatters the myth of the liberal media bias in his study Examining the “Liberal Media” Claim

    • On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public. • Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation. • The minority of journalists who do not identify with the “center” are more likely to identify with the “right” when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the “left” when it comes to social issues. • Journalists report that “business-oriented news outlets” and “major daily newspapers” provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while “broadcast network TV news” and “cable news services” provide the worst.

    Like I said before, conservatives should just shut up or liberals will have to expose their self-righteous ignoramus ramblings for what they are worth.

22. Liberal Pundit –

    BRILLIANT use of an array of prominent Liberals (including a comedian!) to impartially point out why evil conservatism is, uh, evil.

    And double congrats on the “Brown Sahib” remark – it really elevates debate and gives all of us the warm fuzzies about you & your position…

23. vinod does not whine. he gets his points across using economic facts and good rhetoric, even if i don’t always agree with him.

    “conservatives should just shut up or liberals will have to expose their self-righteous ignoramus ramblings for what they are worth.” ??? now THAT is whining. and i think i read it on my friend’s brother’s blog a few weeks ago, only switch ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’…

    if only all debaters of politics could write like vinod instead of resorting to ad hominem arguments… (or distracting people with shiny things, as is my preferred modus operandi, since i know nothing in life)

24. “It’s not anti-Christian in the least. Putting a religious symbol on a government seal was overreaching in the first place. Separation of church and state.”

    What of the other symbols on the seal? Also, the cross was put on the seal to show a historical link between California and its missions.

    I no way do I see the seal preaching to me. Where do you draw the line when trying to represent something with historical significance?

    As mentioned previously, the ACLU HAS done good and continues to do so in plenty of cases all over the country. But it also disappoints me with the lack of consistency at times it approaches similar problems with.

    The ACLU is neither evil nor the bastion of all that is good, as is in the case of most large and powerful groups it is somewhere in between.

25. I think the US government can keep an ACLU staff lawyer separate from the Indian government!

    As I said, the Bush family is very clannish:

    Governor Bush… suggested that his presence on the trip would send a powerful message of sympathy. “I think family matters in a lot of places, just as it does in the United States,” the governor said. He recalled in 1988 being asked by his father to travel to Armenia… “We went, and it made a big difference that a family member would go…”