What Joshua Foust speaks of in regards to the great deal of incredibly loud and pointless chatter about the Afghan elections is actually how I’ve grown to feel about blogging.

Much of the time I no longer feel comfortable spending a fair amount of time offering relatively uninformed opinions on current topics that I don’t have a formal training in or firsthand experience of.

So much of the blogosphere is a well-meaning bout of “I don’t really know but let me throw this out here for you all” type of conversation. Its good 10% of the time for fostering ideas, challenging a prevailing narrative, etc. but you still have that 90% that is pure cotton candy.

The medical helicopter industry is one that my father has spent much of his post-Army career in as a lead mechanic. The kinds of shenanigans discussed in this Washington Post story are all too well-known in our family, especially because we suffered financially on numerous occasions when my father would cease employment with a company he felt was risking the lives of crew and patients by demanding steep, untenable cuts to repair budgets or to toe the line on safety regs (or just outright violate them) in order to obtain more profit. My father has an old-school character of integrity and stubbornness that seemed to prevent him from taking such blatant defiance of common safety sense lightly or quietly.

People die as a result of such short-sighted decisions, and the FAA and others do very little about it in this industry. Maybe, maybe that will change, as this article seems to imply.

In my time in the Navy, my convictions about the need for stringent aviation regulation for carriers and providers serving the public was reinforced by the instances of “gundecking” (falsification of maintenance documents) that seemed to happen every month on the ship, sometimes leading to terrible near or actual mishaps. Always, the sailor responsible was held to account in a manner which was highly detrimental to their immediate finances, reputation among the crew and career. Yet, many of these instances were people who just “didn’t feel like doing it” or who “got in too deep and didn’t ask for help”.

Now, if sailors are willing to risk literally everything (from money to career) for mundane reasons, I am supposed to believe ardent de-regulators and reflexively anti-government forces that the FAA and assorted regulations are unnecessary or too powerful?  There may be a good rationale for de-regulation in other industries, but we need a much, much more powerful FAA or a private organization replacing it in the future with incentives to harshly police the aviation industry on such matters.

Background:

Arguing that DNA and forensic evidence points to a prison inmate who has confessed as the sole perpetrator of the crimes, they called on Gov. Tim Kaine to pardon the sailors.

“After careful review of the evidence we have arrived at one unequivocal conclusion: The Norfolk Four are innocent,” said Jay Cochran, a former assistant director of the F.B.I. and former special agent who served at the bureau for 27 years. “We believe a tragic mistake has occurred in the case of these four Navy men, and we are calling on Governor Kaine to grant them immediate pardons.”

The former agents join a long list of unusual supporters, including four former Virginia attorneys general; 12 former state and federal judges and prosecutors; and a past president of the Virginia Bar Association, who have called for the men to be pardoned.

In January 2006, 13 jurors from two of the sailors’ trials signed letters and affidavits saying they now believed the men were innocent.

Governor Kaine concedes the evidence against three Norfolk sailors convicted of rape and murder was sorely lacking and has conditionally pardoned them today.
Thank God. The Norfolk Four are now free.

The Attack on the Liberty: The Untold Story of Israel’s Deadly 1967 Assault on a U.S. Spy Ship

James Scott writes a painfully vivid account of what is now known about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. I emphasize the word “attack” because “friendly fire” incidents don’t occur over an hour with rockets, napalm, and cannon on a lightly defended ship with an American ensign waving in the afternoon sky.

The heroism of the crew is rightly legendary, if not highlighted in American naval history in the manner the bravery and ingenuity of other recent crews on the USS Cole & USS Stark has been considered. Scott handles these particulars as well as he unfolds the aftermath, weaving together opinions from the Israeli Ambassador to the US about the need for accountability and apology to the sailors and their families and the stifled indignation of many an American government official of the time at soft-pedaling Israel’s responsibility and never letting the truth put the issue to rest.

Scott steps into a minefield of lies, distortions and murky agendas without falling prey to undue recriminations or relatively baseless accusations. He lays calm, clear fire at several people in the government who (given the evidence available now after several vital pieces of evidence were declassified) appear to be the most culpable in hiding the truth both from the public and the sailors whose lives were irrecoverably changed on that dark day.

In an era where an Israeli attack on Iran’s hostile nuclear sites could provoke a lethal response from the Islamic Republic and its proxies that take the lives of hundreds of Americans in the days and weeks afterward, clearing up the USS Liberty attack via an investigation by an independent commission empowered by the government to view all relevant evidence and clear up this the lies and deceptions inherent in the official account of the murder of dozens of US sailors by our ally.

A few links help answer the following questions or points raised in response to discussion of the attack:
(A) this is all in the past, why bring it up? (B) its only fodder for anti-Semites and other opponents (C) this will further imperil US-Israeli relations

James Scott responds to letter-writers in the Washington Post:

Recent revelations find USS Liberty survivors speaking out:

In 2008, the VFW has passed a resolution demanding an official inquiry into the attack.

Our sailors richly deserve for the government to stop lying to them. The dead are entitled to be honored for valor in combat, not in a “friendly fire” accident. The nation deserves to have justice for the needless shedding of its defenders’ blood, in the form of at least an official accounting and apology from the Israeli government as well as our own. To do otherwise in the face of mounting evidence is to disgrace the sailors who endured an unwarranted assault and saved their ship with as many of  their shipmates as possible.

“The Ayatollah Begs To Differ”:

Have the recent events in Iran rendered much of the insight and analysis in Hooman Maid’s journey through Iranian society and political arena? After a second cursory follow through from a first read in May, I don’t think that is the case.

Maid has a pedigree and appearance that seems to have helped open more doors for him than the typical writer about Iran has available, while retaining an affinity with the lower classes and wealthy alike. He’s the grandson of an ayatollah and has the beard of a religious man, though he has close ties to former President and reformer Mohammad Khatami. He is remarkably evenhanded in his approach towards Ahmadinejad, which is beneficial because it fosters a pragmatic appraisal of one of the more important faces of the new Iranian junta post 6/12.

Scattered throughout his peeks into Iranian society are a few fascinating points and arguments worth sharing:

- Ahmadinejad engages in Holocaust denials as a means to humiliate the Europeans by forcing them to admit to their barbarism (“How could such a great civilization do such a thing? Surely you’re not monsters?)and acknowledge their fathers were mass murderers, reminding Iranians and Arabs alike of who the real monsters in history have been. (43)
- After the Shah’s fall, the typical urban gangs were co-opted by clerical backed paramilitary committees (Komiteh). (25)
- The providing of free education to the children of Basiji establishes a powerful relationship between the regime and its violent legions. (29) Also, programs to populate the universities with the poor, the deeply religious and the underprivileged are changing the character of the educated classes (114).
- The more literal interpretation of Shia mythology observed in deeply religious families is a new concept in Iranian history and culture. (85)
- The hardliners introduced into government by Ahmadinejad since 2005 will likely be a fixture long after he has left the scene. (103)
- The question of rights, fundamental to Shia Islam, is explosive in the sense that attempts to deprive Iranians of them (besides alleged token few like clothing choices) can backfire on the regime in power. (118)
- “… the most moderate, and even the most liberal reformist clerics are united in their firm belief that the revolution was pure, that Khomeini’s views on a political system were sound, and that any democracy in Iran will always be an Islamic one.” (158)
- (Before 6/12), The Abu Ghraib scandal, CIA rendition cases, and the Guantanamo detention facility gave Iran, but also its prisoners, an unexpected boost in the years after 9/11 in that Iran, in order to show its moral superiority, continually trumpets the treatment of its prisoners as comparing most favorably to those in American hands. (184)
- Khatami’s failure was to not promote a single successor. (195)
- Shias have long been taught to not provoke their enemies, who in olden days were the Sunni majority surrounding them…. Shia concerns with avoiding conflict that could mean the annihilation of the minority sect(233).
- Iranians are often adroitly reminded by their leaders that when their soon to be deposed prime minister Mossadeq nationalized the Iranian oil industry, in effect demanding their right to the profits from their own oil, the British responded publicly, and at the UN no less, that Iran’s exercise of its right was a “threat to the security of the world,” words that have been repeated by the US in response to Iran exercising its right, haq, as far as Iranians are concerned, to produce nuclear fuel. (235)
- US attempt to pinpoint Iranian machinations behind insurgency foiled by (a) little proof being offered to back up claims and (b) unexploded bombs and shells were displayed with markings, in a perfect English lacking even on unfortunate Iranian road signs (c) dates of manufacture stenciled onto the bombs were not only in English but in the American form (that is month, day, year) rather than in the Iranian (and rest of the world’s) standard format. (236)

All points being debatable, Maid nevertheless leaves the reader with food for thought given potential US approaches towards Iran post 6/12 and how internal events might proceed. The loss of legitimacy by the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary Guard junta that seems to have co-opted other elements into a seizure of power may yet have dramatic negative consequences if the narrative of the reformers begins to appeal to a wider section of society that feels for religious, nationalist and business reasons the regime can no longer enjoy their support. A multi-pronged message will need to be crafted (as it appears is the case) with a patient investment in resources to begin to sour the population on the regime much as Ayatollah Khomeni sapped the strength of the Shah over more than a year.

The book has one notable weakness that should not deflect the reader from at least considering a library check-out:
- it lacks much insight (or giving a voice to) regarding Iranian women, who by most available measures in the post 6/12 world seem to be playing a much greater role in events than previously considered

Post 6/12, this is still a good read on Iranian society and politics.
B+

Fires are weird creatures. Once they start, if not properly fought with the correct strategy, they can get out of hand fairly quickly. Fought halfheartedly or with inadequate resources, they often become raging infernos comparable to the scale of the location they are in.

For months, a slow-burning fire has spread amid conservative partisans around the country. Licks of flame have been spotted at town hall meetings, state party conventions and even national media outlets, but only in recent weeks has the fire truly begun to be visible to most without even looking for it. That fire has been the suspicion that Barack Obama was not really born in the US, that he may be a secret emissary of Islam and that he is some odd hybrid of fascist/Marxist/terrorist intent on destroying America. While all three variants are out there in the public eye at various gatherings, popular blogs and even being uttered or suggested to an extent by allegedly respectable politicians, the first has been the one which has garnered the most momentum.

It is now a near-act of courage for conservative institutions like National Review and well-regarded commentators and analysts such as Rick Moran to speak out against the fantasy-based dreams/nightmares of Obama’s non-citizenship. Check out the YouTube video of Delaware Republican Congressman Mike Castle being overwhelmed by a proponent of the fantasy and her many supporters in the crowd. Think that was a planned conspiracy to ambush him? In reality, it is likely the increasing feeling of a significant element in the “base” of conservatism. People want Obama to just go away. The fastest, easiest way to get there would be some great scandal or revelation about him. The best thing to latch onto then is the birth scandal. Facts seemingly are not required.

With a few Senators and popular talk radio hosts encouraging them, they are ignoring their more responsible brethern and giving into a fit of populist rage and fantasy.

A more insighful gentleman told me in another venue something to the effect
“that Jacksonians are prone to conspiracies” . He is right, but I wonder at what cost to conservative credibility will this conspiracy entail?

I am not familiar with how widespread among liberals the belief that Bush was behind 9/11 was. I do know that wherever they went spreading that lie, they were often forcefully pushed back by their bretheren. Now that sane conservatives are finally doing the same, will this myth go back to being a fringe belief of the few or will it continue to spread, like the seemingly raging fire it has become in recent weeks?

Portraying Marine Lt. Col. Michael Strobl, Kevin Bacon escorts a slain Marine home to Wyoming to be buried by his family. The film is stirring and faithful to the people it focuses on through minimized dialogue (making it remarkably brief, demanding perhaps more detail) and effective cinematography, especially adept in showing the level of effort and detail people in the military take to render honors and respect to their fallen comrades.

Along his journey escorting PFC Chance Phelps home, Lt. Col Strobl interacts with a great many Americans who already know of or soon realize his singular duty. Their parts are exceptionally played and make the movie so effective because they portray what many a veteran of this generation has come to realize. That is, we know the overwhelming majority of Americans from all walks of life treat the military with respect and grace. This is not the 1960’s/1970’s all over again. May those days never return for the vitriol and hatred targeted at ordinary men and women serving their country as best they can.

“Taking Chance” shows how we have moved on as a country from those days and is well-worth your viewing time.

(No surprise).

Professor Henry Louis Gates does himself no favors by insisting he is the unfortunate victim of racist police behavior. Not only does he do a disservice to himself, he hurts us all by not arguing the more compelling point of being arrested for being argumentative or abrasive with a police officer in his own home. No citizen should be the victim of police overstepping their legal bounds in such a fashion.

Misunderstandings happen.  Gates was arrested for what can only be considered “contempt of cop” (barring some type of evidence that Gates threatened violence or had a weapon to assault the officer) on one’s own property. That is the real problem, that is the real stupidity.

No matter how decorated or professional a cop, you can’t expect to overstep your bounds and not get hassled and criticized for it. I don’t give a damn if Gates called him every obscenity in the book and screamed it at the top of his lungs, after his identity was established as the lawful resident of the home, it is the police officer’s duty and the citizen’s expectation that he apologize to Gates for the misunderstanding and go back on patrol preventing actual criminals from assaulting law-abiding citizens.

Gates has the right to lose his temper at a misunderstanding in his own home,  and even to be a pandering race baiter (which his behavior and comments increasingly indicate). The police officer does not. Its his very job as a law enforcement figure trusted to use lethal force to use the best judgment at all times and face the consequences for not doing so.

In reality, the police are rarely held to proper account for misconduct. We need only look at recent cases of serious police misbehavior to see how lightly their screw-ups are taken by the authorities.

State Trooper Assaults Paramedic While Ailing Man Goes Untreated in the “bus”- Gets 5 Day Suspension….

Cops Concoct Utterly Bogus Reason For Breaking Into Home

Chicago Cop Savagely Beats Female Bartender- Gets Probation

Denver Cop Brandishes Gun At McDonald’s Worker For Slow Order (on Video no less!)- Only gets suspended leave

David Rothkopf:

America’s feisty secretary of state launched the current battle when she suggested that her experience as a mother had prepared her to deal with the likes of the North Koreans, recommending that they be ignored like “small children or unruly teenagers.” While you’ve got to wonder how Chelsea felt, being compared to the deranged nuke-wielding ruler of a nation of zombie-slaves, her comments obviously struck a nerve with the Dear Leader.

Zombie-slaves only had it worse in Hitler’s camps. Give ‘em hell Hillary, keep baiting their pathetic inferiority complexes.

According to the NYT editorial board, because a few concealed carry permit holders in the past two years have committed violent crimes,  we should all oppose an effort by Senator John Thune (R-SD) to standardize concealed carry laws across the country.

Editorial:

Proponents of Senator Thune’s attempt to create the equivalent of a national concealed carry system claim it would reduce crime. But the evidence shows otherwise. Between May 2007 and April 2009, people holding concealed handgun permits killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens, according to a new study by the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy organization. Other examples of crimes committed by concealed-carry licensees are plentiful.

The height of arrogance is to presume people who have basic mathmatical and reasoning skills will swallow such drivel wholeheartedly. Out of the millions of concealed carry permit holders in the country, there were just 51 homicides (heck, I’ll spot the NYT 50 more homicides) in two years?

Perhaps dating from my time in the Navy there exists a now firm hatred of racist nonsense that prevents me from tolerating or making light of racism in all cases. I find the PC movement in this country to be more dangerous on balance, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept stupidity being spewed by others.

So my reaction to the election of the publicly racist, ignorant and pathetically dishonest Audra Shay as leader of the Young Republicans is anger and betrayal. I have attended Young Republican functions in the past in Washington and NC and nearly always came away impressed with the intelligence, acumen and good nature of the members I spoke with. These are people who would serve the country well whether in politics, business, academia or in the military, as outstanding members of society. I don’t get that impression when I read about Audra Shay, who posted disgustingly vile remarks about other Americans, agreed with similar comments by Facebook friends in response and then disingenuously tried to cover it up from other YR members and the public by scrubbing her pages of the offending remarks.

A selection from the liberal “The Daily Beast” (who collected evidence of Shay’s vapidity)

Specifically, a thread where one of her friends posts that “Obama Bin Lauden [sic] is the new terrorist… Muslim is on there side [sic]… need to take this country back from all of these mad coons… and illegals,” and Shay responds eight minutes later with: “You tell em Eric! lol.”

…….

* In October 2008, in the wake of news that an effigy of Sarah Palin was being hung outside an affluent Hollywood home as an offensive Halloween decoration, Shay replied, returning to the “LOL” style that she employed after the “coons” comment: “What no ‘Obama in a noose? Come on now, its just freedome [sic] of speech, no one in Atlanta would take that wrong! Lol.”

She picked up the thread again the next morning with a clarification and a new insight. “Apparently I could not spell last night. I am wondering if the guys with the Palin noose would care if we had a bunch of homosexuals in a noose.”

* Posting and endorsing a conspiracy-theory video that attempts to prove that Obama believes he can only “ensure his own salvation” and “fate” if he helps African Americans above whites, complete with Barnum-esque captions (“LISTEN AS HE ATTACKS WHITE PEOPLE”).

Now someone may say… “oh that’s not racist”. Well, that’s debatable. I guarantee that if a candidate for higher office were found to have made such statements in this day and age, they would be found unfit by many of their own supporters and be discarded. Only a few manage to hang on, and usually because they manage to mix their beyond the pale sentiments with frequently intelligent or at least notable commentary, ideas or actions. Shay is most assuredly not one of these people. Yet, she has been elected as the (38 year old national leader) of the Young Republicans.

I would disagree with the Daily Beast and others who initially characterized Shay as “The GOP’s Hatemonger” . John P. Avlon (Mayor Rudy’s chief speechwriter for many years) wrote that story and is most assuredly not a liberal smear artist of conservative causes. So that is not my criticism of how it was portrayed at first. Rather, it seems a common theme of narratives in the media and blogosphere that if one member of a group or organization does something, then it must reflect most or all of that organization’s true feelings. That most assuredly is not true.

However!

Shay is now “The GOP’s Hatemonger” because the Young Republicans looked at what she did, looked at what was written, looked at how utterly counterproductive to their message of inclusion and respect her election would be, and still voted for her ahead of several other, viable candidates (most of whom are actually, well, “young”, unlike Shay).

That is not only disgraceful in itself, but almost emblematic of the kind of rampant disavowal of reality that is ongoing in the party, where a majority of GOP voters are still convinced Sarah Palin is their preferred presidential candidate for 2012 (over well, actually qualified and accomplished leaders like Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, etc). They cannot be serious! Sadly, they are.

The Wall Street Journal describes the film’s strongest point:

The horror of what people face back in North Korea gives “Crossing” the kind of suspense Hollywood cannot manufacture. The film concentrates on several stories of yearning. One concerns a group of North Koreans who have been helped by missionaries in northeastern China to plan an escape via a 10-day trip. The longest leg includes a harrowing train trip through China where a hidden camera shows police roaming the cars looking for defectors to arrest. Crossing the border into Laos is horrible in another way, featuring a grueling trek, often without food or fresh water, through the jungle. A little boy falls deathly ill.

Watch for free online here. There are few better ways to spend an hour of time this summer.

Watching this reminded me that I have not been active of late in meager attempts to improve the lot of  others.

In recent years, I have successfully mixed duties to the Navy with part-time activism on behalf of Dar Fur (a hopeless situation that leads into the apocalyptic tragedy a Southern Sudan independence vote will create in 2011), Iraqi interpreters for American soldiers (and the GI’s trying to save their lives by bringing them to America) and the Burmese refugees who survived horrors few Americans can grasp to become newcomers to the Seattle area in 2007.

Since then, I have focused on personal pursuits, work, school and marriage. I don’t feel bad about this emphasis of late, but I do feel I should do more that goes beyond writing a check now and then or communicating my feelings via blog posts or a letter to the editor from time to time.

I have almost two years of classes remaining for my undergrad degrees. I am certain with work out of the picture for a while I can find the time to evolve how I can help others. So I intend to start a campus group this fall centering on this tragedy, with the hope of spreading it in time to the other campuses of the UNC-system. I want to align with local churches and associations to be a persistent pain in the ass of my elected representatives until they are half the advocate for North Koreans Senator Sam Brownback has been. That isn’t asking for too much, but with him leaving next year, people have to start taking up the slack or it will fall off the radar in Washington.

Given the state of the economy and the situations in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere, why would President Obama appear in Ghana now? Perhaps he intends to build on the progress in a new America-sub-Saharan Africa relationship that George W. Bush started. Bush reset the relationship in the sense of beginning to rebuild trust and respect between America and the nations of Africa.

Where Clinton and others had acted with condescension and brazen disregard for sub-Saharan African opinions, Bush made serious efforts (one of the few bright spots in his foreign policy that most can agree on) to establish:

* lasting relationships (via pragmatic efforts like the MCA to reward governments which served their people well)

* to make enduring contributions to African peace and prosperity (through support for trade initiatives, mediation efforts in Kenya, Liberia and Sierra Leone and earnestly pushing and prodding the AU forces in Darfur to do more with US/NATO logistical support)

* to renew America’s commitment to improved health in sub-Saharan Africa via the greatest investment ever in anti-AIDS efforts and the eradication of malaria.

While destructive or regressive policies existed, often to great disaster (Somalia, Northern Uganda, Darfur), the positives outweigh the negatives by far.

Now Obama moves forward into the next stage, taking advantage of his unique attributes to prod sub-Saharan African leaders and elites into giving up the excuses of the past. As he currently enjoys immense popularity among the masses in many countries there, he has a bully pulpit unlike any other president in order to hold these leaders to a higher standard and impart new narratives about governance, responsibility and progress. Its entirely too early to know if he can build on Bush’s progress in this area in a lasting fashion, but messages like these surely cannot hurt:

But despite the progress that has been made — and there has been considerable progress in many parts of Africa — we also know that much of that promise has yet to be fulfilled. Countries like Kenya had a per capita economy larger than South Korea’s when I was born. They have badly been outpaced. Disease and conflict have ravaged parts of the African continent.

In many places, the hope of my father’s generation gave way to cynicism, even despair. Now, it’s easy to point fingers and to pin the blame of these problems on others. Yes, a colonial map that made little sense helped to breed conflict. The West has often approached Africa as a patron or a source of resources rather than a partner. But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants. In my father’s life, it was partly tribalism and patronage and nepotism in an independent Kenya that for a long stretch derailed his career, and we know that this kind of corruption is still a daily fact of life for far too many.

President Obama in Ghana, 10 July 2009.

If society hates sex offenders so much, and fears them so greatly that it passes laws that essentially deny them a Constitutional right to life and well-being, why doesn’t it just go through with this destructive logic to the bitter end and execute them for their crimes?

Roadside Camp for Miami Sex Offenders:

Due to a county ordinance, sex offenders cannot reside anywhere near 2,500 feet of where children gather. Parole officers, in the course of doing their job, typically struggle to find any acceptable residence for sex offenders. The result is a disaster like this one in Miami, where they live homeless existences, “off the grid”.

These laws are usually driven by politicians seeking to bludgeon their opponents with hysteric charges of “soft on crime”, created with little concern or thought about the effects of the law on society in general and the offenders in particular. The extreme laws passed in Georgia in 2007 were so absurd that multiple law enforcement schools in the state not known for their “liberal” tendencies in law enforcement decried them as counterproductive and harmful.

So while state and federal courts continually have to overturn these outrageous laws, the effects are crystal clear on the impedance of law enforcement officials to fulfill their responsibilities and on society’s responsibility under the Constitution to all members, even those who committed a terrible act.

Given that the 80’s left collectively lost its mind, its not surprising to see the first iteration of 21st Century conservatism lose its bearings to its own ideals, principles and even basic reality (hey torture, high deficits, corruption and gross ideological preferences over meritocracy was okay for 8 years, but not anymore!). In a few years, the younger generation of exceptional conservative thinkers will finally have more influence and restore conservatism to greatness.

Exhibit #1940324 of the collapse of intelligence and principles in conservatism is Andy McCarthy’s pathetic shilling for the oppressive, racist Chinese treatment of its Uighur minority. Since others say it far better than I can beyond that, allow me to share a smattering of the disapproval his idiocy provoked:

Joshua Foust of Registan:

Maybe if Uighurs are terrorists, McCarthy should ask former President Bush why he was so close with Rebiya Kadeer—the Uighur activist who DOES argue, quite eloquently, that the Han Chinese create an intolerable living situation for the Uighurs in Xinjiang. Or maybe he could accuse all Han Chinese of terrorism, since some surrounded a Uighur man in Urumqi and attempted to beat him to death, until they spotted an ABC news crew and attacked it as well.

The Gormogons:
Unless Mr. McCarthy is willing to state a belief that all Muslims worldwide are necessarily given to religious fanaticism and hatred, he should withdraw his statement implying Uyghurs are inherently violent because they’re Muslims. If not, National Review should inform him that he no longer need comment on affairs touching on Islam, since they can be adequately expressed in the simple equation, “Muslims are bad” which can be easily appended under his name to any discussion of world affairs with a simple keystroke macro.

Rodney Balko:
There was once a time when, if an ethnic minority was rising up against an oppressive communist regime, you could count on National Review to side with the rabble-rousers fighting for political freedom, not the commies. But I guess that was pre-September 11. Now it’s apparently all about siding with whoever is killing Muslims.

Balko adds a link to a compelling article in National Review four years ago about China’s repression of the Uighurs and a detailing of how they co-opted the war on terror. Now they tolerate McCarthy’s blathering about the rightful response of the Chinese government to a race riot instigated in part by its own Han Chinese majority amidst a sustained campaign to send the Uighurs into the history books. Its pleasant to see McCarthy’s ideology in pursuit of preferred truths exposed for what it is.