The Wreck Returns

If there should ever come a time when you need a warm welcome and a hearty hug from a couple of thousand middle-aged enthusiasts, a few simple steps will do it for you.

1. First, change your name to Gordon Lightfoot.
2. Then, travel to the DECC auditorium in Duluth.
3. Finally, sing The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald in Gordon's fluid style.

No matter the level of your need for appreciation, it will be overwhelmed as the house rises up as never before.

Here's Early Morning Rain.

Sunday night was the last stop of the year for Lightfoot and his astonishingly long-serving backup players, and the enthusiasm he brought Duluth was fully reflected by his appreciative audience.

Many, including Bob Dylan, regard Lightfoot as one of the best of current composers and writers and even a partial listing of his songs supports that view. Among them:

• If You Could Read My Mind
• Sundown
• Don Quixote
• Summer Side of Life
• Me and Bobby McGee
• Rainy Day People

For a touching word-painting of the Lightfoot experience, see Peter Zeller's guest report over at Power Line on his front row experience in Minneapolis the night before.

The Edmund Fitgerald sank in 1975 on Lake Superior with the loss of all 29 crewmembers after 17 years as an ore carrier. The most generally accepted theory of her loss is that she capsized after being hit by the third in a series of rogue waves, the result of a massive winter storm. The Fitzgerald rests with her crewmembers in 530 feet of water.

The Superior Bishop

The Diocese of Superior will webcast live the Rite of Installation of America's newest Roman Catholic Bishop, Peter F. Christensen, as Bishop of Superior.

The Installation will take place at the Cathedral of Christ the King, in Superior, Wisconsin on Sunday, September 23rd at 4:00 PM central time. The webcast will be archived for future viewing.

Bishop Christensen was ordained at the Cathedral of St. Paul on September 14, 2007 before 3,000 faithful. The bishop will succeed Bishop Raphael Fliss, who is retiring. The diocese of Superior encompasses approximately 86,000 Catholics among more than 80 parishes in 16 counties of northwestern Wisconsin. Bishop Christensen will be the tenth Bishop of Superior.

Superior recently celebrated the 340th anniversary of the arrival of Catholicism in the Upper Midwest.

To watch the installation, click here

To learn more about the Diocese of Superior, click here.

To learn more about Bishop Christensen, click here.

RELATED LINKS: His Imminent Excellency, Bishop Peter F. Christensen
Superior Catholic Herald

Build communities, build men.

A "Permissible" Flag?

Jessica Langston wanted to wear an American flag to class at Hobbton High School in Sampson County, North Carolina on September 11th. She was told not to.

According to the superintendent of schools in Sampson County the situation is unfortunate but he doesn't want to be forced to pick and choose which flags should be permissible.

It's simple, Dr. Hobbs.

The flag with 50 white stars in a field of blue on a bed of horizontal red and white stripes is always permissible. It is the American flag. You may have examples of it in your classrooms.

Any others, sir, are at your discretion.

The lesson children is that all are equal. Our country, the one some of your relatives died to protect, is just one of many, none exactly the same, you understand, but not that much different either.

UPDATE & BUMP: If the news accounts are correct, always a tenuous assumption, Dr. Hobbs must be a man of unique courage. One day after he was described as being unwilling to pick and choose amongst flags and held up to national ridicule for banning them all, he has now blamed the matter on the school principal. Dr. Hobbs has reversed the policy and will now allow flags of all nations. Wouldn't want to discriminate in favor of just one, like our own, you know. Further, any future school dress decisions will be made at the school board level.

A little somthing for everyone.

As Simple as 1,2,3

One: On Saturday a Democratic leader said,

No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV.

The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.

Two: On Monday Democratic front group MoveOn.org—the self-professed owners of the Democratic party, who once said, We bought it, we own it, and we're taking it back!—accused General Petraeus of

Cooking the books for the White House

and added for good measure

Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

Three: Of the 282 Democrats in the House and Senate, only two disavowed MoveOn's slur of one of America's true heroes.

America has had a single General who betrayed the country. In our earliest years Benedict Arnold, hero and general of George Washington's Continental Army, gave to the enemy secrets of the defense of the fort at West Point. If his treachery had succeeded we'd likely be Queen's subjects today.

No other general has been accused of betrayal. Until now.

If the Democrats believe this of General Petraeus, they should move for the immediate removal and trial of the man they unanimously confirmed just six months ago. If they have a shred of proof, I and many others will support them.

However, if there is no proof (and of course there isn't a scintilla; nor does there live a Democratic senator who actually believes this slander), then what? An apology? Scores of apologies? Would resignations be too much to expect?

Whatever the merits of the arguments, is this the way to debate the most serious issue of our lives and those of our children?

Finally, at the end of the day, is there no shred of shame that remains?

I remember Joe McCarthy, barely. I remember the embarrassment that clung like the stench of mold to good Republican cloth coats for years after.

I wonder at the ability of too many Republicans to exude shame at the drop of a hat or the tap of a toe.

I marvel at the inability of too many Democrats, prominent and not, to show the slightest shame for the malignancies spewed in their names.


David Petraeus? Benedict Arnold? No. It's as simple as that, and as sad.

His Imminent Excellency, Bishop Peter F. Christensen

Bishop-elect Peter F. Christensen will be ordained in the Cathedral of Saint Paul in St. Paul, Minnesota this Friday at 2 PM. The Mass of Ordination will be officiated by Archbishop Harry Flynn of St. Paul and Minneapolis and Archbishop Timothy Dolan of Milwaukee.

Bishop Christensen will then leave his parish, Nativity of Our Lord in St. Paul, to travel to Superior, Wisconsin for his installation next week as the tenth Bishop of Superior. He may be especially welcome in Wisconsin given he is a distant relative of former Packers coach Verne Lewellen.

Superior traces its Catholic roots to 1661, when Rene Menard, a French Jesuit, arrived in the area from Ottawa. His associate, Fr. Claude Jean Allouez built the Mission of the Holy Spirit in 1665 at the location of present day La Pointe. The Mission was the first Catholic church north of New Mexico and west of the Great Lakes. Today approximately 20% of the population is Catholic.

The newest American bishop originally trained as a commercial artist but at age 28 remembered a much earlier call from, and promise to, God. He entered the seminary and at age 32 was ordained a priest in the same cathedral in which he will now become bishop.

Bishop Christensen, whose original family name is Brophy, is especially proud of his Celtic roots and visits Ireland whenever presented with an opportunity to do so.

Go n-éirí an bothar leat, always, Irisher.

RELATED LINKS: Soon to be: His Eminence, Bishop Peter F. Christensen
LINKS: New bishop says he seeks to do the Lord's will
Peter F. Christensen, Wikipedia

1 Million iPhones in 74 Days

Apple announced today that it sold it's one millionth iPhone
over the weekend, 74 days after the product introduction, and within a day or two of its announcement of a substantial price reduction.

Apple noted that it took nearly two years after introduction to sell one million iPods.

Pundits who were writing that Apple's $200 price reduction signaled weak sales have not commented on the company's announcement or its sales pace of more than $1 billion per year from a single market.

Meanwhile sales of Apple's Mac computers grew three times as rapidly as industry averages. The Mac laptop is first in market share.

PC Magazine, not known for its affection for Apple, recently rated the Mac as the fastest Windows machine around.

It's not nice smart to bet against Steve.

Hillary Clinton Does Hsu Shuffle

Democratic presidential candidate and Chinese fundraiser extraordinaire Hillary Clinton has announced she is returning $850,000 in contributions delivered to her campaign by Norman Hsu. With any luck at all she can shovel the funds out the back door before the FBI comes knocking on the front.

Ms. Clinton brings real experience to the task. 22 contributors to Bill's 1996 campaign, her most recent presidential effort, either pled guilty or were convicted of criminal campaign finance or money laundering violations. At least some of the sources were reported to be members of the Chinese Red Army's intelligence division.

There is no word yet as to exactly "to whom" she will be returning the funds this time around, but presumably the mailman in Daly City, CA is about to come into a real windfall.

If he's allowed to keep it.

Does this mean Hsu loses his reservation for the Lincoln Bedroom?

RELATED LINK: Clinton Takes Funny Money and Dog Bites Man

MoveOn.org, "Owner" of Democratic Party, Brays "Betray" at Petraeus

MoveOn.org, the organization that has boasted that it owns the Democratic Party,

We bought it, we own it, and we're taking it back,

has now bought a page from The New York Times to trumpet its message of distrust of General David Petraeus, our military leader in Iraq.

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress” in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, “We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.

Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

Unfortunately, MoveOn.org is not unusual, at least when compared against elected Democratic leaders.

Less than four months after voting to confirm Gen. Petraeus, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Ritz Carlton), called Petraeus a liar, and has since described him as an incompetent who isn't in touch with events in Iraq, which Reid visited once several years ago for two days.

During Gen. Petraeus' most recent visit to Washington, DC, to brief the nation's political leadership, Speaker Pelosi was too busy to meet with the General for a briefing.

No question of ownership, the Democratic Party went pretty cheap.

The Two Faces of Chuck Schumer

A week ago, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), self-described member of the Democratic leadership, insulted the U. S. Marines who have fought, killed and died to make Anbar Province a showcase of the road to victory and relative peace in Iraq.

According to the video, Schumer said

Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight al-Qaeda ourselves."

It wasn't that the surge brought peace here, it was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here and that was because there was no one else there protecting. (Emphasis in the original.)

Now, though, after a week of derision in the blogosphere, though without any significant coverage by the legacy media, Senator Schumer has brought out his magic eraser and re-written history.

According the the official statement from his office, what Senator Schumer actually said was this

And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.

The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.” It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them. (Emphasis added.)

RELATED LINK: Chuck Schumer Addresses Troops in Anbar: You Failed

Chuck needs to learn to think before he speaks, as the rules are different now and The New York Times can no longer provide protection against stupidity.

Chuck Schumer Addresses Troops in Anbar: You Failed

Scroll Down for Update

Chuck Schumer, senior Senator from New York and self-described member of the Democratic leadership team in the Senate, really knows how to make friends and influence people.

This morning, in a speech on the Senate floor, he explicitly told the U. S. Marines in Anbar province that they've failed and are a part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight al-Qaeda ourselves."

It wasn't that the surge brought peace here, it was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here and that was because there was no one else there protecting. (Emphasis in original.)

Wow. I wonder if he'd dare say that while facing the Marines?

For the video
H/T Don Surber

RELATED LINKS: What a Greeting He Got on the Sands of Anbar!
Ramadi's Transformation is "Breathtaking" But Senator Reid Sees Only "Failure"
Can The Democrats Win Without America Losing?
"Progress in Anbar"—No! It Can't Be. Not The NY Times!

LINKS: Duane Peterson over at Townhall has picked up the ball with The Bizarro View of Iraq By Chuck Schumer
With Hugh Hewitt on board with Senator Schumer's Slander on the Military, can Senator Schumer's denouement be far off? Perhaps we can all join together a buy the Senator a ticket to Ramadi, so he can carry his argument himself?
Welcome to readers of Conservative Grapevine, please feel free to look around for other items of interest. Click here to go to the top of the Canticle.

UPDATE & BUMP: Today Senator Schumer used the magic eraser to modify his comments of last week.

According to Senator Schumer's website, what he really meant to say said was

And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.

The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.” It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.

Once again, what to believe? Democratic leadership, or our own lying eyes and ears?

They say that the most dangerous place in Washington, DC, which is a very dangerous place, is when you're standing between Chuck Schumer and a camera. In this case, Schumer's mouth got there ahead of his brain and now he's trying to get out of a very sticky wicket.

Wow! Bin Laden Really Does Look Better

During my drive home, I listened to news reports
that bin Laden looks better, somewhat healthier, more filled out than previously and that the beard was obviously faked at some point. But I had no idea the magnitude of the changes.

Even though the current message seemed familiar to one I'd heard last spring, it's still a real shock to learn that the man had been hiding right under our noses all this time.

Just goes to show the truth of the strategy made famous by LBJ, "Keep your friends close, your enemies closer."

It's amazing, absolutely amazing, but you can't change the inner man. That message shows through.

Don't Listen to the bin Laden Tape!

As tempting as it might seem, do not listen to an audio translation of the recent bin Laden tape! Reading the transcript is far better, it imposes more discipline for us imaginative types.

I listened to the tape, after a while shutting my eyes while listening to the words.

After a minute or two, I had to get up to check the source was the terror leader.

It sounds just like what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Ritz Carlton) has been saying recently.

Don't want to confuse the two, though it might be easy.

"It's A Lot More Difficult to Get on The Tonight Show Than It Is To Get Into a Presidential Debate"

Leave it to Fred Thompson, the newest presidential candidate and noted plain-speaker to point to the obvious (Republican) elephant in the living room.

Fred's right when he says

It's a lot more difficult to get on The Tonight Show than it is to get into a presidential debate.

I can see why supporters of the crowd of Republican candidates would want to pooh-pooh Fred Thompson, his team, his timing and his technique. After all, pooh-poohing is too much of what politics is about these days. But the reality is that The Tonight Show's guest list is more exclusive than this year's presidential primary, the audience is larger, the impact greater.

Any of the candidates capable of a moderate amount of independent thought, given the choice between a cattle call of echoing sound bites of what passes for a debate and the few minutes of undivided attention that guests are afforded on Jay Leno's couch, should choose either the couch or a different profession.

I don't know whether Fred will win, but I fully expect Fred to campaign to the tune of a different drummer.

Besides, I'm sure The Tonight Show paid scale.

Higher ratings, more intense attention, make a buck. Not so dumb.

RELATED LINKS: This Is The Sound of a Candidate Thinking
Fred Thompson Talks, Washington Listens

Hsu Flew!

Clinton fundraiser and con man Norman Hsu, released last week on a $2 million bond, skipped court this morning. His attorney said that Mr. Hsu's current whereabouts are unknown.

Would you believe, it was a bail reduction hearing!


Hint: Try Macau first. That's where some of her other fundraisers went.

What on Earth Are D.C. City Politicians Smoking? Hallucinating About Gun Control in Parker

Lawyers for Washington, D. C. today belatedly filed the District's request that the U. S. Supreme Court consider its appeal of Parker, the landmark decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment to the Constitution means what it says.

The city's petition rests on three arguments and some strained logic and very smoky facts.

The arguments:

1. The Second Amendment protects weapons possessed and used by state militias, only.
2. The District of Columbia is not subject to the Second Amendment.
3. Because the District bans only handguns and not shotguns and rifles, the District's ban does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Fine.

I'm not certain that the District's reasoning and legal artistry in the petition reflect well on the dozen lawyers who labored weeks past the scheduled filing date to hone their arguments, but there are some absolute gems within the District's petition for a hearing, including:

[E]ven if there is a right to possess and use weapons unrelated to militia service, the Second Amendment restricts only federal interference with state-regulated militias and state recognized gun rights. (Emphasis added throughout.)

The District's lawyers claim that

[T]he Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have held that only states may enforce the Second Amendment.

Hmm. Is that position unique to the Second Amendment or does it apply to the others, as well? If the states are responsible for enforcing the Amendments, do they also have a responsibility to enforce the body of the Constitution on behalf the federal government?

According to D. C., states have a duty to enforce, but are not subject to, the Constitution:

State courts seldom construe the right secured by the Second
Amendment because of their uniform agreement that the
Amendment does not bind the states, as this Court held
unanimously more than a century ago in Presser v. Illinois,
116 U.S. 252 (1886).7

Perhaps the lawyers should have at least mentioned as a courtesy to the Justices that Presser was decided years before the courts ruled that state governments are subject to the Bill of Rights. Today, that's a settled matter.

The District's rhetoric is "strong" regarding the political decision of the D.C. council in 1976 to ban handguns:

The Council concluded that existing regulations imposed on handguns and penalties associated with handgun-related crimes were insufficient to combat handgun violence, because handguns themselves are inherently dangerous. The very premise of the legislation was thus that “the ultimate resolution of the problems of gun created crimes and gun created accidents . . . is the elimination of the availability of handguns.” As the Council summed up, “the bill reflects a legislative decision” that handguns “have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia.”

Strong but wrong. The reality has been a bit different.

The number of homicides within the District does not appear to be related, at least in a positive way, to the 1976 ban.

Homicides in the District have been at historic, tragic and nation-leading levels for more than 30 years, and they remain so today. In fact, measured against comparable national figures, the "ultimate resolution" has been an abysmal and deadly failure, as D.C. residents and visitors find themselves without any meaningful defense against the thuggery so prevalent there.

Even the finest lawyers can only shade history, but they can't re-write it wholesale.

The District has been extraordinarily dangerous for ordinary people, before the gun ban in 1976 and since. The District Council enacted the ban in reaction to runaway violence. In 1975, homicides in the District reached a rate of 33 per 100,000 population, a rate 241% greater than the rest of the country.

While District politicians proclaim handguns “have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia,” its citizens are deprived of the one tool proven most effective preventing crime, the threat of an effective self defense.

So, 30 years after the D.C. council solved the crime problem with their "effort to 'freeze the pistol population within the District of Columbia,'" thousands more citizens are victimized by crime each year than should be the case if only the District would reduce its crime rate to average.

According to the FBI 2005 Uniform Crime Report and figures complied from the UCR by The Disaster Center, the District's violent crime rates far exceed those of the rest of the nation. Today's numbers reflect the failure

• Murder, 530% greater than the rest of the nation.
• Robbery, 376% greater than the rest of the nation.
• Aggravated Assault, 148% greater than the rest of the nation.

Today, we know that "gun free zones," whether cities, post offices, schools or countries like England and Australia, have become magnets for crime as criminals prey upon their victims secure in the knowledge that there will be no effective resistance from their victims. On the other hand, there are 100 million more guns in the U. S. than there were in 1975, and crime rates have decreased. Forty states have recognized the rights of citizens to possess and use handguns, and crime rates have gone down.

Comparing the experience of the various states that have liberalized gun possession for lawful citizens with areas taking the opposite path, the conclusion is inescapable that crime has increased within the District, and law-abiding citizens have been made victims, because of the 1976 law. Scores of thousands of victims have suffered as a result.

In the 30 years since the "ultimate resolution" they're now defending so energetically, 30 years spent working to "freeze" pistol availability, D.C.'s homicide rate has increased while the rest of the country's has decreased. The District now suffers from a murder rate five times greater than the rest of the country, twice as bad as it was when it enacted the ban.

With a success like this, D.C. politicians should be looking for solutions in the mirror and stop sacrificing their citizens an the altar of a failed ideology.

Perhaps the dollars and time invested in the ban could better be invested in "gun psychology" research: What makes an average Glock, Smith & Wesson, Ruger or Colt go bad after crossing the border into D.C.? What are the catalysts that turn guns that were ordinary law-abiding pistols when they left the factory into deadly creators of gun crimes and accidents? How can we approach the root causes of whatever is missing from the guns' lives? What has caused guns to jump up from their homes elsewhere to illegally enter the District and prey upon its people and why don't they perform the same way in the same numbers elsewhere? What motivates these guns to enter a life of crime in Washington, D. C.?

LINKS: For a PDF of the District's petition, click here.
H/T: SCOTUS Blog

What a Greeting He Got on the "Sands of Anbar"!

The respect and enthusiasm shown President Bush during his visit to the troops in Anbar was unmistakable and stirring.

How would those who "care" more for our troops fare with the same audience? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Hillary Clinton?

Which of them would generate the enthusiasm amongst the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that President Bush reveled in this morning?

Those who seemingly "care" so much more often treat America's fighting men and women as ill-informed children, victims of their country.

UPDATE: Two days ago I wrote of conquest in Anbar. This morning, Fred Kaplan, a leading thinker and writer, described President Bush's visit to Anbar as "The Gettysburg of this war." Kaplan writes of Anbar as a victory.

A victory.

I agree. For a thoughtful refutation in advance of what we will hear on the media tonight and from the surrender America first leftists later, read Kaplan.


As to how leftists treat our military as victims of their own country, well, they treat most of us the same way.

RELATED LINKS: Ramadi's Transformation is "Breathtaking" but Senator Reid Sees Only "Failure"

John Edwards To Require Mandatory Mental Evaluations for ALL

In a speech in Tipton, Iowa yesterday, Senator John Edwards described his health care program

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.
***
Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans. (Emphasis added throughout)

Of course, as a lawyer, Mr. Edwards would know exactly how to write such a law.

This would leave the U. S. with a voluntary tax program and a mandatory health program with two massive bureaucracies in a race to achieve perfection.

Oh joy!

Silver lining: this might make CCWs easier to come by for some people!

"Not News," Until at Last a Big Bomb Blast, Says Seattle's Post-Intelligencer

Seattle's Post-Intelligencer decided last week not to publish photographs of two men of interest to the FBI. Because the issue was the security of the Pacific Northwest's #1 terrorist target, the Washington Ferry system, competitive media and the blogger world heaped enormous disdain on the paper. It was reasonable to think the P-I would move on, avoid further comment and hope not to hear a loud "boom" across Elliott Bay.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

First, the paper's managing editor, under fire from all corners for his truly remarkable lack of judgment, responded with a defense that rocks the walls with its dismissive haughtiness. Said he

We get to decide what is news and what isn't, what is fair and what isn't.

As if that isn't strange enough, the paper then sent out one of its star local columnists to make its case. Robert Jamieson sees racists behind every tree, except his own:

IT'S OFFICIAL: We live in a republic of fear. And when fear runs rampant, our good sense escapes us.

Photos, which spread across the city and state last week, showed two Middle Eastern-looking men accused of seeming suspicious on state ferries.

A ferry crew member (who took the photos) and the FBI (which released them) didn't lose sleep over the guilt or innocence of the men in the snapshots.

And why should they? The authorities had fear as an ally. They blithely enlisted a fearful public to do their bidding -- to be dutiful patriots and report them.

The two men in question could have been innocents on vacation. Or they could have been mistaken for another pair of dark-complexioned guys seen wandering ferries.

But they happened to fit a very broad profile -- even though the FBI says they aren't suspects.

Three points:

First, the photos didn't "spread across the city and state" like an amoeba with a mind of its own. They were published and broadcast by media across the nation in an effort to assist the FBI in its inquiry of whether or not the two men represent a threat to the ferry system. As the P-I's larger local competitor editorialized

The inordinate interest by these two men in the workings of the vessel was unusual and suspicious. It would be unusual and suspicious done by any person of any nationality or descent.

The Seattle Times concluded

The behavior of the men, not their skin color or assumed nationality, led to the release of their pictures and the request for help. Anyone who has any information about their identity should report it immediately to the FBI.

Second, the first place, and for a week the only place, I heard or saw the two men described as middle-eastern was in the Post-Intelligencer as the paper attempted to make up with words what it chose to avoid with photos. I don't know if the men are middle-eastern or middle-earthers and neither does the P-I. It doesn't matter for the purpose of helping to protect my family and neighbors because I know what the men look like. By failing to publish the photos, and choosing a racial label to attach instead, the P-I has profiled the two men (who may very possibly be completely innocent of anything nefarious) and stigmatized those who are from the middle-east in a way that no other media has.

Third, no one, not the ferry system personnel who grew so concerned, not the FBI, and certainly not the responsible media, no one but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has described the men in terms of fitting a profile, be it broad or narrow.

Jamieson continues

It is not a stretch to imagine the dangerous consequences when Uncle Sam deputizes the public. A citizen cowboy fueled by vigilantism could attempt to take the law into his own hands -- with horrific results.

Fear makes people irrational.

It's apparent that Mr. Jamieson has delegated his personal safety to… whom, exactly? Certainly not the agencies he's criticizing. Nor, apparently, to his community, friends and neighbors. To whom, then?

Finally, the gratuitous slam at the great unwashed public, his readers

Instead, the feds enlisted the public -- like Orwellian lackeys -- to be the eyes and ears of agents who have wrongly singled out people before.

So, for any of the Orwellian lackeys who missed the earlier message:

Here are two photos of two men with whom the FBI would like to speak. They are not suspects in a crime. I do not know their race, religion or nationality. But here is what they look like.

Their behavior was of concern. The FBI would like to know whether that concern is justified or not.

Simple. Straightforward. Commonsensical.

Except for the P-I.

By the way, if you should see the event depicted in the first photo–a Washington State Ferry exploding–no need to call the P-I.

They've decided it's not news.

H/T to DirectorBlue at Doug Ross@Journal for the ferry artwork, with a wish that we never see the real thing.

RELATED LINKS: There Are Only Three Reasons To Explain Why These Men Haven't Come Forward
MSM Refuses to Help FBI; Paper Refuses to Publish Photos of Two "Unusual" Ferry Passengers

Welcome FREEPERS, please feel free to cruise about!

Captain's Quarters, Media Leader

This morning, George Stephanopoulos, anchor of ABC News' This Week, needed a media reference point from which to leverage his discussion about the tribulations of Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). Sen. Craig had just announced his intent to resign from the Senate over his involvement in a sex sting.

George was engaged in a split-creen remote interview with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and the Chair of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senator John Ensign (R-NV). To make his point, comparing the treatment of Senator Craig to others, George didn't go to The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal for support.

No, when George needed a clear, concise and thoughtful leverage point, he turned to Ed Morrissey and Captain's Quarters, and quoted Ed with reference to Senator Craig (and with ABC's edits noted)

He didn't plead guilty in court, but u(U)nlike Craig, he openly admits he broke the law and solicited prostitutes. Others serving in Congress at the moment have pleaded guilty to misdemeanors of more import than disorderly conduct without being forced to resign. If morality and credibility are at issue, why isn't Vitter being held to that standard?

This is to my knowledge the first time any blogger has held the exclusive media reference position on any of the "big three" Sunday morning talking head shows.

Congratulations to Ed for this well-deserved recognition.

And Ed, Eire go Brach!

Ramadi’s Transformation is "Breathtaking" but Senator Reid Sees Only "Failure"

There comes a time in politics, as in war, when the momentum shifts noticeably. When events reach "a tipping point."

The discussion amongst politicians in Washington and media figures in New York about the Iraqi battlefield in the War Against Islamofacism has reached such a point. Again.

When news reports from the battlefield describe battlefield transformations as breathtaking– particularly reports in journals that more typically blame America first–the effect on members of the chattering classes is similar to a light suddenly illuminating cockroaches infesting a long-dark storage room. The confusion is surpassed only by the sounds of the scampering.

The Times of London, not known for its support of any recent American initiative and certainly not counted as a cheerleader for Western efforts in Iraq, this week published a breathlessly positive report on progress in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province.

Shortly before I arrived last November masked al-Qaeda fighters had brazenly marched through the city centre, pronouncing it the capital of a new Islamic caliphate. The US military was still having to fight its way into the city through a gauntlet of snipers, rocket-propelled grenades, suicide car bombs and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Fifty US soldiers had been killed in the previous five months alone. I spent 24 hours huddled inside Eagles Nest, a tiny COP overlooking the derelict football stadium, listening to gunfire, explosions and the thump of mortars. The city was a ruin, with no water, electricity or functioning government. Those of its 400,000 terrified inhabitants who had not fled cowered indoors as fighting raged around them.

Lost in most of our news accounts, al Qaeda has now lost two capital cities of its caliphate in Iraq, Ramadi and Baqubah.

Today Ramadi is scarcely recognisable. Scores of shattered buildings testify to the fury of past battles, but those who fled the violence are now returning. Pedestrians, cars and motorbike rickshaws throng the streets. More than 700 shops and businesses have reopened. Restaurants stay open late into the evening. People sit outside smoking hookahs, listening to music, wearing shorts – practices that al-Qaeda banned. Women walk around with uncovered faces. Children wave at US Humvees. Eagles’ Nest, a heavily fortified warren of commandeered houses, is abandoned and the stadium hosts football matches.

“Al-Qaeda is gone. Everybody is happy,” said Mohammed Ramadan, 38, a stallholder in the souk who witnessed four executions. “It was fear, pure fear. Nobody wanted to help them but you had to do what they told you.”

Ramadi is a city with a population before the war of 400,000. It is the capital of Anbar Province, an area that represents more than a quarter of Iraq's territory and which contains many of the infiltration routes from Syria.

The conquest of al Qaeda in Anbar, and make no mistake about it, conquest is the proper term, is consequential for all of Iraq.

It provides an example of success, a showplace, certainly for the daytrippers from DC and New York, but more importantly for the citizens of Karbala, Nasyriah, Mosul, Tirkut and Baghdad. Iraqis can now see what post-Saddam, post al Qaeda peace looks like.

While philosophers teach that we learn more from our failures than our successes, it helps to have proof that the counter insurgency theories work and that they are affordable in terms of resources. While every death is memorable, every casualty a cost and every dollar an expense, victory in Anbar was less costly than was the previous status quo.

Removing al Qaeda from its capital and base of operations increases its costs of operations in terms of risk and resources while reducing its effectiveness. While its impossible to precisely identify by how much, it unarguably tips the odds against the enemy. Do it two or three or a dozen times, they lose, we win.

Solidification of the victory in Anbar will is allowing American commanders to focus resources and attention on other trouble spots, leveraging their effectiveness. Again, if General Petraeus can do it a couple of times–and it looks like he may be succeeding in Baqubah and Diyala Province–the momentum and leverage shift geometrically and victory becomes possible, likely, probable, then certain. The process feeds on itself and accelerates with each success. Where today, victory is happening in 25% of the territory, tomorrow 40% in do-able. If we can get that far, we can go the distance.

All this begins to explain the growing confusion and discord among those most strongly opposed to the Bush Administration's approach to war.

What if the perception of possible success strengthens or grows?

In April, The New York Times shocked its readers with a report headlined, Progress in Anbar.

RAMADI, Iraq — Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat. (Emphasis added.)

The Los Angeles Times eventually acknowledged the changes on the ground, that progress was being achieved "slowly and subtly," but added about the positive news it was reporting

It is not a message many politicians in Washington want to hear.

Wow. Crude and blunt, the sort of comment heard in group therapy. That was an observation both true and distressing, an American newspaper reporting that American politicians were troubled by news of American troops succeeding.

The floodgates of change opened with the publication of a lengthy and positive 1,361 word editorial page report in The New York Times by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack describing the progress they had seen on a recent visit to Iraq.

Intrigued, The NYT then commissioned a survey on public attitudes towards the war. The paper was so surprised by the results–showing an increase in support–that it ordered a do-over.

Even the Associated Press joined the parade, reporting

The new U.S. military strategy in Iraq, unveiled six months ago to little acclaim, is working.

The first tangible shift came in an interview by Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) on his return from a fifth visit to Iraq. While Baird voted against the war authorization, he is now convinced that American troops deserve enough time and enough support to succeed. Baird's comments sent shockwaves through the liberal firmament.

Other Democrats have since joined into a small chorus that lists among its members Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the Assistant Majority Leader and Hillary (It's working) Clinton (D-NY), who added, "We have to win."

Contrast that with the discordant words and actions of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Ritz Carlton), stuck between the irrerestible force of changing public opinion and the immovable MoveOn.org wing that now controls his party.

While Reid has just recently surrendered his position requiring an immediate surrender by American forces, he is apparently unable to adjust to recognize reality. As recently as August 31 he continued to call Iraq a failed strategy.

Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (another success denier) have scheduled a series of hearings during the first half of September in order for their respective legislative bodies to hear from, among others, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

The last time General Petraeus was in DC, the Congressional leadership was "too busy" to meet with him.

RELATED LINKS: Katie to Iraq! CBS Looking for a Long-Term Deal
Liberal Media: Dropping Like Flies
Senator Harry Reid: Expert on Iraq?
Can the Democrats Win Without America Losing?
Harry Reid to Troops: You've Lost the Damn War
"Progress in Anbar"– No! It Can't Be. Not the NY Times!

Clinton Takes Funny Money and Dog Bites Man

The headlines are full of it, Clinton taking outsized campaign contributions from people either already on the lam, or about to be.

Really, where's the news?

A middle-income family near San Francisco has chipped in more than $200,000 in the past couple of years, part of bundled zillions brought together by the fraudster in flight Mr. Hsu? So what?

Norman Hsu, Charlie Trie, Peter Paul, the Ching Hai Buddists, the mysterious Mr. Wu in Macao and the helpful Ms. Chu.

Shopping bags full of cash dropped on desks.

The list goes on and on.

No news here, move along, move along.

UPDATE: Hillary has decided to donate $23,000 of the funds from Hsu to charities of her choice. Two realities, both typical Clintonisms: A vigorish of 2.3% is not bad at all. Hsu hands Clinton $1 million and when they're caught, Hillary hands $23,000 off to charities. Second, I'll bet she doesn't make the donation to The Salvation Army—no boost there.

UPDATE II and BUMP: Captain's Quarters reports that the Department of Justice has opened a criminal probe of Mr. Hsu's contributions to Hillary Clinton and other leading Democrats with a particular focus on the source of his funds. The Captain also points out how easy it would have been for Senator Clinton to be aware of Mr. Hsu's criminal background, if she cared.

Besides, it wasn't really a campaign contribution.

Think of it as a reservation deposit for the Lincoln Bedroom.