A Thousand Words

How many lessons can we be taught by one picture?

Social repression, sexual curiosity, physical and emotional longing, cultural backwardness...

Many lessons.

Walk Like A New Yorker

Why New Yorkers Last Longer

Last winter, the New York City Department of Health released figures that told a surprising story: New Yorkers are living longer than ever, and longer than most people in the country. A New Yorker born in 2004 can now expect to live 78.6 years, nine months longer than the average American will. What’s more, our life expectancy is increasing at a rate faster than that of most of the rest of the country. Since 1990, the average American has added only about two and a half years to his life, while we in New York have added 6.2 years to ours.

But why?

All the boons of the nineties—the aggressive policing, the dramatic drop in crime, the renaissance of the city’s parks and street life, the freakish infusion of boom-time wealth—played a part. Take the miraculous evaporation of the homicide rate. In 1990, a stunning 2,272 New Yorkers were murdered; in 2005, that number dropped to 579.

One answer...

When I ask what the X factor is—where the “excess life” is coming from—Frieden (NYC Commissioner of Public Health) goes over to his desk and returns with a clear plastic statuette. It’s from the American Podiatric Medical Association and Prevention magazine: BEST WALKING CITY, 2006.

You go, New York.

The Remnant

I think Albert Jay Nock's words, reproduced on Bill Whittle's Eject!Eject!Eject!, are utterly fascinating:

Isaiah's Job

by Albert Jay Nock

[Excerpt]

"...the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. "Tell them what a worthless lot they are." He said, "Tell them what is wrong, and why and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don't mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you," He added, "that it won't do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life."

"Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job – in fact, he had asked for it – but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so – if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start – was there any sense in starting it? "Ah," the Lord said, "you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it."

"...As the word masses is commonly used, it suggests agglomerations of poor and underprivileged people, labouring people, proletarians, and it means nothing like that; it means simply the majority. The mass-man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great and overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses. The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either.

Plato and the Remnant...

"If the modern spirit, whatever that may be, is disinclined towards taking the Lord’s word at its face value (as I hear is the case), we may observe that Isaiah’s testimony to the character of the masses has strong collateral support from respectable Gentile authority. Plato... speaks of the Athenian masses with all Isaiah’s fervency, even comparing them to a herd of ravenous wild beasts. Curiously, too, he applies Isaiah’s own word remnant to the worthier portion of Athenian society; "there is but a very small remnant," he says, of those who possess a saving force of intellect and force of character – too small, preciously as to Judea, to be of any avail against the ignorant and vicious preponderance of the masses."

If you're also interested, and curious about what you've read, then join Bill's Ejectia.

Careful, Fred - Updated, Thompson Camp Clarifies

I like Fred Thompson, I really do. If I had to vote for a Republican nominee right now, he would probably be the one I'd cast my ballot for.

But this:

Showing his conservative stripes, Thompson said he would push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and would overturn Roe v. Wade.

...will probably cost him more centrists than it will win him conservatives.

And another thing. For a "Federalist," who has written about excessive legislation by the government, does he really need to be advocating more legislation (on social issues, no less), and even a constitutional amendment?

I am not gay, nor am I particularly supportive of the idea of abortion, generally. I suppose Fred's angle is to built momentum and solidify his conservative credentials before he announces his candidacy. He probably also knows a constitutional ban on gay marriage would almost certainly never pass, just as overturning Roe v. Wade would be daunting to say the least. So he can declare his intentions, knowing neither will likely ever get past Congress.

But still... come on, Fred.

Update:

Hey, this is Jon Henke, from the Fred Thompson team. I'm afraid CNN has mischaracterized Thompson's comment.

For the record, the Thompson camp has officially noted that "Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." He supports the rights of States to choose their marriage law for themselves.

The Thompson camp just issued this statement:

In an interview with CNN today, former Senator Fred Thompson’s position on constitutional amendments concerning gay marriage was unclear.

Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens.

He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that.

If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.

Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Padilla Convicted

NYT:

MIAMI, Aug. 16 — In a major victory for the Bush administration, a federal jury here found Jose Padilla guilty on terrorism conspiracy charges Thursday after little more than a day of deliberations.

I suppose those 12 jurors were neoconservative infiltrators, huh?

That would explain the only reason why DailyKos could be upset about the guilty verdict.

The big stink among the left and civil liberties types: "We arrested him for trying to plant a dirty bomb, but he was convicted of only terrorism conspiracy charges."

Big whoop. Haven't you ever seen an episode of Law & Order? Barely a show goes by when the charge isn't pleaded down. Just ask Fred.

:)

Update: "Six of Mr. Padilla's fingerprints." Ann Althouse tears the NY Times apart.

Casuistry By Definition

The Minaret of Freedom Weblog has posted a counterpoint to my post regarding the "Intifada T-Shirt" controversy, and the New York City school principal who was fired because of it.

I enjoy debate, and it's good to see we can engage in lively discourse.

The Minaret of Freedom Blog tries to counter my argument by pointing out that the word "Intifada," does, in fact also mean "a shaking off." This point is meant to prove to the reader that the principal was not wrong, that her use of the word was legitimate, and that perhaps New Yorkers are too touchy when it comes to Islam.

However, I'll give another example that parallels this argument, and by which one can perhaps see how the definition of a word can stand in stark contrast to its meaning. First:

Dictionary definition of intifada:

Merriam-Webster

Etymology: Arabic intifAda, literally, the act of shaking off: UPRISING,REBELLION; specifically : an armed uprising of Palestinians against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip

Wikipedia examples of previous instances of intifada:

First Intifada, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli rule in 1987 to 1993
Second, or al-Aqsa Intifada, the violent Palestinian-Israeli conflict that began in September of 2000
1990s Intifada, an uprising in Bahrain demanding a return to democratic rule
1991 uprisings in Iraq against Saddam Hussein
Cedar Revolution or Intifada of Independence, the events in Lebanon after Rafiq Hariri's assassination
French Intifada, an ongoing conflict between French civil servants and Muslim youths
Independence Intifada, sporadic demonstrations and riots in Morocco/Western Sahara beginning in May 2005
Zemla Intifada against Spanish rule in Spanish Sahara

Wiktionary definition of intifada:

Etymology
Arabic shaking, uprising, insurrection

Noun
intifada

1. an uprising, especially the Palestinian resistance to the 1987 Israeli occupation of the West Bank of the Jordan and Gaza

One can clearly see that a literal definition of the word intifada can mean to shake off, as the Principal's defenders have claimed. However, there is a similar example in Western European history of a word whose definition means one thing, but whose meaning takes on an entirely new character altogether.

Inquisition:

Noun
inquisition
an investigation or inquiry into the truth of some matter
an inquest
a questioning

Contrast the definition of the word Inquistion, with The Inquisition:

Denunciations were followed by detentions, which in some cases lasted up to two years before the trial. A defense counsel was assigned to the defendant, a member of the tribunal itself, whose role was simply to advise the defendant and to encourage him or her to speak the truth. A Notary of the Secreto meticulously wrote down the words of the accused. The archives of the Inquisition, in comparison to those of other judicial systems of the era, are striking in the completeness of their documentation. The percentage of cases where torture was used, which was as a means of getting confessions, varied. Sentences varied from fines to execution and those condemned had to participate in the ceremony of auto de fe.

Can we now objectionably see how the use of a word can be much more negative than its definition?

Because of the negative images associated with the Inquisition, the term has taken on a pejorative usage, and is often used to express disapproval.

The Spanish Inquisition, for example, included:

Censorship, Repression and Expulsion of Jews

Aside from the semantics of arguing over the definition of a word and its meaning, The Minaret of Freedom Blog is also quick to point out that:

An intifada is not necessarily violent nor is it “Islamic” per se. In fact the term is quite secular and there are Palestinian Christians, for instance who support the intifada as well as Lebanese Christians who were involved in their own (peaceful) intifada. In fact, along with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, one of the most prominent hardline and violent opponents to Arafat’s agreement to the 1993 Oslo accords was George Habash, a Greek Orthodox Christian, the founder and leader of the militant PFLP.

However, they once again miss the point. As with The Inquisition, there are undoubtedly instances of a non-violent inquisition by the police or, say, Sherlock Holmes, for example. The fact that there have been prior innocuous instances of an inquisition do not detract from the negative connotation of the world or phrase.

When one says "The Inquisition," images of Christians, Jews and Muslims being tortured, beaten and oppressed come to mind. The word's meaning and its historical context are inseparable.

Similary, when one (a New York City school principal, say) uses or approves the word "Intifada," anyone with even a modest inkling of recent history will recall waves of suicide attacks, and armed conflict.

That the Minaret of Freedom Blog has raised historical examples of non-violent intifada, the argument is moot. The word today, as it is used, has been popularized by the violent Palestinian uprisings in the middle east. To argue otherwise smacks of dishonesty.

If one cannot make the distinction between the literal definition of a word, and its historical context, then there can be only two explanations:

The person must be morally and/or socially tone deaf, in which case I pity their ignorance, or

The person has willingly applied his or her own reasoning, fraught with casuistry, to assert an agenda.

Minaret of Freed Blog called its post a "glance at the word intifida." That's all it is, a glance.

Preventing Future Attacks

WSJ: The Cheney Imperative

With intelligence officials in Washington increasingly alarmed about the prospect of another major attack on the U.S. homeland, and public support for the Bush administration's anti-terror efforts reclaiming lost ground, we need more Dick Cheney.

The policies he has advocated have been controversial. But they have also been effective. Consider the procedures put in place to extract information from hardcore terrorists. Mr. Cheney did not dream up these interrogation methods, but when intelligence officials insisted that they would work, the vice president championed them in internal White House debates and on Capitol Hill. Former CIA Director George Tenet--a Clinton-era appointee and certainly no Cheney fan--was asked about the value of those interrogation programs in a recent television appearance. His response, ignored by virtually everyone in the media, was extraordinary.

"Here's what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the president of the Untied States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. . . . I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us."

Surveillance may come at a modest price, but it pays dividends...

And what about the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program? Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush instructed his top intelligence officials to be aggressive in their efforts to track terrorists and disrupt their plots. Michael Hayden, NSA director at the time, took that opportunity to propose changes to the ways his agency monitored terrorist communications. A little more than a year before the 9/11 attacks, while Bill Clinton was still president, Mr. Hayden dramatized the NSA's dilemma in congressional testimony.

"If, as we are speaking here this afternoon, Osama bin Laden is walking . . . from Niagara Falls, Ontario, to Niagara Falls, New York, as he gets to the New York side, he is an 'American person.' And my agency must respect his rights against unreasonable search and seizure as provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution."

Once President Bush took office, Messrs. Hayden and Tenet took the problem to Dick Cheney. The vice president walked them in to see Mr. Bush and in short order the changes were implemented. The results were almost immediate. The New York Times article that exposed the surveillance program in December 2005 also reported that "the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program."

H/T: Pat Dollard.

A New Draft

If Israel does it, why can't we?

Scott Ritter, A Call To Service:

In short, I am espousing a return to the basics, this time in the form of mandatory national service. Without exception or deferment, all able-body Americans, upon reaching the age of 18 (or upon graduation if they are in school when they reach 18), would have to serve their country for two years.

In this model, the first two months of such service would be compulsory military basic training, in which the draftee would be imbued with discipline and the necessity of adhering to a chain of command. At the end of their basic training, the draftees would be given a chance to choose a three-year enlistment in the armed forces or a two-year hitch with nonmilitary service options. These options could include tours with the U.S. Forest Service as wildland firefighters/forest technicians, or with the U.S. Health Service as EMT/paramedics serving rural and/or inner-city communities, or as teaching/education assistants, or as national infrastructure repair crew members, or any other form of service which provides needed labor for our nation while imbuing the draftee with a sense of duty, responsibility and belonging.

"Defensive Jihad"

Muhajir (Padilla)...

What a moron

A cornerstone of the defense during the nearly three-month trial was the idea that Islamic teaching provides for legitimate “defensive jihad,” which differs from terrorism because it is meant to counter aggression against Muslims and does not threaten innocent people.

The New York Times Reports

...four months too late:

Universities Install Footbaths to Benefit Muslims, and Not Everyone Is Pleased

When pools of water began accumulating on the floor in some restrooms at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, and the sinks pulling away from the walls, the problem was easy to pinpoint. On this campus, more than 10 percent of the students are Muslims, and as part of ritual ablutions required before their five-times-a-day prayers, some were washing their feet in the sinks.

The Times mentions the debate in the blogosphere:

But as a legal and political matter, that solution has not been quite so simple. When word of the plan got out this spring, it created instant controversy, with bloggers going on about the Islamification of the university, students divided on the use of their building-maintenance fees, and tricky legal questions about whether the plan is a legitimate accommodation of students’ right to practice their religion — or unconstitutional government support for that religion.

"No outcry" at some schools...

Nationwide, more than a dozen universities have footbaths, many installed in new buildings. On some campuses, like George Mason University in Virginia, and Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, Mich., there was no outcry.

No outcry? The Times should take another look.

The Footbaths are for lacrosse players, too.

Here in Dearborn, the university called the footbaths a health and safety measure, not a religious decision. And it argued that while the footbaths may benefit Muslim students, they will be available to others, like lacrosse players who want to wash their feet.

And for the barefoot hippies to use as well, I suppose.

"The American Civil Liberties Union says the footbath issue is complex." (The ACLU Has Found A Religion It Will Defend):

“Our policy is to object whenever public funds are spent on any brick and mortar component of religion,” said Kary Moss, director of the Michigan Civil Liberties Union. “What makes this different, though, is that the footbaths themselves can be used by anyone, don’t have any symbolic value and are not stylized in a religious way. They’re in a regular restroom, and could be just as useful to a janitor filling up buckets, or someone coming off the basketball court, as to Muslim students.”

What about the constitution?

Debbie Schlussel, a conservative lawyer and blogger in Southfield, Mich., posted, “Forget about the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state ... at least when it comes to mosque and state.”

Going Web Incognito 2.0

Yesterday on NPR, Brian Lehrer discussed online discussion, Blogs, comments, and anonymity.

On the Internet No One Knows You're a Dog

Does anonymity on the Internet facilitate free speech, or drag discourse down to the level of the lowest common denominator? Ian Clarke, founder of The Free NetworkProject and the new website Thoof, and Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur, debate the issue.

The show centered around two website founders debating the pros and cons of Blogging and commenting anonymously. Ian Clarke took the 'libertarian' view that one should have the right to publish online anonymously if one so chooses - and let the online 'market' or 'readership' sort it out.

Andrew Keen disagreed, contending that an informal, agreed upon standard should be introduced whereby all sites would require full disclosure of a writer or commenter's identity. Keen was quick to note, however, that he did not endorse legislation to this effect.

Perhaps one of the most notable recent occurrences of anonymous commenters gone wild are the vitriolic lamentations for the many missed opportunities by militants or blood clots to kill Vice President Dick Cheney found in The Huffington Post's comment section. Comments, such as:

3. So near and yet so far. Close but no cigar.
“I think I can, I think I can, I think I can... ”
Come on , little blood clot that could.
June 07, 2007 at 05:39pm PM EDT

18. Die *sshole.
June 07, 2007 at 05:54pm PM EDT

50. I’m keeping my fingers crossed, he dies!
June 07, 2007 at 06:27pm PM EDT

I called in to the Brian Lehrer Show and actually managed to throw in my two cents about the topic, but suffering from a moment of sheepishness, neglected to plug my own blog. Oh well.

It's an interesting discussion, and worth a listen.

Update: What about John Mackey's disgraceful behavior.

'Demographic Capitulation'

Powerful demographic numbers from Gates of Vienna...

80 per cent of world history:

According to Heinsohn, 80 per cent of world history is about young men in nations with a surplus of sons, creating trouble. This trouble may take many forms — a increase in domestic crime, attempts at coups d’état, revolutions, riots and civil wars. Occasionally, the young commit genocide to secure for themselves the positions that belonged to those they killed. Finally, there is war to conquer new territory, killing the enemy population and replacing it with one’s own.

Democratic Capitulation:

It has a very simple definition: Take all the men aged 40-44 and compare them to the boys aged 0-4. Demographic capitulation is when you have 100 males aged 40 44 compared to less than 80 boys aged 0-4. In Germany the numbers are 100/50, in the Gaza Strip they are 100/464. I have compared some numbers for you, and these show that Denmark is on the verge of Demographic Capitulation. Your numbers are 100/80.”

Youth Bulge:

In recent years the West has been facing a gigantic youth bulge in large parts of the Muslim world. This bulge is created by a Muslim population explosion. Over the course of just five generations (1900-2000) the population in the Muslim countries has grown from 150 million to 1 200 million — an increase of 800 per cent. As a comparison the population of China has grown from 400 million to 1 200 million (300 per cent). The population of India has risen from 250 million to 1000 million (400 per cent).

Click the link to read more from the post... the numbers are astounding. The concept that we are perpetuating the problem in much of the third world by supplying food and shelter to many of these populations is especially interesting.

However, the answer on how to balance aid with positive results remains elusive.

D'Souza: What's So Great About America

From Townhall.com, [an excerpt]:

Had I stayed in India, I would probably live my entire existence within a five-mile radius of where I was born. I would undoubtedly have married a woman of my identical caste and religious and socioeconomic background. I would have faced relentless pressure to become an engineer, like my father, or a doctor, like my grandfather. My socialization would have been entirely within my own ethnic community. I would have had a whole set of opinions that could be predicted in advance.

Because I came to America, though, I have seen my life break free of these traditional confines. In college I became interested in literature and politics, and resolved to make a career as a writer, which is something you can do in America, and cannot easily do in India. I married a woman of English, Scottish, French, and German ancestry.

Eventually I found myself working in the White House, even though I was not an American citizen. I cannot imagine another country allowing a non-citizen to work in the inner citadel of its government.

In most of the world, even today, your identity and your fate are largely handed to you. In America, by contrast, you get to write the script of your own life. What to be, where to live, who to love, who to marry, what to believe, what religion to practice—these are all decisions that, in America, we make for ourselves. Here we are the architects of our own fate.

The “self-directed life” is the incredibly powerful idea that is behind the worldwide appeal of the United States. Young people throughout the world find irresistible the prospect of being in the driver’s seat of their own destiny. So, too, the immigrant discovers that America permits him to break free of the constraints that have held him captive, so that the future becomes a landscape of his own choosing.

GITMO or death?

They choose death, via jihad.

And Guantanamo isn't even so bad. Ask Morris D. Davis. Courtesy, the tank.

The Free Speech Exception

When has it been permissible to ban free expression in this country?

Answer: In cases when the offending comments are perhaps in bad taste, but hopelessly innocuous.

Michael Moore can slander our health care system, Harry Reid can give moral comfort to al Qaeda, and liberal bloggers can claim Bush is worse than Hitler and Stalin, yet a high school student cannot make a controversial remark about marijuana.

Pathetic.

Welcome To Iran

The Blogosphere has done an excellent job rounding up news of the Iranian crackdown. Far better, in fact, than the meager effort by the mainstream media.

Nowhere else have I seen pictures of the nefarious deeds by the government, save for the Blogs.

Captain's Quarters Blog gives a roundup. Michell Malkin adds to that Roundup. Gateway Pundit adds plenty of links and graphic pictures, many from Iran focus.

This should make anyone sad. This should enrage every citizen of a liberal democracy. This should prompt massive street protests and shows of support. But it's tough when liberal-leaning Blogs, for example, spend time worrying about the possibility of the deployment of U.S. special ops on American soil. Surely there are far greater dangers to consider, such as Iran's funding of Hamas.

Defining The Fog Of War On Terrorism

Courting The Enemy

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on Monday that Ali Saleh Kalah al-Marri — an alien al Qaeda operative from Qatar, sent to the United States the day before 9/11 to conduct follow-up attacks and explore the potential for electronic disruptions of our reeling nation’s financial system — may not lawfully be detained as an enemy combatant in the war on terror.

According to the court, we have two options: Release al-Marri and thus enable him to rejoin the jihad; or try him in the civilian criminal-justice system, where he’d be entitled to — and able to share with his confederates — the fruits of discovery from U.S. intelligence files detailing the enemy’s capabilities and plans.

The United States is not at war with the uniformed army of a sovereign nation like Germany or Japan. But we are still at war — with a transnational terror network, whose jihadist operatives are often, but not always, abetted by enemy nations.

I could not agree more with this analysis. While terrorists foreign and domestic are actively planning to launch attacks on the United States at home and abroad, we are stuck in legal battles over the legalities of how an alleged, or often admitted al Qaeda operative should be prosecuted.

Civil Liberties groups, such as the ACLU, have lead the charge in these matters. Although I do not doubt their sincere beliefs, or their desire to protect American freedoms, they have simply gone too far.

This can be seen in any number of cases, most recently the ACLU brief filed on behalf of terrorists seized by the CIA. If one steps back and thinks about this, one can only marvel at the dumb luck the terrorists must feel; witnessing an American group of lawyers prosecute the American government and American companies for helping defend us from terror. For these reasons I wrote Allah Laughs At Us.

Allah may be laughing, but I cringe.

Federal Abuse of Power

This is not good...

Captain's Quarters Blog - FBI: Over A Thousand Violations On Comm Intercepts

A spot audit conducted by the FBI found more than a thousand violations of the laws and procedures governing the intercept of communications. These results point to a much bigger problem than initially reported last March, and the audit undermines the credibility of the nation's premiere law-enforcement agency at a time when national security remains the primary concern of many Americans.

Iran: How To Ruin An Economy

Daniel W. Drezner: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if left to his own devices, will succeed in running the Iranian economy into the ground." (Courtesy, PJM)

However, the Iran's Parliament is just as capricious in its persecution of... porn stars?

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's parliament on Wednesday voted in favor of a bill that could lead to the death penalty for persons convicted of working in the production of pornographic movies.

With a 148-5 vote in favor and four abstentions, lawmakers present at the Wednesday session of the 290-seat parliament approved that "producers of pornographic works and main elements in their production are considered corrupter of the world and could be sentenced to punishment as corrupter of the world."

Don't they have anything better to do? Iran is already busy supplying weaponry to Iraqi insurgents and terrorists, and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

As an aside, I'd like to see a domestic rally here at home... a march on Washington, even - consisting of American porn stars in support of their Iranian peers.

Think of the headlines: "Silicon Valley marches on Washington," or "Deep throat comes to D.C."

Tasteless, I know...

Happy When a Terrorist May Be Freed

Who is happy?

Think Progress, that's who: BREAKING: Bush Administration Loses Major Terror Detention Case.

And their readers?

There is hope after all!!

Hope... for who? Hope for all "oppressed" terrorists out there?