I don’t give a rip about the pin, but this post by Michael Novak had an ending that is exactly how I feel about putting the flag out in front of my house. Every time I start rushing around, late for work and don’t want to bother I go through these exact 2 justifications for why I need to ‘bother’.

As for me, I have been wearing a flag in my lapel since September 11, 2001, and with special care ever since American forces took the war to the place whence it emanated, Afghanistan. As long as brave Americans were willing to accept, if necessary, wounds or death on our behalf, I felt a duty to be faithful to them: “This flag’s for them!” And will stay in my lapel until they are out of harm’s way.

Everyone knows silly bravado when he sees it. So let me lay some out. Since Osama bin Laden is out to harm Americans all he can, it seems only right that we should wear a flag to make it easy for him to find us. It would be disgraceful to cower.

The CIA confronts Pakistan.

The C.I.A. emissary presented evidence showing that members of the spy service had deepened their ties with some militant groups that were responsible for a surge of violence in Afghanistan, possibly including the suicide bombing this month of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, the officials said.

………………….
Oh really…?

Inside, according to a witness, he told the House members, “This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for,” adding: “I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”

………………

Something is going on with the Ramos and Campean cases. It sounds fishy.

. I’m not sure that’s quite true anymore. I don’t believe Ramos and Compean are in prison in order to protect the public safety. Quite the contrary. These men are in prison because they refused to go along with the “see no evil, hear no evil” game plan. They are there to send a message.

That’s exactly what it sounds like.
………………………..
People are starting to worry that the US may become a bit more isolationist in the coming years.

Why else would an entire city decide that they can no longer open up businesses that might actually succeed?

In LA they’ve passed a law that says new fast food outlets are banned for a year in South Central LA.
And in NYC they’ve passed a law that says chain restaurants (you know, the ones that poorer people go to) must note how many calories are in each meal.

Every fast food outlet I’ve gone to has alternatives to 1000 calorie meals on their menus. Why does LA think that having a new fast food restaurant in South Central LA will be bad for the health of the folks living there? How about if the fast food restaurant offers tons of jobs and is owned by a local? Wouldn’t that be healthy?

“Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods,” City Councilman Bernard Parks said.

This moratorium is supposed to attract other restaurants. Those that serve better foods. Maybe say like some French restaurant loaded with creams. Or a Chinese sit down restaurant and all their salt. Or maybe Mexican and their free chips. Or ?? Oh – he’s talking about a new tofu/veggie/wrap restaurant. Yes, “if you empty it (of fast food), they (vegetarians) will come”.