Off today...

So I have a few more minutes to post than normal.

Your points in your last post are valid... but don't address my question. I understand the threat posed by jihad-minded Muslims, but does "terror" and its effects on the victims go beyond labels or denominations? More to the point, do labels compound the problem by creating more issues than they solve?

Using the Norwegian killer as an example again, I'd answer at least one of your questions with a YES: Did he intend to overthrow the existing democratic government and replace it with a Christian theocracy? His 1,500 page manifesto certainly seems to indicate that his intentions ran along those lines. But his intentions aren't where the problem lies... its in his actions and the effects of those actions on his fellow citizens.

Many people are unhappy with the existing government of this country, including many millions of Americans... yet no rational human being would condone what McVeigh did in 1996. That was terrorism, pure and simple. The Tokyo Subway attacks of '95 were the same, and resulted in 12 dead, more than 900 injured and 5,500 people hospitalized... "terror", pure and simple.

Were either of these "worse" than the '93 WTC bombing? Was the "intention" of that bombing anything other than "terror"? Even 9/11 was planned and executed to give the maximum amount of chaos and confusion, and not to overthrow the democratic government of the US. They wanted to hurt us... to cripple us and make us less of a "superpower" globally... but even those sick and twisted enough to plan and execute such efforts didn't imagine it would destroy the US entirely.

Now, where I am entirely in agreement with Ryan (and most of the established conservative movement in this country) is in the FACT that an act of terrorism committed against the US and her citizens is a legitimate casus belli, and should draw the full legal, economic, military and political reaction from the US onto those responsible for the terror, or those harboring the terrorists.

More and more, though, I am wondering if fighting a "war on terror"... where the primum hostium is terror itself, rather than a nation, state or organization utilizing terror as a means of war... is something we can hope to win. Its fine as stated policy, I guess... but as a committed, on-going combat objective, I don't see it as something we can sustain for any extended period of time beyond what we already have, and I see no measurable success in our efforts to date.

Now, I can see Ryan melting down as he reads this. Yes, we removed the Taliban from power, and reduced al Qaeda to a fraction of their former ability and influence across the globe and the region. Yes, we removed Hussein and helped establish a democratically elected Iraqi government were none had ever existed before. Both of these efforts were wildly successful (no matter what the Left says) and both were in specific response to threats and/or actions taken against the US directly. Neither can be shown to have reduced the likelihood of a terrorist attack anywhere in the world, however... on the contrary, a good case can be made that they have increased the likelihood of such attacks, at least locally and regionally.

So, I see wild success in responding to direct attacks and threats of attack from nations/organizations that utilize or support terrorism as a legitimate arm of war (arma bellica, to continue my meager Latin stretches...), but no measurable success in fighting and winning the broader and more general "War on Terror" that we still hear so much about.

And, FINALLY, to return to my original point and question... has the broad and general efforts to date contributed to such attacks as what we have seen so recently in Norway?

Quickly...

As I am also pressed for time.

On Titus' point, their are 3 obvious answers to me. 1) "numbers." You got 14 guys with shaved heads & old school Nikes sipping Hemloch in a basement, you have a cult. You have 140 million doing so & you have a "religion." And that's my way of pointing out that the phrase "Islamic Terrorism" becomes apt when amongst this wide array of terrorist networks, nations, nationalities & skin color their professed religion is the single unifying factor. Lone nuts do not get the identifier of a wider community when they are, well, alone. 2) and more important is the "goal." Was the Norway shooter killing with the aim of supplanting the democratic form of government in his nation with a Christian theocracy? Because the end game of Islamic terrorism is to install Sharia law from one end of the planet to the other. They want an all Islamic government. I understand the Norway shooter wanted multiculturalism stopped and saw it as the end of his country as he knew it, but did he want an unelected Christian rule of law to replace the Labor Party or a return to what he saw as "the good old days?" Because those are 2 very different things. 3) A wider acceptance within the killers professed religious community. What are Bin Laden's poll numbers in Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Syria? Do any "Christian States" fund Christian terror groups as Iran does Hezbollah,or members of the Saudi Royal family do Al Qaeda? Is their a single priest, Catholic, Protestant or Mormon, that has come out in support of the Norway shooter as Imams both West & East defend HAMAS?

I would argue that Al Qaeda, HAMAS, in each of my 3 categories earn their religious identifier where as the sick, demented mass murderer in Norway did not.

Now, as to what I signed in to post on...

How many times have you heard, from President Obama apologists on TV and in your own life, "Well he inherited a ..." and they go on to fill in the X, Y, & Z horrible mess Bush left Barak. The economy, unemployment, bail outs, Obama's inability to mend any of these national problems is at naseaum blamed on what he inherited from Bush. Here's the comeback: "Well, he inherited a triple A credit rating too."

On the language of debate...

I don't want to start a fight. I'm not detailing a huge shift in my personal perception of the world and our society, I'm simply asking for opinion and input.

We've all spent weeks watching and reading about the terror attacks in Norway, and how these attacks are being understood in the light of European multiculturalism. Many more traditional and conservative pundits have said that this is the clearest evidence that multiculturalism does not work. Many more liberal pundits have said this is evidence that conservative values contribute to and encourage intolerance and hatred.

All language is imperfect, and thus all language is prone to allowing narrow, constrained terms and phrases when trying to detail and categorize events like the Norway attacks. For example, terms that are frequently used in describing Breivik (the alleged and admitted perpetrator) are many and varied, but most are very similar to "right-wing Christian extremist". His views certainly seem ultra-conservative (meaning from the far right of the political spectrum), and no one can deny his extremist views and actions. I can't really speak to his Christianity, since neither his expressed views nor his actions reflect Christian values as I understand them today... but it is how he describes himself, so the label sticks.

My question is: Does associating someone like Breivik, an avowed right-wing extremist, with his traditional Christian background contribute to the problem, or does it help identify it?

No one in the past (that I am aware of) ever referred to the terrorism employed in Northern Ireland by both the IRA and the Protestant groups fighting them as "Christian terrorists", even though they were fighting, bombing and killing in the name of two very distinct Christian denominations. McVeigh was not labelled a "Christian terrorist" even though he was Christian and had a serious issue with the secular society of today's America.

Terms and phrases such as "radical Islam" and "Muslim extremists" might be perfectly accurate terms for people and organizations like bin Laden and Hamas... but do they also contribute to the marginalization of a large (and growing) segment of most Western societies? When such terms become so common and so general, do they actually carry or convey any meaning or substance?

I'm late for work, so I can't continue now... but I'd love to see this thought discussed further.

AA

For the first time in US history our credit rating has been reduced from the gold plated AAA to AA+. Standard and Poors cited the recent deficit curbing deal as insufficient to bring our debt under control & initimated they could drop it further if no action to correct course is taken. This puts us behind the UK, France and Germany. Soon after, Chinese State TV launched an absolutely blistering attack on our financial "mess", chastising the US government like a father scolding a teenage daughter with her own credit card. This was no cryptic diplomatic talk, it was a flat out verbal assault.

So let me get this straight - Standard & Poors and the Peoples Republic of China claim those NOT in the Tea Party are the extremists.

How's that hope and change working for you? Ya, lets reelect this guy & keep the Boehnors & McCains ... they've got 2 more A's to go through before we're in real trouble ... God help us.

A heads-up for you parents...

We got the final bill for the 18-year-old's first year of college yesterday... and we paid it.

She earned, begged and borrowed $3,900 for her share, and the balance of $4,478 was on us... so we did what any normal American family would do: we borrowed the money. That's just the first semester, too... ouch. Still, it's nice to know that the bill for this term is paid. If nothing else, she'll have this term under her belt before we have to do this all over again.

The average state-school tuition in this state is just over $21k, and our's is a little less than $17k. We feel like this is a bargain... but it still hurts to think that each and every year we are adding the equivalent to another car payment to our debt load. Since the House went with the GOP majority, funding for student aid has been cut by the Fed, and the Commonwealth of PA hasn't picked up the slack (they are as broke as the Fed, it seems)... all while tuition rates have jumped an average of 15% in just two years.

Prior to the storm... I had no children. After the storm, I end up with three and I find (now) that I am utterly unprepared to pay for any of their college educations, let alone all of them. If I had words of wisdom for my Bund Brothers, it would be to find some way to SAVE SAVE SAVE for college, starting tomorrow.

Sure, I know that the sinfully-prideful souls of both Jambo and F Ryan are saying that the superior genes of their respective progeny mean that the children are shoe-ins for scholarships and grants galore... and that might be true... but nothing can prepare those that are unaware of what schools today are putting on an itemized list of costs associated with education for the AMOUNT that needs to be fronted, and just how narrow the scholarship and grant applications are in their coverage.

For example... on-campus living expenses. I lived on-campus (admittedly, more than 23 years ago) and don't EVER recall seeing someone "cleaning" the dorms. Yet, part of Katey's itemized costs is a bill for $278/semester for "dormitory cleaning". I know there are common rooms, bathrooms and shower facilities that need to be cleaned... but in all the time I spent in the dorms, I never saw it being done, and I promise you no one ever (EVER) cleaned my rooms. She has another bill of $140/semester for use of a fitness facility. I certainly hope she takes advantage of this perk, and works out to her heart's (and body's) delight... because I can't NOT pay for this perk, so I don't want to see it wasted.

Anyway... its a staggering amount of money. You can't start planning for this expense too early, let me tell you.

Too true...

Welcome to my nightmare... watching your party self-destruct before your very eyes. The only difference is that I've been watching mine for longer than you have (by about 9 years).

This will get fixed ONLY when the proponents of fiscal responsibility find a way to communicate their ideas and plans in a manner that can be measurably seen against the plans and policies of the Dems and GOP running things now. I'm not convinced that Bachmann and the rest have ALL the answers, but much of what they say makes sense and warrants at least a try and some real consideration... but it won't get any of it.

As I've said before... this economy has NOT seen the worst that is to come, and this Congress and this Administration are going to be the ones to bring that "worst" to light.

The worst...

This is no Tea Party "victory." I don't know how or why this is the narrative in the main stream press, but it is. Actually, that's not true, I DO know why that's the narrative, but let me stay on point. This debt ceiling deal is no victory for we, the simpatico to Tea Party aspirations.

Let start here - we (in the form of Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, etc) were branded "extremists" by the Democrat Party AND senior members of the GOP whom do not care for this grass roots usurping of their authority. For instance McCain referred to them as "hobbits." See Boehner rewrote the previously submitted bill to include a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. So McCain, on the floor of the United States Senate, said "He caved to these Hobbits, rewrote the bill, so they could return to Middle Earth, confident that they defeated evil, Mordor." It was DRIPPING with sarcasm and condescension. By the way, I'm not sure if Johnny knows, but the hobbits were good guys. At any rate, what was this "extreme" Tea Party insistence? A balanced budget amendment that balanced our national check book over the next 8 years and required that government not hold more than 20% debt to GDP. This recent debt ceiling raise, of 2.7 Trillion dollars, puts us at 100% debt to GDP. THAT is extreme plan? An 8 year balanced budget? 20% debt to GDP? That's an extremists position? It used to be called an accountant. The world's upside down when 100% debt to GDP is considered by the mainstream of both parties as the logical way forward and a balanced budget is the extreme. Isn't Clinton's claim to fam a balanced budget? What the hell is going on in that town? In the end, the Tea Party requestwas not included in the "compromise bill."

Here's what was (stripped down to nuts and bolts) - the GOP leadership agreed to the President's requested increase of 2.7 Trillion. In exchange they got a "panel." A panel of 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats who will come up with suggestions to the congress (that they all promised to abide by) on how to come up with an equal amount - 2.7 trillion - in "savings." Here's the catch(es). 1.) If you vote against the final bill you are excluded from this panel. No Tea Party member (that sticks to his/her guns that is) will be on that panel, period. 2.) Tax increases are not off the table as an avenue to "pay" for the 2.7 in cuts. 3.) If this panel, if this blue ribbon committee, can not come to a consensus on what to do there is an automatic trigger in cuts. Where? 2 primary places - defense and Medicare. But not Medicare in general, ONLY to the payments to the providers. So if no consensus (come to by a panel of Republicans not serious about debt and Democrat loyalists) is achieved then not only is defense gutted (as we fight 3 wars no less), but doctors will stop taking Medicare patients, they don't work for free, which will have people screaming for a new Obamacare single payer style system.

I've said it before and I feel even more confident in it now - the GOP is on a slow road to suicide. It may take a generation for it to unfold, it won't die easy. But as sure as I'm sitting here the GOP will be replaced by a Tea Party brand, because we take the time to find out what is actually in the deal rather tan relying on CNN, and we will not continue to stand for the likes of Lindsey Graham, McCain, McConnell and Boehner.