Birthdays

Cheetah is 71.

Bob Novak is 72.

Just so you can tell them apart.

What Is A Terrorist Act?

More importantly, why did the FBI label that July 4, 2002 LAX shootings a terrorist act? The shooter was shot and killed himself during the incident, so there was no reason to classify the shooting for purposes of criminal prosecution.

The A.P. reports:

An Egyptian immigrant who opened fire inside Los Angeles International Airport committed an act of terrorism, but he did it alone and was not tied to any terrorist organizations, federal officials have determined.

Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, 41, killed two people at the ticket counter of El Al, Israel's national airline, and wounded several others in the Fourth of July attack before he was fatally shot by an airline security guard.

The Department of Justice had withheld characterizing the shooting while federal agents launched a worldwide investigation. They determined it was terrorism related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, said Matthew McLaughlin, an FBI spokesman in Los Angeles.

"The investigation developed information that he openly supported the killings of civilians in order to advance the Palestinian cause," McLaughlin said.

The question is: what makes this a terrorist attack? The FBI says that Hadayet supported pro-Palestinian violence, and Hadayet attacked people at the ticket counter of an Israeli airline. But clearly Hadayet's views were not known to anyone he encountered during the incident, and he left no public statement about his actions or his motive for them. There's nothing to suggest that Hadayet believed his actions would have any political or societal consequence.

So why did the FBI feel it necessary to label Hadayet's actions? Is it to establish a broad definition which could be used to label more crimes as "terrorist," so as to broaden the scope of federal jurisdiction? Maybe to increase the availability of the death penalty, or to deny other criminal suspects due process rights?

Under the F.B.I.'s definition, the killer of Dr. Barnett Slepian is a terrorist because he previously voiced anti-abortion views and then killed a doctor who performed abortions. Will the Justice Department apply the F.B.I.'s definition of terrorism to such cases?

Chinese Mata Hari ensnares ex-FBI men

This may be a record for the Father's Paper, at least outside a Bill Sammon article.

In a mere six words, the Times manages not only to be racist and sexist but also to get three important facts wrong. Leung is a naturalized American citizen of Chinese descent, not "Chinese." (Identifying Leung as Chinese is as accurate as identifying Reverend Moon as "an American criminal" just because he served time in a U.S. prison.) And the gentlemen in question were not "ex-FBI men" at the time of their alleged sexual involvement with Leung. And, of course, there is no evidence or allegations that Leung "ensnared" either man into anything.

Inexplicably, the normally-thorough Times failed to mention Leung's extensive ties to the Republican Party, her work as a Republican fund-raiser or her ties with Bush-endorsed candidates Bill Simon and Dick Riordan.

Dancing With Himself

In addition to confirming that Michael Kelly was the wrong person to invite to your wedding, William Powers of the National Journal also reveals, inadvertently, that the tiny dancer was a tiny fraud:

"[Kelly] drove people crazy. In his Washington Post columns, he settled into a style one might call the scorched-earth polemic, in which he made it clear that anyone who disagreed with him on the subject at hand was not just wrong, not just misguided, but deeply, irredeemably corrupt. Yet he had a mild, tolerant personality, and his own political views were more complicated and interesting than he ever let on in those columns. I know, from countless liquid conversations in the Madison Hotel bar, that his political pantheon included such names as Roosevelt and Moynihan and that some of his views had a decidedly old-liberal cast. But he mostly kept those ideas to himself, didn't take on those issues or use them to modulate his fierce public persona. Why? Because he didn't want to be just another media smoothie, one of those who clip and trim their arguments in order to remain in the club.

Amazing. Powers asserts that Kelly, who was in fact a prosperous member of the media "club" because of his mastery of the simplistic, vitrolic argument was really more intelligent than he let on. However, Kelly deliberately kept his complicated and interesting arguments out of print because he "didn't want to be just another media smoothie." In other words, Kelly "clipped and trimmed" his arguments in order to appear less complicated and more of a wing-nut than he really was. So he could appear to be outside of the club in which he was a prominent member.

Powers inadvertently confirms MWO's Kool Kids thesis, stating that Kelly "was in some of the media's best clubs." (Meaning, of course, the same ones Powers is in.) But Powers also asserts, schizophrenically, that Kelly wasn't "of" those clubs, and was an "outsider," even though those clubs "rewarded and even cherished him." You can't have it both ways.

In the end, Powers is saying his friend Kelly was a fraud and hypocrite who thought his readers were too stupid for a complex argument, and who maintained a right-wing persona just to stay in with the Kool Kids.

Well, if you say so, Bill.

O'Reilly's Dittospanks Bark Like The Trained Poodles They Are

From OC Weekly:

Those who don�t read the [Orange County] Register might be shocked to learn that the paper�s editorial writers�usually lockstep defenders of anything Republican�have bravely opposed the war in Iraq. Steven Greenhut, for example, has described the U.S. invasion as "nuts," bashed President George W. Bush for "treating the war in such a simplistic way," and fired back at fellow right-wingers�O�Reilly included�who say it�s un-American to speak against the war.

"Criticism of the war, while bombs are flying and coalition troops are under fire, makes me a �bad� American, according to a certain blow-hard commentator whose idea of tough journalism is badgering guests with comments such as, �Come on, Mr. So and So, you really don�t believe blah, blah, blah,�" Greenhut wrote in a March 30 column.

The Fox commentator�s Orange County fans were not pleased.

"As you might expect, the O�Reilly people are irrational," Greenhut told the Weekly. "Their phone calls and e-mail tirades accuse me of being un-American and [tell me] to shut up."

And here's Murdoch's own Monica, issuing his "Talking Points" to his moronic minions (via MWO):

Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up.

Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me.

Says O'Reilly: "Good doggies! Now go and buy my book. Fetch!"

Mickey Kaus' Pickup Lines For Neocons

"Even bad sex is fun."

And he's got eyewitnesses to prove it.

Little Mick also links to a story at AutoWeek Online.

Auto Week --- isn't that what his father's friends call Mickey?

(Inspired by a true story at TBogg.)

Roger will return to full-fledged blogging on Saturday morning. And during my next absence I'll post a somewhat funny story about interrupting Eric Clapton while he ate lunch at the Del Taco in El Cajon. I'm sure you'll all enjoy it.

Although I consider myself a First Amendment absolutist, I agree with the majority of the Court that a state can criminalize the act of burning a cross with an intent to intimidate.

(Justice O'Connor's opinion for the Court even manages to mangle the Court's intended holding. O'Connor says "the First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation." That should read "The First Amendment does not prohibit....," since the amendment prohibits rather than authorizes certain government actions.)

I disagree with Sandy O. when she says "a burning cross is not always intended to intimidate." In American society and tradition, the only expressive meaning of a burning cross displayed in public is a threat. The closest parallels I can think of are brandishing a weapon or making a slit-your-throat gesture, although even those actions -- unlike burning a cross -- could have "innocent" meanings (brandishing in self-defense; the gesture as a non-violent joke or comment).

My fear was/is that Justice Scalia and like-minded jurists could use the Court's holding as an excuse to expand restrictions on expressive speech they don't like, such as flag burning, which may offend but does not threaten. But thugs like Scalia don't bother with justifying their actions. (See Bush v. Gore, 121 S.Ct. 525 (2000).)

But seriously -- They take these 'dexters on a two-day road trip to Springfield but they can't cross the fucking road to find a restaurant? Someone needs to help Superintendent Hardt with his ass-covering skills.

But I'm sure it was a nice opportunity for the kids to meet their Illinois State Representatives.

(Via TBogg, to whom I would have just linked, but Blogger won't allow me.)

The Insect Fog Of War

Does this mean that Saddam's supplier for Weapons of Mass Destruction is Chemical Tom D?

Could that be why Chemical Tom D refuses to identify his profession in his official bio?

If You Seek His Monument, Look At His Columns

Bob Somerby and Scoobie Davis make the important point that the true measure of Michael Kelly, at least for persons who care about the integrity of journalism, is the content of his work. By that measure, Kelly came up very short. Kelly may have been a charming man when he was sitting around gossiping and swapping Clinton cock jokes with MoDo and P.J. O'Rourke. But, as Somerby and Davis point out, his public legacy is one of rabid, bitter and inaccurate screeds against President Clinton and Vice President Gore.

Half-Assery In Academia

Speaking of dumbasses at NRO, TAPPED catches this giant boner by National Review contributor Candace de Russy. De Russy complains about some supposedly wack liberal theory which is "gaining prominence" at Princeton's law school. The only problem is that Princeton doesn't have a law school.

D'oh!

Maybe while De Russy is fighting liberal movements at phantom schools she could take some time and clean up the corruption at the no doubt intellectually diverse Air Force Academy, where she sits on the Board of Visitors.

"Justice Scalia Is Clearly Bent...."

You said it, Bill, not me.

This is a bit old by now, but I haven't seen any comments on William F. Buckley's call for the repeal of Texas's law criminalizing gay sex (aka sodomy). It's clear from the piece that Buckley's main motivation is the fear that the Supreme Court will recognize a fundamental privacy right for gay men and lesbians to engage in sexual activity. And his view of Texas law enforcement is certainly delusional idealized. But the old lizard does say that "the facts of the matter weigh against Texas" and "it's hard to defend what the Texans did."

I picture much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the Bigot Brigade -- Goldberg, Dreher, Derbyshire and Lopez -- at NRO's Corner. But did any of them have the courage to slam the old man for his objectively pro-sodom stand?

Meet Your Liberal Media

Tired of maintaining its pretense of non-partisanship, GENBC discloses that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the G.O.P.:

"Erstwhile Washington political pollster Frank Luntz got a rude awakening while traversing the globe to conduct focus groups on the Iraqi war."

"Mr. Luntz's focus sessions on behalf of NBC in Egypt, the West Bank and Israel went off without a hitch, but the pollster wasn't so lucky in Turkey, where he suddenly found himself 'embedded' with antiwar demonstrators." (Emphasis added)

Dick Of The Week

The idiot believes that "it was the hand of God that put them there, one behind me, one to my left. They were there to protect me." So God also wanted these men to get shot in the head and arm.

Sounds like the same God in whom the Confederates placed their trust.

Sully Gets His Wish

On Saturday, Sully posts, as his "EMAIL OF THE DAY," the following:

"What a hysterical notion. The British public 'own' the BBC. We have no control over what they broadcast. We cannot watch any other channel without having first paid them their state-agreed and legally enforced dues. The fact that the collection of this is at arms-length from the state does not disguise the fact that they only exist (and expand) because every house, flat and student digs that wishes to receive ANY TV broadcast has to pay the BBC a hefty bounty first AT THE BEHEST OF THE STATE. And, to make matters worse, the whole of British broadcasting is hamstrung by �impartiality� rules that prevent the likes of SKY News and other independents from saying what they really should (want to be?) be saying. I very much hope that one of the "casualties" of war will be the BBC. Yours, a very fed-up Londoner." (Emphasis added.)

Today, from the BBC:

The BBC's world affairs editor John Simpson was accompanying a convoy of US special forces and Kurdish fighters when it come under attack from an American warplane.

At least 10 people were killed, including a Kurdish translator working with the BBC team, Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed.

A number of American soldiers also perished in the incident.

A proud day for internet journalism.

Rebel Hell

A group of Georgia lawmakers propose changing the State flag to another version of the Confederate flag. The new hate flag "would resemble the first national flag of the Confederacy -- three red and white bars, with a blue field in the top left corner. The state seal would be in the blue corner, and the words 'In God We Trust' would be written to the right."

In other words, the proposal is to adopt a Confederate flag -- not a Georgia flag -- other than the Confederate battle flag. Georgia voters would approve or reject the "first national flag" in a March 2004 referendum. If that flag was rejected, voters would choose between the Confederate battle flag version and the pre-1956 State flag. What voters won't be allowed to choose is the flag that replaced the racist battle flag.

So the grand "compromise," approved by Gov. Sonny Perdue, is essentially to give voters a choice of two symbols -- either the symbol of a racist nation's army or the symbol of racist nation's central government.

Can't Georgia find anything to celebrate about itself other than its own racist past -- and present?

Brett Bozell Wank Watch

Brett "Smackdown" Bozell is down with the lingo of the kids today:

Moments after she drops an F-bomb in the song, (�F*** it!�) Madonna pulls the pin on a grenade and throws it at a George W. Bush look-alike. The look-alike picks up the grenade -- and lights his cigar with it.

He's not much of a judge of talent though:

[Madonna's] an accomplished actress.

What the f***?!?