The Bush Doctrine made the news in 2008 as folks took jibes at Sarah Palin for not being able to describe said doctrine.

Today, let’s all take jibes at the NYTimes for describing the Bush Doctrine quite well but without once giving credit where credit is due.
In an article about al-Qaeda being a bit slow with history in the making the Times discusses how they may be missing their moment to be influential.

“So far — and I emphasize so far — the score card looks pretty terrible for Al Qaeda,” said Paul R. Pillar, who studied terrorism and the Middle East for nearly three decades at the C.I.A. and is now at Georgetown University. “Democracy is bad news for terrorists. The more peaceful channels people have to express grievances and pursue their goals, the less likely they are to turn to violence.”

That is the doctrine in a nutshell. Democracies don’t attach others.

Don’t worry though – the author, Scott Shane, makes certain Bush’s name gets mentioned. At the part where he, like every rational leader in history, helped certain nondemocratic allies because they were willing to fight terrorism too.

If the Middle East goes democratic, George W. Bush should get a large amount of the credit by trusting “the people” in Iraq are quite capable of democracy and that they desire it!

In other news an American whackjob seems to think we have so little democracy here that we are bound to blow up just like things are happening in the Middle East. To fight against what? Apparently Obama? Because – well, I’m not sure. Maybe because uprisings are cool these days and Farrakhan doesn’t want to be behind the wave like al-Qaeda is.

“People who don’t love me don’t deserve to live,” he said.

So sayeth Gaddafi.

Can anyone tell me what’s different about what’s going on in Libya vs Egypt that in Libya it’s “rebel forces”, while in Egypt it was “the people”?

In Libya it’s protesters pouring out of Mosques to restart protests. They have been creating citizens groups to help govern where Gaddafi has gone down, but sprinkled throughout this WAPO article are references to “the rebels” or “rebel forces”.

That seems more organized. Is that true?

UPDATE: I take it all back. Not a hero at all. Instead Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes appears to be a lying loser. Thanks Holmes. You’ve made an ass out of me by posing as a whistle blower when in reality you just wanted some fame.

Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes

He is the man who refused to follow orders to use his psy-ops on our representatives.

yes, he was reprimanded. Now that it’s out, maybe they can give him a medal.

UPDATE: Hold this designation……there appears to be controversy.
But there will also be an investigation. Two things to note:

Faced with a written order to make visits by high-ranking officials his top priority, Colonel Holmes sought advice from a military lawyer, Capt. John Scott, who agreed that using information operations “to influence our own folks is a bad idea, and contrary to IO policy,” Rolling Stone reported.

And after a 2007 Congresswoman had her bio spread everywhere she went…:

General Petraeus, then serving as commander in Iraq, pledged that future biographies of visiting legislators would be taken only from the members’ Web sites or from Congressional Quarterly.

From what I’ve read, Holmes collected the information. It was the using of information that made him uncomfortable.

We’ll circle back on this post as more information comes out.

Now its in Denver where one doofus SEIU guy notes that

“That’s your problem. You’re an entrepreneur, so you don’t work. You don’t know what work is until you get into an educational area. … You’re uneducated, unethical, immoral, and you don’t know what life is. That’s your problem. Why don’t you go behind that fence where you belong? Why don’t you go back with your own kind?”

Coyote blog has something to say about that.

This bizarre article in the Wall Street Journal struggles to understand why men are still boys.

It concludes by suggesting that they are because they can be because women can make it on their own.

Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven—and often does.

I would suggest it has to do with women infiltrating all the boys clubs by pushing their way in. Men no longer have poker nights without women tagging along. Superbowl parties are 2 sexed, etc, etc etc.

If men want to act like boys they are going to do so in front of women. And since women accept it it keeps on going. And like the pajama bottoms people where out of the house all the time now – casual becomes the norm.

If the author looked, she’d find that you don’t find as many Katherine Hepburn (from the movies) type women either. We too have become more casual. We cuss, we get drunk, we put up with bad behavior from men and our peers. But no one looks, because then they’d have to write an article insulting women and that would be bad.

I’m pretty sure this is a better method of population control (all of us becoming more juvenile) than China’s method – so…..let’s hear it for the boys! (though I’ll still prefer men)

I get a blog free day because The Volokh Conspiracy has written a very nice blog about things I think. And then did a beautiful job of adding intelligence and insight.

Go, and read concerning the DC court and the individual mandate.

Some snips:

Notice that [Judges] Steeh and Moon do not argue that everyone will inevitably use health insurance. Instead, they define the relevant market as “health care.” The same sleight of hand works for virtually any other mandate Congress might care to impose.

……
Exactly!! Everyone keeps talking about “free rides” etc, but there are only ‘free rides” because a) hospitals are required to see everyone and b) eventually they send people to collections vs collecting. Sure, insurance goes up because some folks don’t/won’t pay, but the same goes for all shopping due to shoplifting. Prices are slightly higher to cover loss. Should I be required to pay a shopping insurance to cover this?

In a footnote, Judge Kessler blames the plaintiffs for supposedly choosing to “‘free ride’ on the backs of those Americans who have made responsible choices to provide for the illness we all must face at some point in our lives.” But it is Congress, not the plaintiffs, which is responsible for the requirement that hospitals free emergency service to the uninsured. If it wanted to, Congress could have eliminated such free riding simply by lifting the requirement with respect to anyone who had enough income to purchase health insurance but chose not to do so. That approach would have prevented free riding without imposing any mandates, and would also have avoided any possible constitutional problems.

This “regime” has got to go. I am astounded by the power they think they have and the fact that they really are having it due to other parts of the power structure. (In this case court) What are we going to do if he actually wins a 2nd term. I can’t even go there.

(ht Maggie’s Farm)

I keep navigating between being ticked off that buildings are falling from a 6.3 quake in earthquake country and trying to remember that this one was particularly shallow and even felled parts of the 110 year old cathedral.

It was an ugly one. Please continue with thoughts and prayers for those folks. A friend from the far north there let me know that apparently Americans have been a help.

Call me impressed.

ht Ken Cole who reminds readers to think of this story next time you read about 3 men vs wolves or 2 men vs 1 coyote or 1 person against a dog or……that we get in our papers.

Intentions count for a LOT!!!

People are evacuating Libya while the Saudi King is buying love to the tune of billions.

David Brooks has a column out today that explains why public unions are a bit of a problem.

Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest.

Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.

The people who actually fund all government are getting fed up with news stories of bloated retirements and practically free health insurance and pension plans for those in government. When I was young (yes, showing my age) government jobs were great only because of the bennies. They didn’t also have high salaries!

But the numbers have skewed over the years. Now average wages are higher, average benefits are higher and they get a holiday every other week. At the same time, in the private sector wages have frozen or dropped, people have been laid off, businesses are going under and those that aren’t are weary of the burden.

I was appalled at the doctors in Wisconsin giving out health excuses to protesters and am thankful a doctor has written in about this disgrace.

At the same time – I can’t help but remember that government service in many ways is government service FOR us. Not the bad teachers or the nut job at the DMV with a power play, but those who put themselves in harms way FOR those of us not in government.

Whether you take the job for the benefits, the adventure, the experience, just because you’re good at it or whatever, there are jobs out there that need to be done that people do risk their lives for while working for me the taxpayer. Sorry Wisconsin teachers – not you.

Mr. Davis – my thoughts are with you.