Obviousity

2010-11-21T07:03:00.003-05:00

Bride of Rove could use some schooling on topic of bloated federal salaries.

Evidently, she thinks they don't exist, and if they do exist, it's alright because they are all ex-military.

My comment:
I can tell you I know of a federal employee making between 50 and 66% more in federal service than she would for the same work in the private sector, and she has no military background.

“so when Beck rants that the Federal workers should make what the military make … I have no idea what the hell to say to that.”

I know what to say to what I just quoted there. It’s a question. “Do you think even a few years of military service should award somebody a 200% raise for the rest of their life, when they are no longer in the military?

2010-11-20T11:26:00.002-05:00

The absurdity of Walter Shapiro.

Just to cherry pick at an immediately obvious weakspot, Shapiro seems to have sympathy with the comedian Lewis Black. Here's Black:

"So in the name of fighting terrorism, we're willing to start wars, waterboard people and kill civilians with unmanned drones. But the one line we won't cross is our waistline."

Here's reality.

There is no absurd aspect to the protest. Wars, the waterboarding of the three people who were waterboarded, and the use of drones in war are all actually likely to do some good--in fact we already know they have. Molesting a 3 year old can do no good at all, it is useless and expensive "security theater".

As for "suddenly frisky", what is suddenly true is that the searches are suddenly not merely useless but now intolerable.

2010-10-02T14:10:00.004-04:00

I believe I am banned from Samizdata. Or in any case, they have chosen not to post the comment below.

I reply to Ian B and other posts made at Samizdata since this one.

Rejoinding in reverse order:

"They wanted simple services and austere
buildings and lay preachers and the like"

Correct to this point, then you go right off the rails.

"all of which are features of Islam which has never had that kind of "Romishness"."

It never had a centralized church hierarchy, you are utterly wrong in every other respect. You think the ivory tower snobbery between Qum and Mecca isn't huge, you're nuts. Lay preachers my butt.

Ritual not so much, outside of the fact every faithful Moslem has a prayer schedule like a 13th century monk, elaborate buildings--check, every time they had the money for it.

"in rejecting the idea that God makes you jump through hoops like a performing dog, they took the first step towards reason, even if they still maintained an irrational faith in other ways"

Yep, that pilgrimage is no hoop at all, and nevermind the whole halal thing. No magical hoops, keerist you're piling it up.

And...Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner, who mentions a very substantial way in which the Puritans were in no way like the Moslems, and a way in which actually the Roundhead's opponents were relatively more like them.

"I'm just not entirely convinced that a smutty cartoonist with no A Levels, let alone a degree, is the ideal person to write it."

Must be hellish internalizing a very classist, minimal upward mobility society's opinion of yourself. You've got at least as much hackery in you as any academic--so you're halfway there now! You already think Popper and Heisenberg are very meaningful in everyday life and that they had profound epistemological insights which have policy implications!

"Or, it was a few centuries ago."

Except it would be admitted even then that the Bible was not literally the work of God, and that men being flawed can only imperfectly receive God's inspiration.

"The point I made is that however honestly you have reached your opinion, you can't stop people believing other things- and I gave the example of the reinterpretation of the US Constitution- a far clearer document than any Holy Book- as an example."

And your insistence that those other "interpretations" are in fact honestly arrived at as opposed to being merely what is convenient for one faction is a prime sign you are not able to perceive reality. Language is not so mutable it has no practical meaning.

And yes I read the interview. Funny fiqh and sharia are hand in glove, if they're so different.

"He says quite clearly, and you're big on that I know Tom, that there is a distinction between God's Law and human understanding (interpretation) of God's Law."

I see no practical difference between him and what is now life in Saudi Arabia;as long as it is Islamic, he is fine with the tyranny of the general will. When he wants members of any religion and atheists to hold forth on the superiority of their faith, 1st Amendment style, in the "parking lot" of the Great Mosque in Mecca, while cart vendors sling pork kielbasa on buns and frosty beers to the tourists--when he propounds individual human negative rights are all that exist, and is unambiguous that statements to the contrary in the Koran are bunk--then he'll be evidence of an Islamic Reformation.

"You see, I don't "like him". "

Sure you do, you need him to be enough like what you need him to be--and he's enough like that you're going with it--that you can put on the rosy glasses and say Islam is on it's way to reform.

"He simply stands as an example of somebody doing what I suggested,"

Not yet he isn't.

"and which you insist is impossible, which is using/developing an interpretation of Islam which isn't Tom Perkins Islam."

And it isn't my Islam, it's Mohammed's invention, and he said it is the perfectly recorded message of God. Your argument is with him and his followers, not me.

"Because re-interpreting things to suit themself is what humans do."

Uh huh. Tool making yes, and also rationalizing. What you're saying is as sensible as saying 2+3=4, and that it's just another interpretation. Oh yeah, you can be an academic, even a Phd, in Philosophy.

"You can call it "making shit up" if you like. It doesn't matter."

A case in point, the collective right "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment. It was invented from whole cloth in the early 19xx years, and never had a trace of legitimacy, but you'd say it just another interpretation as valid WRT the source material as any other. In fact, by language you may feel now is overbroad, you did say that.

"I simply said that that is possible, because language is as ambiguous as its reader wants it to be."

But not honestly so. There is a point where an "interpretation" becomes a lie, and chucking the majority of the Koran will be required for Islam to Reform.

"Look, I get it Tom. Muslims are evil, and irredeemable, and nothing is going to divert you from that certainty of yours."

Islam as it is, yes. An apostate Moslem could very well be a right enough guy.

"Fair enough, you're entitled to believe what you want. But at the end of the day you're still going to have to explain why Dr Ahmed doesn't want to kill you, like he's supposed to in Tom Perkins Islam."

Again, that isn't my Islam, it's Mohammed's. If in fact he is unwilling to tolerate the use of violence to cause me or you to submit, or to prevent backsliding in for example Mecca, Dr Ahmed needs to explain to Mohammed why he is blowing off his holy writ, he need make no explanations me.

2010-08-06T20:06:00.004-04:00

Here's someone I think is obviously not thinking things through to their necessary end or appurtenances.

In a comment to a Wall Street Journal by Peggy Noonan, to the effect that America is edging towards boiling over, I see this comment, "I was with you up until the screaming babies on buses."

That quote is just a portion of the comment.

The comment is from Bill Smith, whom it seems imagines that immigration laws can be enforced without any screaming babies being forced onto busses, and who seem to feel mere negative feeling will accomplish the entire end of AZ's immigration law, and the 70% of Americans who favor it.

He is somewhat correct, most illegals will move, even back across the border, with relatively mild incentives to that end and with mild enforcement measures.

These should be deployed.

So should forcible repatriation (or even just expulsion into Mexico), when they do not consent upon discovery, and basic efforts should be made to discover if an arrested person is a legal resident. As a first measure persons found to be here illegally should be shoved across the border if they cannot be held for any other crime.

2010-05-01T10:56:00.003-04:00

Comment taken from the Volokh Conspiracy, made in response to the notion May Day should be redesignated, "Victims of Communism Day".

"The thing about choosing May Day is that it seems to focus especially on Stalin, since the Soviet Union was so associated with that day."

Obviously, we wouldn't want to associate Stalin or May Day with communism.

Also from that comment thread, Personfrompoorlock writes that one of the reasons the US is so stable is that we let the dead bury the dead, so instead of bringing up the past by changing the designation of May Day, we should drop the idea.

When "Spread the Wealth" and "Made enough money" are on that ash heap, then we can talk.

2009-09-09T19:07:00.004-04:00

On Bloggingheads, David Frum tells us that Obama is offering to have us clean a dirty stable that is in fact dirty, when it comes to reforming the government's intervention into healthcare. He makes this observation at about 29 minutes +/- 2 or so.

What I can't figure out is why all these smart "liberul" people can't figure out the problem is that the President is only handing out toothbrushes and bullsh!t for cleaning tools.

If you want to reform healthcare such that costs go down:

1) Limit "unlucky judgement call" malpractice tort damage awards to real damages, increasing to a low order multiple of that as bad judgement becomes inexplicable other than to be negligence. Punitive damages should be limited to cases of criminal malpractice where a conviction has been secured, and payment delayed until appeals are exhausted. At the discretion of the judge and/or jury, the losing attorney should pay.

Not the losing client, the losing attorney.

2) Competition across statelines should be allowed, with out-of-state companies not required to entertain local states' pet insurance mandates.

3) The money's spent on an individual's healthcare whether it is the person's own money or an employment "bennie", should be equally taxed or not taxed, whether or not it is an employment benefit. This will cost me money, I don't care, it's fair.

In the event an uninsured patient contracts something they will likely not live to pay for, then we have to decide that when the charity otherwise runs out, we'll keep them from pain as best we are able, but that they will be let to die from their illness without treatment which is possible. Then we need to agree that mandated treatment is not charity, it is socialism/communism, and it is never worth the price in the long run, and that in any case it is the political decision of the states and never the national government.

Unless, of course, an Article V procedure changes things. Fat chance.

Edited 20100501, removed 5 spam comments dealing with high yield investments.

2009-08-26T22:30:00.001-04:00

Via Instapundit, this is so obvious it should never need be said.

WILL WILKINSON writes: It ought to be less embarrassing to have been influenced by Ayn Rand than by Karl Marx.

2009-08-09T07:09:00.003-04:00

The military must not face book.

Says Bob Owens in this post to Pajamas Media.

My reply is below the quote, lightly editied:

“Social relationships established on Craigslist and MySpace have led to homicides, and a relationship status change on Facebook led to murder.”

Well obviously we have to make it contrary to good unit order to have social relationships…

#3 of the Pajamas Media posting guidelines prohibits me from treating your ludicrous post as it fully deserves, Mr Owen.

When genuine failures of OPSEC can be demonstrated, educate or punish the offenders as appropriate. The most that can be done which is reasonable is the most you should do.

@ 19. RM3 Frisker FTN

If the jihadis decided to attack essentially any elementary school near a big base they’d accomplish much the same thing. I suppose you and Owen now feel the need to take the fatuous step of prohibiting service personnel from having kids?

@ 20. Ecosium:

You are correct in theory, I admit I don’t think the sort of alienation of the military from general society that leads to increased tyranny will be a result of this even in the long run.

@ 21. Bill Quick:
“As usual, the classic conservative response to an issue of security is More Controls! More Regulations! More Bans! Less Liberty!”

There is nothing conservative about being stupid. Stupidity is the liberals province. What is conservative in this country is the Revolutionary Spirit of 1776.

You are correct Elementary schools should be harder targets.

The bottom line is, that in spite of the chin high sewage spewed by the MSM instead of either raw facts or reasoned analysis, the war effort in Iraq and at least up until now in Afghanistan enjoyed good recruitment and re-up rates. Treating the troops like utter morons and abject mushrooms will change that in a hurry.

Mr. Owens’ suggestion is a profoundly poor one.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

2009-08-08T16:48:00.004-04:00

The mechanism to reply to a reply on Q and O is broken, so I'm replying here to a reply to this post by Dale Franks.

If such forces as desire it can peacefully achieve an amendment which permits such a separation, I believe I’ll abide it. Absent such an amendment I think I will not.

how can those two diametrically opposed philosophies be reconciled?

The two sides make each other hurting and dead until one side gives up first. What, you don’t think that how it was done in 1783 ?

Coercing one to live within the model state of the other would be to deprive a large portion of the population of its liberty.

The thing is, they are not at liberty to have what they want. What they want is not to live in liberty, but to enjoy the fruits of taking license. When what a person wants is not their’s to have, their taking it is theft–and ultimately, lethal force can justly be used to prevent such a felony. Let them have their New New Harmony if they can muster the wit to build it, and we’ll run a pool for the date of it collapsing.

There is nothing wrong with the peaceable dissolution of the Union or the relationship between the states to be changed.

Oh I think there’s a great deal wrong with the peaceable dissolution of the Union in the manner Franks suggests, and the the relationship between the states and each other and the national government has certainly changed–not for the better. It would not be a better thing in outcome if it had been done by amendment, but it would at least be genuinely legitimate in the contect of the organic law.

but Thomas Jefferson said the several states should go their separate ways if they were to decide the Union did not work in their mutual benefit

Thos. J said a lot of things. He had an intemperate nature to go with his red hair–he was enamored of the French Mob, and thought little of the ill said of them was true, although the tumbrels had been rolling for a while–his judgement is suspect in that light. If it improves liberty, I will support it, what Franks speaks of will not improve it, so I will oppose it. If it is not done according to the civil law–the process of amendment–thenit surely should be opposed in keeping with the law of war.

it is interesting to note that the Constitution is silent on the issue of secession

It is certainly is not silent on the matter. Powers are given over to the national government, and there is no mechanism therein for their retrieval to the states–except parenthetically by amendment–so there is no mechanism for the retrieval at this time nor was there such in 1860.

The 10th amendment is no mechanism for seccession, because it excludes from the free exercise by the states the powers given to the national government–those powers are the states no longer. What powers the states retain they do not need to secede to exercise, because they already have them without seccession.

Since the states are not explicitly prevented from seceded by the Constitution

Yes they are, as I have demonstrated. What powers the national government has– absent an amendment to the contrary– it retains, and the laws made pertaining to those powers are the supreme law of the land, the pretensions of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

the federal government is not given the power to suppress secession,

Oh yeah? Such a power given to the national government follows:

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

And a duty given to the President:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”
and the oath of that office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The national government is not merely given the power to do it, the President is not at liberty not to do it.

it is allowed through the Tenth Amendment.

The 10th amendment creates no new power to secede unilaterally for the states. It merely says powers not given to the national government haven’t been given, not that when they were given the states didn’t really mean it or that the supremacy clause or other clauses I’ve quoted against secession above were null and void.

I also vowed to defend the Constitution, and I have no moral reservation about the idea of secession.

If, absent an amendment to permit it, you have no moral reservations about secession, then when you took that vow–in my view–you did so in a cloud of ignorance or deceit.

But it should always remain a viable option, as it is a powerful tool for the states to retain some power.

It is a legal, viable, option now by virtue of the 5th amendment. I think it would improve nothing if so exercised as to make real Franks vision reality, in fact I think it would be tragic.

If you haven’t noticed, the states in fact retain great power now–RealID is all but dead as a doornail. If it were pressed, I shouldn’t be surprised to see state troopers or if need be the state militias telling the TSA goons to depart their screening stations.

And I would welcome that, the commerce clause is solely about customs fees between the states, it is not a plenipotentiary grant of power for the Congress to control whatever might brush up against what might cross a state line.

Similarly, the customs duties the national government may require on goods crossing into the US are not about Progressively influencing what recreational pharmaceuticals we consume, they can only be about supporting national industries–sadly, the Founders believed in Mercantilism as an economic policy–and about those fees being the same throughout all ports of entry.

That’s one reason I’m astonished Franks wrote this piece.

As far as I can tell, he long ago declared he was on the pinko, Constitution be d@mned side of things, he just whinges about the parts of it he doesn't like.

2009-01-11T11:29:00.001-05:00

Hello Again.

Thought I ought to rededicate myself to this effort, especially since the youngest is pretty reliably sleeping through the night.

Oh, yeah.

One hand on the ground, one hand in space.

2007-07-29T15:12:00.000-04:00

Dr. Paul Broun's election and first House of Representatives vote is the best political news I've had since 9:47PM, Nov. 7th, 2004.

He voted for prohibiting federal funds from being used to prosecute federal drug offenders in states where the alleged use has been legalized by the state in question.

The vote reflects Broun's promise to apply these tests to legislation:

Is it constitutional and a proper function of government? Is it morally correct? Is it something we really need? Is it something we can afford?

I'd like about 235 more Repesentatives like him, about 65 Senators, and a like President, please.

Dave Barbee is the chair of the Republican effort in the district Broun represents. He is quoted as saying,

"Either you're with the team or you're separate from the team," said Barbee, who backed Broun's opponent in the runoff. "If he doesn't follow the [conservative] mantra he campaigned on, he'll be called home."

Sounds like he voted just the way he said he would to me.

A genuinely conservative vote--hacking at a mouldered branch.

2007-07-24T20:54:00.000-04:00

Polywell gets funding.

Probably.

Hat Tip to Instapundit. Dr. Bussard's Polywell reactor may get funding. I've mentioned before that this sounds a good thing.

Fully private investment would be better, but the potential payoff to cost ratio is so high, and in terms of California's budge, the cost so low, this will do.

If supporting any sort of government funding for such a thing sounds to you like an inconsistent thing for a libertarian to do, I would like to suggest you consider that prudence is a virtue, and that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

Update, July 29th, 2007.
This was a hoax. The guvernator never heard anything about it. The hoaxter posted the "news" by GoDaddy to stay anonymous.

2007-07-22T18:30:00.001-04:00

Pasta with lamb, with a vaguely Milanese sauce

4 lb lamb chops
2 cups chianti
2 cups diced* onion
2 cups diced* celery
2 cups diced* carrot
(add diced bell peppers, mushrooms, hearts of palm, whatever)
*small dice, say 1/4inch a side, tops
4 to 8 cups diced tomatoes, canned is fine.
How much do you like tomatoes?
8 to 16 oz tomato paste
1.5 to 3 tbsp minced garlic
1 tbsp beef base
1 tbsp chicken base
1 lb pasta of choice

water
olive oil
salt
rosemary
thyme
oregano
basil
black pepper
hot pepper
honey (I’m not kidding!)
parmesan cheese
I use Mrs. Dash a lot
eh, whatever

time (about 1.5 - 2 hours)

1 large, heavy skillet
1 deep baking pan, large enough to hold all ingredients combined.
1 sauce pan for a all liquid and vegetable ingredients.
1 slotted spoon
1 pair kitchen tongs
1 cooling rack

Wash and pat dry the lamb chops quite dry. Place in fridge on plate.

Preheat the oven to 375degF.

Put the tomatoes and paste to simmer in the sauce pan.

Pat the chops quite dry again. Dry like the Mojave, or you’ll regret it.

Drop oven temp to 350degF.

Put oil to cover the bottom of the skillet, and
bring just to smoking. Then add the chops slowly with tongs. Turn them to brown heavily on all sides. Do in two batches if you need to, keep the oil hot.

Place browned chops into the baking pan with the bones standing. Place this into the oven foil covered. Brown the next batch of chops if you need to.

Oil the skillet again. Brown the carrots, onions, and celery a bit. Once browned, add the chianti.

Bring to a simmer, then add to the sauce pan. Add spices to taste and remaining ingredients.

Once it has simmered for about 15 minutes and you are confident of your seasoning, remove the baking pan from the oven and rack it.

Ladle the sauce over the chops, filling the baking pan. Place it back into the oven, uncovered.

Let cook at least one hour, 2 might be better—depends on the stringyness of your lamb, mine was fine in around 1 hr 30 min.

Cook the pasta in the usual way.

This serves around 4 quite well, and the leftover sauce will be even better the next day.

2007-07-18T20:35:00.000-04:00

If you are a legal resident of Virginia, please sign this petition. It's about the new and draconianly confiscatory revenue measure the legislature dreamed up, "abusive driver fees".

It will not catch merely unwary, it will catch the unlucky--on top of the fine and court costs, $333.00 dollars a year for three years. It is openly admitted it a revenue measure, although they claim significant improvement in the other states that the them. As for whether it will only catch bad drivers, Bullshi!t. On the 55mpg road I drive home on, you can stay in the leftlane at 65mph and never have to slow down or pass a vehicle. Traveling 55 is posing a traffic hazard. I think about 30,000 people a day use that road, and about 80% would be subject to this law.

Well, ******** the state prosecutors association refused to carry out prosecutions that might 8trigger the Michigan version of the law, let's see if Virginia's Commonwealth's Attorney's have as much of a sense of decency.

******** I can't find a link for which state this was, I'll update when I'm able.

I believe general purposes like the roads should be funded from the general revenue, and that even if such huge fines were to be levied, they should be indexed against income so as to be neither progressive nor regressive--not per capita incident fees.

And there is the appearance of certain conflict of interest about the law as well.

The sponsor of the law, David Albo, is a partner in one of Virginia's largest law firms; one of its specialties is traffic cases.

Also, I believe to avoid commerce clause/federalism problems, the new laws affect on VA residents, they do not affect non-residents no matter how often they get ticketed.

This law is morally wrong, and must change.

2007-07-16T07:35:00.001-04:00

Mead Blogging.

It started on the first large batch weekend before last.

20# Dutch Gold honey.
4# Buckwheat honey (stuff looked like road tar, it was that dark and thick).
1.5# Turbinado sugar
5 gallons worth yeast nutrient
1.5 tbsp Mixed Acids, Malic, Citric, and Tartaric
Water to make up 5 gallons, with 1/2 gallon batches added to aerate at later times to make up 6 gallons.

I first pitched some Red Star Pasteur Champagne I had left from other batches, as well as salvaged yeast from other brews. Evidently, it's time was passed, as N O T H I N G happened for the first 36 hours, although the date was DEC08. Slightly panicked, I went and got some Lalvin EC-1118.

Following the directions exactly, I pitched that into the still must. Twenty four hours later, I was concerned the water in the lock might leave it...

A first taste sees a very sweet, yeasty but in all ways promising batch.

Next is racking to two other carboys, and raising the volume to 8 gallons total.

I'm shooting for a sweet wine with lots of oak and whiskey notes, and a bit sparkling, most likely by dry ice addition (3 to 5 grams) after stabilizing the wine.

2007-07-13T08:28:00.000-04:00

A quick word about Fred Thompson and his vote for McCain-Feingold.

As far as I know, he has repented and is forgiven.

2007-07-13T08:19:00.000-04:00

The Influence Peddler says attacks on Fred Thompson are crawling out from under a really, really deep rock.

I agree.

2007-07-12T16:56:00.001-04:00

Here's a topic for discussion.

The Polywell Fusion Reactor.

In this surge of earmarks, why can't Bussard catch the cash to at least see if a dodecahedron will work significantly better than a cubic configuration. The man needs about 10 million for that.

Seems cheap at the price to confirm the idea and improve the base design.

A great many people seem to be interested in reducing our consumption of energy and increasing the domestically supplied fraction of the energy used*. They seem not to realize the fight for the future is to drastically increase the per capita horsepower we have available, or we're stuck on this planet and will go extinct with it.

I want the Arthur C Clarke quote:

"If man survives for as long as the least successful of the dinosaurs—those creatures whom we often deride as nature's failures—then we may be certain of this: For all but a vanishingly brief instant near the dawn of history, the word 'ship' will mean—'spaceship.'"

To be true. Faster please.

*If Instapundit's views mimic a great many people's and I suspect his do.

2007-07-12T16:51:00.001-04:00

From the QandO blog.

A Surge Of Facts.

Godspeed and good luck Mr. Snow. You've got about 60 days to turn the public perception of Iraq around. The first 15% gain in understanding that we are actually winning now in the minimum time possible will be easy. That only gets you to 45%, and you need 50% plus a good, loud margin in the states with Republican Senators who are flipping to make it through 2008. After that our success should be undeniable and celebrated even by the NYT.

2007-07-12T11:53:00.000-04:00

It's no surprise that LewRockwell.Com is still beating on Lincoln.

But this linked review is a cut below even their usual 'we're pro-Confederacy yet still insist we're libertarian' nuttiness.

A quick glance shows a fatal flaw in the very first paragraph.

It is well known that, in an effort to promote compromise, a constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress that forever forbade interference with slavery in states where it already existed. Lincoln referred to the proposal, the Corwin Amendment, in his First Inaugural, stating that he was not opposed to the amendment, since it merely made explicit the existing constitutional arrangement regarding slavery. Of course, Lincoln was here characteristically mendacious; nothing in the constitution prior to the amendment prohibited amendments to end slavery.

There is no mendaciousness or even obfuscation to be found here on Lincoln's part. Lincoln never said the Constitution permitted the federal government to end slavery- absent an amendment to so empower it, and he points out that the Corwin amendment makes that explicit. Is the writer unaware of the fact the Constitution did at the the time prohibit the national government from interfering with the institution of slavery within a state?

And Lincoln made repetitively clear that of the two goals, ending slavery and preserving the Union, that preserving the Union was of more importance to him. He acted in accordance with both those goals and their stated relative importance to him. Where does this person imagine they find an inconsistency? They'll find none related in the quote above.

Generally, if it involves either Lincoln or the Confederacy, the thinking found on LewRockwell.Com is of like poor quality.

2007-07-12T09:56:00.000-04:00

Nobel Peace Prize Winner wants to kill Bush non-violently.

Which makes about as much sense as this statement of hers, "The Muslim world right now is suffering beyond belief." To the limited extent that is a sufficient description of world events, a full and sufficient response of like sophistication is, "They've pissed in their own bed and ours, or let their co-religionists do it, so screw 'em."