U.S. attorney fail.
New Jersey nixes plan to ban Brazilian bikini waxes, return to 1970s.
More bad news on the trade protectionism front.
Data shows GOP has never been particularly interested in small government. But then again, we’ve also never really seen anything like this.
BAM! (puerile humor alert).
The NY Times editorializes on Obama’s mixed messages with respect to executive power.
So one big reason Dick Cheney was so gung-ho about executive power is because he thought only the executive was able to defend the country with any competence. Unfortunate for him that the administration he worked for provided little evidence of that.
This entry was posted
on Monday, March 23rd, 2009 at 9:46 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
New Jersey nixes plan to ban Brazilian bikini waxes, return to 1970s.
I wish I known that before I ordered this case of hair picks. Who’s going to need them now?
Zelizer refers to the Cato Institute as right wing. Hmm…I am somewhat skeptical of this man’s opinions now…
Hooha whew!
Yes! I can tell you what my super power is now!
Bam!
No offense, Radley, but did you fall for this? Seriously.
Obama hasn’t changed anything significant from Bush, except for spending far more money. I know it’s a let-down to Kool-aid drinkers (and I didn’t see you as one) that Obama’s leaving Gitmo open, staying in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. But I think around here we’re smart enough to not believe their silly reasons for not living up to the campaign promises.
I think most of us knew the promises weren’t real to begin with…
RE: New Jersey nixes plan to ban Brazilian bikini waxes;
If the people of NJ can’t be trusted to pump their own gas without fear they’ll blow up the block, why would you want them applying wax to their own genital areas without assistance?
RE: Wapo Gitmo piece;
This is an attempt by the new administration to put a halt to a “war” on terror and switch back the the clinton era ideology of dealing with terrorist attacks by police/judicial reactions. We’ve already seen how well that works, but I’m sure Islamists will quickly put aside 1500 years of a hatred theology and grudges solely because we’ve put out our hands in friendship. Terrorist training camps will soon be replaced with puppy and rainbow mills.
I think it is sad when the US attorney can’t assist a struggling man in Dubai with a simple funds transfer. I wish I had that man’s email address because I’d be interested in helping him (and, I admit, I’m interested in the money).
What’s that? Oh.
Tokin wrote “…but I’m sure Islamists will quickly put aside 1500 years of a hatred theology and grudges solely because we’ve put out our hands in friendship.”
Exactly! Americans are completely ignoring that we’ve behaved atrociously toward Muslims for at least the last 100 years and are complicit in the current state of affairs. I mean Operation Ajax alone is enough egg on America’s face to make several delicious omelette’s. We’ll have to do a lot more than just extend our hand. We might, I say might, have to actually change our foreign policy!
I hope I interpreted your post correctly.
So did Madoff really steal people’s money, or did he invest it in Dubai? Are we prosecuting the right person here? That e-mail may just be the smoking gun!!!
Stop picking on Madoff. He didn’t do anything other than what our government has been doing for the past 70 years or so.
I am glad that the wax law thing in NJ went down in flames; however, I was a little disappointed that the reasons for nixing the ban pretty much centered on opposition that said “Yes, it is a safe procedure” rather than “Hey NJ legislature — waxing of hoohas is none of your goddamned business.”
#8
No, actually you’re making the same mistake a lot of open-minded and wonderful people continue to make. I have to continually point out to people who still believe that “if only we would… whatever” they will stop hating us, that they should read anything by the theological founder of the Islamic Brotherhood (and the intellectual godfather of al-queda), Sayyid Qutb. Tell you what, go read “Social Justice in Islam” (1949, before the state of Israel existed) and see if you still buy that it’s the west’s fault that islamists don’t like you.
All that is besides the point though isn’t it? Are you really going to argue that the clinton era strategy of treating these people like criminals instead of terrorists worked? Did putting a blind sheik behind bars keep the twin towers safe? Are these people really afraid of being put in an american jail? Crap, Gitmo is a summer camp compared to the jails in saudi, you really thing they’re concerned about an american trial?
#12
Sayyid Qutb’s world view is one of many in Islam. It isn’t the only one, just as there are many Christian worldviews, and many opinions in the West about what to do about the security threat posed by militant Islam.
Yes Qutb’s twisted philosophy was resurrected in Egypt, and later adopted by Zubaydah and bin Laden in the early days of al-Qaeda. They were also using Qutb’s writing at the time to recruit jihadists to oppose the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
No one is arguing that there aren’t insular, inherently violent, imperialist strains of thinking within Islam. The question is whether U.S. foreign policy is unnecessarily pushing people to adopt those beliefs who might otherwise embrace more tolerant views. There’s no question that there are some militant Islamic leaders who want nothing short of our total destruction, regardless of our foreign policy. No one is arguing there aren’t. I would argue, however, that our foreign policy is a great recruiting tool for them. And it needn’t be that way.
Shortly after September 11, public support for al-Qaeda in the Islamic world reached all-time lows. There was much resentment against bin Laden for killing innocents, including other Muslims. It was after our invasion of Iraq that the Muslim “street” began to adopt the view that we were using the September 11 attacks as pretense for an all-out war on Islam.
The phenomenon isn’t limited to Muslims, either. I remember people adopting some pretty radical positions shortly after September 11. I heard calls for deporting all Muslims in the U.S., or putting them in camps. I believe Rich Lowry mentioned nuking Mecca. Hell, my own positions were quite a bit more antagonistic than they are now. When someone attacks you, kills your friends and family, and threatens the sanctity of your homeland, it tends to make an extremist out of you.
We’ve been dropping bombs on Islamic countries for more than six years, now. I’d argue that one of those wars was necessary, though we should have cleared out a long time ago. But it isn’t difficult to see how we’ve likely created an entire generation of militants.
Incidentally, if you read Lawrence Wright’s book (The Looming Tower), bin Laden’s goal from the start was to suck the U.S. into a protracted war that would unite much of the Muslim world against us.
He got two.
I have a little experience with Islamic fundamentalism (this is an understatement that amuses only me since I’m the only one who knows the stories). And…HEY!…you ignored the part about Operation Ajax? I use this example because people usually blather about Iran and how out of the blue they took all those hostages after we’d given so much to their country. It’s also long ago enough that all the info is right out there in the public domain. So…what was up with that?
Why are you assuming that I support Clinton’s strategy? Is this one of those “Repub vs. Dem” things? Really? Only two choices?
This isn’t a fight with one side right and one side wrong. My guess if you think it is, you’ve never been successfully married.
I’m just one of those people that thinks foreign policy matters, but I have to respect people like Tokin that don’t.
Michael Chaney-”I think most of us knew the promises weren’t real to begin with…”
Amen brother!
More puerile humor: Did you notice that the name of the woman heading the board that wants to ban the genital waxing was Rosemary Weiner? hehehehe
#13
I didn’t intend this to turn into an argument over theology, but I have to politely disagree with what i believe is the basis for your argument:
As I pointed out with Qutb (somehow Boyd Durkin managed to miss that Qutb’s theology was set long before Project Ajax), that something as insignificant as an old fashioned american crewcut hairstyle and jazz music set him off. I don’t think it matters one whit what our policy positions are, these people will find an excuse to hate us, and by “us” I mean all people unwilling to submit to Islam.
Radley might be right that over the last 8 years we’ve pushed a lot more of those on the brink over the edge. Maybe they wouldn’t have moved to afghanistan/pakistan and taken up arms if we hadn’t have invaded Iraq, but my belief is that history shows us it will always be something. If you’ll remember one of bin ladens big beefs with us was the no-fly zone in iraq and the american presence in SA, before that it was the invasion of iraq in ’91, before that it was American/french peacekeepers just being in lebanon, before that it was the creation of israel, before that it was THE BRITISH overthrow of the shaw (tossed that in for you boykin), before that it was crewcuts, before that it was…… and it goes on and on all the way back to the crusades, the spanish moors and beyond. It all boils down to the Islamic need to create a world wide caliphate. A need which started roughly 1000 years before columbus reached the new world and 1500 years before the advent of the evil american CIA.
Back to my original point though, which philosophy is more effective in keeping the US safe? Boyd is trying to twist this into a (R) vs. (D) type thing when that isn’t even close to what I said. What I said was Clinton already tried to deal with this in a criminal justice format and it didn’t work. It didn’t work in the 90′s, the 80′s, or the 70′s. It didn’t work not because he’s a (D) but because he’s was dealing with it in a reactive way instead of being proactive ala Thomas Jefferson and, to really make boykins head explode, a democrat-republican party founder. Guantanamo wasn’t designed as a place to bring wayward young muslims and put them on trial, it was a place to put them until we could figure out what to do next. That is still the question and Obama is just now figuring out there isn’t any real good answer to that one.
Imagine being the “wax inspector”.
Sorry ma’am, I’m going to have to write you up- that thing is too bare to meet regulations…
Tokin,
Who’s boykin? I hope that ain’t some weird love-child of ours. I’m flattered, maybe a little curious, but ultimately…no.
Please reread your #12 post (#1 copied below). I can only go by what you wrote and what you wrote cast me as supporting Clinton’s policy because I wasn’t supporting YOUR strategy. Criminal justice strategy? Congratulations, you defeated an argument that YOU brought up and NO ONE ELSE WAS PROMOTING. This isn’t a formal debate, but there’s some room for improvement there.
Hate, which you mention often, is one thing. “Go to war with” and “have millions of willing soldiers” are entirely different things…because I’m just not seeing the whole world with the same magnitude of problems (and they have similar hairstyles as us).
“As I pointed out with Qutb (somehow Boyd Durkin managed to miss that Qutb’s theology was set long before Project Ajax), that something as insignificant as an old fashioned american crewcut hairstyle and jazz music set him off. I don’t think it matters one whit what our policy positions are, these people will find an excuse to hate us, and by “us” I mean all people unwilling to submit to Islam. ”
So Ajax goes unanswered by Tokin (again) because Qutb’s writing? Do I need to guess why you will not answer or is it that any and all US policies are justified by Qutb’s prose and that’s that? Base your policies by reacting to Qutb (and condemning whole populations) if you will, but don’t cry when buildings fall. Fair play when “they” bomb us based on our stock of teen porn, right?
I’m surprised you “don’t think it matters one whit what our policy positions are”, because that’s real interesting (I’m not using the usual definition of “interesting” here). This is not a defensible position.
“…to really make boykins head explode” Oh no you didn’t! Here it comes: Based on what you’ve written I believe Chinese finger handcuffs would make your head explode. SNAP, girlfriend!
Thank you for listing 6 good reasons muslims have for being mad at Americans. Most Americans are having a hard time accepting that we cannot do whatever we feel like and get away with it. Americans also HATE the fact that we are “touchable”. The testing of our principles has been going on for awhile and we’re not showing much conviction as a country.
The defeat of militant Islam will come from a hand holding a pen, not a sword. Ideas can only be defeated by ideas (even if you work for the US military industrial complex…but they will try the sword thing). Did the ending of “V” teach us nothing (an idea cannot die from a bullet)? Luckily, muslims are also suffering from not addressing these issues…and luckily the peace-loving muslims are finally getting active.
Defeating a philosophy that says “all those not like us must die” should be pretty darn easy. Stronger, more efficient philosophies win over weaker, less efficient ones. However; I believe it is by following Tokin’s policies (and others like him) that the US can continue to snatch defeat from victory.
#1. “Are you really going to argue that the clinton era strategy of treating these people like criminals instead of terrorists worked?” (me: uhmmm…no.)
The defeat of militant Islam will come from a hand holding a pen, not a sword…. Defeating a philosophy that says “all those not like us must die” should be pretty darn easy.
Neville Chamberlain’s pen sure crushed Nazism, didn’t it?
#19 | Boyd Durkin | March 23rd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
”
Tokin,
Who’s boykin? I hope that ain’t some weird love-child of ours. I’m flattered, maybe a little curious, but ultimately…no.”
ROFLMAO!!!
Absolute Hilarity
Thank you.