The good news for John Edwards' campaign: People will no longer be making jokes and asking questions about $400 haircuts.
The bad news for John Edwards' campaign: People will be making jokes and asking questions about $1,250 haircuts.
At first, the haircuts were free. But because Torrenueva often had to fly somewhere on the campaign trail to meet his client, he began charging $300 to $500 for each cut, plus the cost of airfare and hotels when he had to travel outside California.
Torrenueva said one haircut during the 2004 presidential race cost $1,250 because he traveled to Atlanta and lost two days of work.
To quote that noted ultra-conservative Edwards critic Markos Moulitsas, "I'm willing to bet that most of the small dollar donors Edwards has solicited don't have that much. For them, that $20 or $50 or even $100 contribution is a big sacrifice. Yet given the choice between taking out his own checkbook or having his campaign pay for the $400 the haircut cost, someone made the choice to put this on the contributors... People expect their money to be well spent by campaigns, not used as personal slush funds for whatever luxuries they may want."
Posted by: Mike ||
07/06/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
I began getting the emails several days ago: Jihad Watch readers telling me that they had been accustomed to reading the site at work, but now their employer had blocked access to the Jihad Watch site on company computers. Many reported that the ban on Jihad Watch was explained with the assertion that Jihad Watch contained hate speech. This was true even in Federal Government offices. And it wasnt only the Feds. Jihad Watch was blocked, readers informed me, on the computers of the State of Connecticut; the City of Chicago; Bank of America; Fidelity Investments; Site Coach; GE IT; JPMorgan Chase; Defense Finance and Accounting Services; Johnson Controls, Inc. IT; Boeing; Tenet Hospitals in North Carolina; Provisio; the Sabre Group TSG; Wachovia bank; and others: several people have written in to tell me that as of this week they can no longer access Jihad Watch at work, but havent told me where they work.
This was not a simple case of employers being annoyed with their workers lying down on the job and spending time reading Jihad Watch instead of working. This is an attempt to silence us, as an email from a federal employee made abundantly clear when he noted which sites were blocked and which sites werent:
I wanted to drop a line about the inability to access JihadWatch at work. I work for the Fed Gov. Three weeks ago, Memri was blocked. Two weeks ago HotAir, which I used to look at on my lunch break for your updates, was blocked. As of Friday, June 29th, JihadWatch was blocked. I can however, visit CAIR, read anything about Islam, and even get the Arab news. The censors I deal with are from the Dallas area. It is very easy to see that this censor is not operating according to the proper rules of access. They are operating by their political beliefs (or hopes.) It is unfortunate that these people block the very information that we need in these times....
With all this happening so suddenly in so many places, obviously this is a decision made in some central location, with impact within all these different places -- but I am not certain of the source of it. I have contacted a web filter service to which several of these organizations apparently subscribe and which therefore may have initiated this general ban, but have not heard back yet. In any case, the matter of most concern in this is the likelihood that the decision was made to ban Jihad Watch was political. If it were merely a matter of filtering out controversial material, sites that treat some of the same material from a different perspective particularly pro-jihad sites would also have been banned. But they evidently have not been.
Jihad Watch is dedicated to the defense of human rights for all people against those who would impose Islamic law, with its institutionalized discrimination against women and religious minorities, over both Muslim and non-Muslim societies. There is no hatred in this, except when we report the words of hatred and supremacism of the Islamic jihadists. We are trying to raise awareness of the nature, extent, and goals of the global jihad, which threatens everyone who loves and cherishes freedom and the equality of rights of all people before the law.
However, to tar all such initiatives as hatred is a tried and true tactic of the Left. Intellectually bankrupt as it is, it silences its critics rather than dealing with them on the level of ideas. They cant answer us, so they try to shut us up and discredit us. Leftists, as well as apologists for Islamic jihad terrorism, label their opponents hatemongers and bigots, hoping thereby to make people of good will turn away from their message. And the politicized nature of this Internet censorship will come as a surprise to no one.
Committed Leftist ideologues have for many decades waged a war to gain control of the portals of communication. Their stranglehold was broken with the demise of the Fairness Doctrine and the advent of talk radio and the Internet. The Internet, for all its faults, has delivered the coup de grace to the control the politically correct media have long had on the news. Neither liberal or conservative news outlets dare to face the truth about the global jihad in any thoroughgoing or realistic way, but you can get it at Jihad Watch. And so, we are going to fight this. We are establishing a mirror site for Jihad Watch, and will continue to try to get the ban reversed and in the process, hope to draw attention also to the politicization of Net filtering companies. We are not going to take lying down being vilified and silenced, when we are telling the truth.
#1
Jihad Watch readers telling me that they had been accustomed to reading the site at work, but now their employer had blocked access to the Jihad Watch site on company computers.
I guess the employees will just have to wait until the buildings fall to get a sense that something is going on.
#5
Generally big corporations subscribe to a web filtering company, and select categories to have blocked. They tend to be pretty broad categories, and they tend to be rather inconsistently populated (as would be expected given the massive number of sites to be categorized.)
I find that if I have a work reason to go to a blocked site I can contact my sys-admin and get access. But the truth is, there is almost never a work-related site that is blocked. I figure that any non-blocked, un-work-related site I get access to on the company system (even during lunch) is a 'free' bonus to me.
#7
Glenmore is on the money here. Despicable as censorship is, especially selective censorship, employers are under no obligation whatsoever to provide non-work related Internet content to their employees. We all can be grateful that Freedom of Speech permits us to view whatever we want during off hours.
However, to tar all such initiatives as hatred is a tried and true tactic of the Left.
Spencer left out "Muslims", but he works up to it.
Intellectually bankrupt as it is, it silences its critics rather than dealing with them on the level of ideas.
That's because the Left gave up on original thought a long time ago. It's dangerous, ya know. People might get ideas instead of toeing the party line.
They cant answer us, so they try to shut us up and discredit us.
Simultaneously discrediting themselves in the eyes of all free-thinking people.
Leftists, as well as apologists for Islamic jihad terrorism, label their opponents hatemongers and bigots, hoping thereby to make people of good will turn away from their message.
Any ability to "make people of good will turn away" is often dramatically offset by the next terrorist atrocity which usually follows soon enough.
And the politicized nature of this Internet censorship will come as a surprise to no one.
Surprisingly, least of all to the liberal Left amidst their strident cries of "Free Speech". Curious, that. I seem to recall them having rallies, demonstrations and riots over "Free Speech" several decades ago? What changed?
Committed Leftist ideologues have for many decades waged a war to gain control of the portals of communication.
And they succeded. They just weren't counting on the Internet showing up.
Their stranglehold was broken with the demise of the Fairness Doctrine and the advent of talk radio and the Internet. The Internet, for all its faults, has delivered the coup de grace to the control the politically correct media have long had on the news.
Despite whatever environmental damage technology has wrought upon our planet, just the Internet alone absolves it of that wrongdoing. Electronic text transmission and display has saved entire Amazonian rainforests from the pulp mills. No combustion engines need pollute the skies to deliver content to our doors and workplace productivity is enhanced immesurably.
Neither liberal or conservative news outlets dare to face the truth about the global jihad in any thoroughgoing or realistic way, but you can get it at Jihad Watch.
When Islam is finally defeatedand it will be defeatedRobert Spencer should receive a medal of honor for his erudite and unflagging deconstruction of Islam's treacherous façade as the Religion of Peace [spit].
#8
Despicable as censorship is, especially selective censorship, employers are under no obligation whatsoever to provide non-work related Internet content to their employees.
It's not censorship. Censorship is what governments do. When an employer limits access to the web for its employees during work hours, that's just a work rule. Employers are under no obligation to provide the entire web to employees on their intranets.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/06/2007 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
#10
All good points, but Pappy has an excellent point as well. You can subscribe to a service, but what ultimately gets blocked, or not, is up to the SysAdmin. And a lot of those folks are Barking Mad Lefties.
Posted by: Natural Law ||
07/06/2007 15:44 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Spencer points out that if JW is blocked, so CAIR should be.
#13
It points out a glaring problem with democracy and capitalism. In reality democracy is only effective (enabled) after work and on weekends. For the rest of the time you are in the baron's or syndic's keep. Said keep by its nature being a MidEvil and undemocratic setting.
#14
Karen Hughes attacked Robert Spencer by name, 2 weeks ago. She would have the leverage. She also owns a Muslim veil, which she wears with dhimmi pride.
#15
This sounds like maybe the proxy filtering provider may be a managed service provider. LGF ran into this not that long ago. The url filtering providers have periodic updates to the filters. We ran into this where I work, one day a business supply site and FoxNews was blocked. The provider we used just changed the whitelist. True, in a corporate enterprise, (I work in IT security) internet access is a privelage. If it is the corporate IT depts doing this it is one thing but if it it is the url filter provider it is something else entirely.
By DANIEL PIPES
When Dwight D. Eisenhower dedicated the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., in June 1957, his 500-word talk effused good will ("Civilization owes to the Islamic world some of its most important tools and achievements") even as the American president embarrassingly bumbled (Muslims in the United States, he declared, have the right to their "own church"). Conspicuously, he included nary a word about policy.
Exactly 50 years later, standing shoeless, George W. Bush rededicated the center last week. His 1,600-word speech also praised medieval Islamic culture ("We come to express our appreciation for a faith that has enriched civilization for centuries"), but he knew a mosque from a church - and he had more on the agenda than flattery. Most arresting, surely, was his statement that "I have invested the heart of my presidency in helping Muslims fight terrorism, and claim their liberty, and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace."
This cri de coeur signaled how Bush understands to what extent actions by Muslims will define his legacy. Should they heed his dream "and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace," then his presidency, however ravaged it may look at the moment, will be vindicated. As with Harry S Truman, historians will acknowledge that he saw further than his contemporaries. Should Muslims, however, be "left behind in the global movement toward prosperity and freedom," historians will likely judge his two terms as harshly as do his fellow Americans today.
OF COURSE, how Muslims fare depends in large part on the future course of radical Islam, which in turn depends in some part on its understanding by the American president. Over the years, Bush has generally shown an increased understanding of this topic. He started with platitudinous, apologetic references to Islam as the "religion of peace," using this phrase as late as 2006.
He early on even lectured Muslims on the true nature of their religion, a preposterous ambition that prompted me in 2001 to dub him "Imam Bush." As his understanding grew, Bush spoke of the caliphate, "Islamic extremism" and "Islamofacism." What euphemistically he called the "war on terror" in 2001, by 2006 he referred to with the hard-hitting "war with Islamic fascists." Things were looking up. Perhaps official Washington did understand, after all.
But such analyses roused Muslim opposition and, as he approaches his political twilight, Bush retreated to safer ground, reverting last week to decayed tropes that tiptoe around any mention of Islam. Instead, he spoke inelegantly of "the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East" and of "a group of extremists who seek to use religion as a path to power and a means of domination."
Worse, the speech drum-rolled the appointment of a US special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, tasking this envoy to "listen to and learn from" his Muslim counterparts. But
The OIC is a Saudi-sponsored organization promoting the Wahhabi agenda under the trappings of a Muslim-only United Nations.
the OIC is a Saudi-sponsored organization promoting the Wahhabi agenda under the trappings of a Muslim-only United Nations. As Steven Emerson has noted, Bush's dismal initiative stands in "complete ignorance of the rampant radicalism, pro-terrorist, and anti-American sentiments routinely found in statements by the OIC and its leaders."
Adding to the event's accommodationist tone, some of the president's top female aides, including Frances Townsend and Karen Hughes, wore makeshift hijabs as they listened to him in the audience. In brief, it feels like "déjà vu all over again." As Diana West puts it, "Nearly six years after September 11 - nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center and proclaiming 'Islam is peace' - Mr. Bush has learned nothing."
But we now harbor fewer hopes than in 2001 that he still can learn, absorb, and reflect an understanding of the enemy's Islamist nature. Concluding that he basically has failed to engage this central issue, we instead must look to his potential successors and look for them to return to Bush's occasional robustness, again taking up those difficult concepts of the caliphate and Islamic extremism. Several Republicans - Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and (above all) Fred Thompson - are doing just that. Democratic candidates, unfortunately, prefer to remain almost completely silent on this topic.
Almost 30 years after Islamists first attacked Americans, and on the eve of three major attempted terrorist attacks in Great Britain, the president's speech reveals how confused Washington remains.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/06/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
To be fair to the president, as both the civilian military leader of the country and its primary diplomat he faces a tricky conflict with regard to Islam. Nevertheless, attempts at explaining the reality must still be made.
One one hand, the president wishes to reassure Muslims worldwide that America only wishes to target their militant extremist subgroup. But since that subgroup draws its inspiration directly from their holy text, he is forced to misrepresent or willingly overlook the nature of their faith (i.e. "religion of peace").
On the other hand, his role as the director of the military requires him to be frank about the commonality in the various worldwide conflicts where America has a compelling interest. Before his term ends we may be drawn into conflict with Iran, Pakistan or a host of other nations with strong extremist Islamic sympathies and ignoring the elephant in the room will undermine any effort.
The domestic security situation also calls for honest discussion about the nature of the threat, which is why our next president must demonstrate not only this understanding but a superior ability to educate the American people about it.
(And judging from the groundswell of popular support for Fred Thompson so far, a lot of people seem to agree with this analysis.)
#2
A huge part of the President's failings in this regard stem from his overly optimistic and naive view of human nature. This is just part of who he is -- a result of both his gentile upbringing and deep faith. It explains his silly statements about Muslims yearning for freedom and liberty because he believes these desires are innate. It also explains his inability to prosecute a real war in which disproportionate force is used to utterly subdue the enemy.
Posted by: Captain Lewis ||
07/06/2007 6:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Psychological projection means: one sees what they want to see, based on their own need for security or moral clarification. It is unfortunate that this President can't read the Koran objectively. In fact, he lets Karen (Airhead) Hughes do it for him. Most of the right wing blogs have turned against him. While support held at the start of the Surge, it collapsed when he endorsed independence for Kosovo, notwithstanding American signatures on an armistice agreement that guarantees perpetual Serb sovereignty. Then there were the apologies for bombing "civilians" (read Taliban supporters) in Afghanistan's Helmand Province. Not to mention the fact that that junk state has gone beyond producers of raw opium, to full scale heroin refiners while under NATO occupation, whose member countries are being crippled by drug shipments through protected Kosovo. Then there is the missiles in Eastern Europe that locals don't want, which could be made unnecessary through greater integration with Eastern Europe and North Asia, including Russia. Then the deference of Middle East diplomacy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which exists to advance Islam alone, by enforcing the aggressive Koran dictate that Bush can't understand. And the President appears willing to coast for another 18 months, while Iranian proliferaton and interference in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and Syria, grows exponentially.
In the Fall of 2001, someone told me that the war on terror (or Muslim aggression) cannot be won until Muslims do the necessary killing for us. That means: nation destruction.
Are you suggesting that GWB and the administration understand the "nation destruction" concept and are being clever about it? I don't see how, left to killing themselves, the Islam Problem will get fixed. For that solution to work millions upon millions would need to kill eachother. It's hard to imagine how that could happen fast enough.
Posted by: Captain Lewis ||
07/06/2007 7:49 Comments ||
Top||
#6
George W. Bush rededicated the center last week. His 1,600-word speech also praised medieval Islamic culture ("We come to express our appreciation for a faith that has enriched civilization for centuries"
But he failed to mention that same medieval culture is trying to tear the hell out of civilization today and destroy everyone else's culture.
#7
What do you mean goes? George II have started by trying to eat his cake and keep it. Lets face it people: the times call for Andrew Jackson, but that we have is Woodrow Wilson with speech impediment.
#8
The last half of Bush's presidency seems to be a race to the bottom against the dhimocrats. Judging by the approval poles, the dhims are still winning the race.
#9
When the weak, meek, and dhimmi race to abandon everything of value, then good men need do nothing. So for now, we wait as Bush, Olmert, and Brown plunge headlong into the abiss. Keep your guns clean and store ammunition, food, and water because there is little time left.
Will it be England, Israel, or Pakistan ?
#10
As Diana West puts it, "Nearly six years after September 11 - nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center and proclaiming 'Islam is peace' - Mr. Bush has learned nothing."
The OIC debacle is glaring proof of this.
A huge part of the President's failings in this regard stem from his overly optimistic and naive view of human nature. This is just part of who he is -- a result of both his gentile upbringing and deep faith.
Spot on, Captain Lewis! I have long maintainedand been equally belabored for itthat Bush's sense of religiosity prevents him from comprehending that another "religion" may instead be a political ideology masquerading as a faith. His own sense of evangelism blinds him to Islam's vicious zealotry.
It explains his silly statements about Muslims yearning for freedom and liberty because he believes these desires are innate. It also explains his inability to prosecute a real war in which disproportionate force is used to utterly subdue the enemy.
Every letter and dot! Disproportionate force is the only tool that will ever gain us any ground against our Muslim foes. They respect nothing else and will respond to nothing less. Only when thousandsor tens of thousandsof Muslims die for each victim of a terrorist atrocity will they begin to clean their own house.
I don't see how, left to killing themselves, the Islam Problem will get fixed. For that solution to work millions upon millions would need to kill eachother. It's hard to imagine how that could happen fast enough.
It won't. Ideal as that approach may seem to be, it will not prevent Islam's headlong rush to acquire nuclear weapons. To date absolutely nothing indicates that Muslims have any will to police their own ranks. To the contrary, any reform within Islam has been in the direction of greater Islamic "purity" and increased radicalism. That Muslims expect the West to clean up their jihadist filth and demand that we do it in a delicate fashion is the height of surrealism, not to mention insulting in the extreme. That Bush is indeed doing exactly this represents a pinnacle in delusional thinking.
#14
To put it simply; purchase your firearms and ammo ASAP. "Be Prepared". It's the old (USA) Boy Scout motto, that "They" chose to drop decades ago. That simple, direct maxim always made so much logical sense to me. We lost the BSA moral compass soon after we scrapped the Motto. I always loved seeing that decal on the the VW Microbuses and had no problem accepting the concept.
Posted by: Asymmetrical T ||
07/06/2007 22:03 Comments ||
Top||
#15
The Boy Scouts -- at least the ones I know, Asymmetrical T -- still make a point of being prepared, regardless of the motto.
The illustration is just a stock Rantburg graphic.
The article is quite good.
DanNY
Posted by: DanNY ||
07/06/2007 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Great article.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
07/06/2007 14:33 Comments ||
Top||
#6
His suggestions sound good to me, but Petraeus and above are the guys he needs to convince to change the status quo. I wonder if he took it up the chain, got nowhere, and decided to go public.
#7
IIUC, the Air Force still tends to be on a 24 hr cycle to generate air tasking orders. This USAF pilot is arguing for an approach closer to the Army's tactical use of air assets.
But I'm sure we have some RBers with more first hand knowledge on the topic.
#10
Congratulations to Lt. Colonel Jablow! And how wonderful he's too busy to be asked -- hopefully we'll get to read about the results of his handiwork here at Rantburg. :-D
#11
Probably not, TW. I doubt that he'll want to talk about much, and I doubt he'll be allowed to talk about much.
He's a little burned out on the war, you know; he hopes to do something to build rather than to destroy. I guess he has a little of Gail Halvorsen in him.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
07/06/2007 23:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It has been a long time coming, but unmistakable cracks are beginning to appear in the edifice of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's autocratic regime.
How many articles that start with, roughly, this sentence have we seen so far?
#4
I don't think Ahmadinejad is going anywhere in the near term. I don't think this generation of Iranian youth will willingly participate in any human wave slugfest with the US. He could get ousted if he heads in that direction or if he gets implicated in some kind of financial cronyism.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/06/2007 18:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Too many congress critters have their eyes on the upcoming elections and trying to get elected or re-elected. I wish Washington would show some cajunes about some of the important issues in our country. The Senate only reacted to the immigration bill because of the hugh outpouring of disgust directed at Washington by the electorate.
#5
all of us who are privileged to serve there should set aside whatever partisan or ideological differences divide us to send a clear, strong and unified message to Tehran that it must stop everything it is doing to bring about the death of American service members in Iraq.
Strongly worded letter to follow.
Geeze. Is Lieberman running for prez?
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/06/2007 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Congress is composed of Congresspersons = Congresscritters, and the same are fickle. Radical Islam = Iran, etc. is presently losing its war agz America both regionally and globally. ALQaeda + Moud-Mullahs, etal. can no longer rely on anti-Amer American-Western pols, or even the MSM, to at minima engage in bilateralism or multilateralist policies to the benefit = NOT to the detriment/disadvantage of Radical Islamism. As "Warriors/Lions of God-Islam", the Islamists likely can not stop fighting worldwide becuz it will humiliate both their movement + Islam-Islamism in general. IMO Radical Islam has no recourse except to initiate Amer Hiroshima(s) events inside America, as well as to wilfully induce conventional-nuclear confrontation amongst the great powers. THE LATTER IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THOSE RADICAL MULLAHS WHOM HAVE ARGUED THAT A GLOBAL AGE OF BARBARISM, MEDIEVALISM, ETC. VIOLENCE AND CONQUEST MUST ENSUE WHILE THE EARTH REVITALIZES = REPLENISHES ITS NATURAL OIL TO FORMER LEVELS.
#7
JosephM dear, it was because of your posts that I came to see how brittle the Islamists really are. I don't have the slightest doubt you're right about their desire to initiate an American Hiroshima, but I continue to hope they will never actually acquire the capability.
#8
One of the premises of anti-US Asymmetric Warfare is to induce America and its VOLUNTEER NON-DRAFT ARMY to unilaterally use up enemy-perceived scarce US supplies of Oil = POL, and to force Amer's dedicated maneuver forces to engage in [casualty-heavy] STATIC WARFARE. Anti-US Leftist-SOcialist-Govtist OWG politicos will do the rest.
A GLOBAL AGE OF BARBARISM, MEDIEVALISM, ETC. VIOLENCE AND CONQUEST MUST ENSUE WHILE THE EARTH REVITALIZES = REPLENISHES ITS NATURAL OIL TO FORMER LEVELS.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
