Hollywood Jahilliya

Democracy, whiskey, sexy.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

I'm an old-school liberal, like FDR or, heck, even Trotsky if I'm feeling generous. That is, I recognize a fascist enemy when I see one, and I treat it like an enemy. It's my mission (self-appointed, of course) to convince other Hollywood liberals to do the same.

07 May 2006

The Euston Manifesto

Apologies (again) for the lack of posts these last few weeks. There's no need to bore you with the details of my absence, but I will make an effort to keep the posts up to at least one a week from here on out.

Meanwhile, there's a new progressive alliance under way -- the Euston Manifesto. They're exactly the kind of liberals and progressives a post-9/11 world needs, and I proudly ally myself with them.

Here's the text of my signing statement:

Why I Signed

Of course, I started out saying we deserved it. I rattled the shibboleths and evoked the totem of roosting chickens. I suddenly reversed my support of the Kurds and the Afghans and the Sudanese, all to blame George Bush. But I knew it was a lie.

See, like any progressive, I knew that true people's movements don't, as the terrorists do, boast of their love for death, or target the innocent, or espouse Jewish conspiracy theories, or reject democracy on principle, or enslave women ... especially all at once. I'd seen this foe before, and it's name wasn't America. It was fascism, trading in jackboots for keffiyahs and merging Mein Kampf with Qur'an. In this fight as any other, I knew I had to stand where I'd always stood... with the heretics, the hebes, the homos and the harridans.

Be they the slaughtered mothers of the Sudan, the roasted innocents of Manhattan or the pulverized cosmopolitans of London or Bali or Tel Aviv, I therefore announce my solidarity with the victims against this rising fascist tide. We have met an enemy that is not us, who hates us for our good ideas, not our bad policies. Fighting it requires no apology.

19 April 2006

Too Soon? Why?

I've been rather busy, so it took a while for reports of reactions to the trailer for United 93 to reach me. I must say, I'm baffled and embarrassed that my fellow Angelinos cried "Too soon!" during it.

Too soon? Why? We've had Fahrenheit 9/11 and Syriana, only one of which admitted it was a work of fiction, and both of which got the politics exactly backwards. We've had Munich and Paradise Now, both fine films worthy of much praise in many ways, but that both whitewashed or humanized terrorists in some way. Few people raised a stink, and many lifted voices of approval.

But now we get a true story that depicts homicidal mass murderers and their crimes in an accurate light, and it's "too soon"?

I say it's about darned time. I'll leave it to director Paul Greengrass to remind us why:

"[the passengers of Flight 93] could see exactly what they were dealing with – and were faced with a dreadful choice. Do we sit here and do nothing and hope for the best, hope it turns out all right? Or do we do something about it? And if so, what can we do?"

It seems to me that those are the two choices that face us today and have faced us ever since that day."

Read the review. Hirsen is dead wrong about many things "liberal" (OK, most things), but on this one he's dead right. It hurts to admit that, but it's true.

14 April 2006

9/11: The Irish Did It!

As the fifth anniversary approaches, and at least two major Hollywood 9/11 films come down the pike, we can probably expect a sharp rise in the preponderance of 9/11 conspiracy theories. I've concocted my own for fun.

Most conspiracy theories surrounding the WTC Towers collapse hinge on the claim that someone planted thermite bombs in them to spark a collapse. The culprits, of course, are never identified. But if someone could figure out who did it, then the whole plot could be unravelled.

Following is a conspiracy theory I cooked up to answer that question. This is a fake. I do not actually believe it. But I have had fun showing it to True Believers and watching them squirm. It was concocted with the aid of links at 911Myths.com. Feel free to borrow it and have your own fun.

I KNOW WHO PLANTED THE BOMBS AT THE WTC

The part that's always bothered me was, who were these people "in the know"? None of the sites I've visited have provided me with any evidence to answer that question. So I struck out on my own, and I think I figured it out.

This article offers an intriguing clue:

Four Irish construction workers, feared dead by their families in the World Trade Center attack, turned up alive, although seriously injured, under different names in a Manhattan hospital.

The four, all natives of Co Cavan in Ireland, were among the first evacuated from the World Trade Center where they had been working under assumed names...

The Sinn Fein MP who was asked by the families to intervene, confirmed to the Irish Voice on Tuesday that the men had been found.

Earlier this week he had called on the INS to issue a statement that they would not prosecute any undocumented who were caught up in the blast.

The INS subsequently did so, and the story of the men began to emerge. Because the men are undocumented and also worked under false names, they greatly feared INS prosecution.

There have been persistent reports in the Irish community about the men since the World Trade Center blasts, though none substantiated until now.

As the Irish Voice reported last week, another undocumented Irish worker using false identification who narrowly escaped with his life stated that he saw many other Irish undocumented construction workers going up to a higher floor on the morning that the blasts occurred.

While stressing that they may have all come down safely, he says he has no information on their whereabouts.


Meanwhile, fears of INS consequences for illegals have been abated with a statement from INS commissioner James Ziglar.

According to Ziglar, any employer who lost illegally employed workers in the World Trade Center will not suffer government prosecution, nor will the workers themselves.


"Undocumented" Irish construction workers at the World Trade Center, on September 11th. Working under assumed names, going up to higher floors, engaged in unidentified tasks. Shielded from investigation and prosecution. Whereabouts currently unknown. And note that seeming Freudian slip from the one worker who was interviewed: he said "blasts," rather than "attacks." Did he know something the rest of us didn't, and still don't thanks to a well-orchestrated cover-up?

Another suspicious fact is the lack of Irish fatalities on the ground or in the towers. On 9/11 the Irish Foreign Ministry of Affairs was flooded with 2500-3000 calls to its dedicated phone lines from worried relatives. They even set up a database to track Irish citizens who were unaccounted-for. That means there were thousands of Irish workers expected by their families to have been in the area. And yet, only one Irish citizen died that day.

Only one Irishman? In New York City? I find that highly suspicious, especially considering how much influence the Irish community has in New York's police and fire departments. As one Irish magazine has admitted,

(t)he FDNY, thus, remains a family business. It just so happens that many of those families were -- and are -- Irish.

So, all those first responders called to the scene, hundreds of them killed, and only one Irish fatality. Who called all the Irishmen and told them not to show up? Could it have been someone in the NYPD or FDNY?

Of course, those "undocumented Irish workers" (yeah, right) couldn't have pulled it all off by themselves. They had to have help. Who helped them? To answer that question, it helps to dig a little deeper into their connections.

Notice that the first person their families called was a Sinn Fein member of Parliament. Anyone recall why Sinn Fein was in the news, just weeks before 9/11? Let me refresh your memory:

...the news that three well-known members of the Provisional IRA were being held in custody after apparently taking part in a five-week summer training camp with a Colombian terrorist group had thrown another spoke in the wheels of the peace process.

Exactly what the IRA men were up to in the malaria-ridden jungles of South America remains a mystery. But one thing is for certain, nobody believes they were merely engaged in "sightseeing", as they have told prosecutors...

Sinn Fein has been trying to distance itself from the three men, but the crampons the party hierarchy attached to the moral high ground after Unionists rejected the IRA's moves on decommissioning have begun to slip.


These IRA men were accused of working closely with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC in Spanish), "a well-armed...guerilla group funded by drug money." And it turns out FARC have some interesting connections of their own:

One point in the original proffer made the case for links between FARC and al Qaida, including the presence of FARC personnel in Afghanistan as part of a close relationship between the two groups. "It is believed that FARC terrorists have received training in Al Qaida terrorist camps in Afghanistan," Beers says in the original document.

Could FARC's admitted "close relationship" with al Qaida have aided the Irish masterminds of this plot in setting up their patsies? Perhaps there was a Columbian motive in gaining a share of the distribution end of the lucrative opium market, which could restart once the Taliban had been overthrown.

More likely, to my mind, is that the al Qaida connection is a smokescreen. There are signs of American involvement all over this. Remember the article up above, and those "undocumented" Irish workers at the WTC. Those were potentially important witnesses; indeed, supremely important, since it's pretty clear they were involved in planting the bombs. Were they detained or questioned to find out what they were doing? No, the INS simply agreed to let them go, at the behest of Sinn Fein, and they were flown out of the country in a hurry. Dont you find that strange?

And then there's Richard Haass, US special envoy from President Bush himself. Guess where he was on September 11 2001? Why, in Dublin, of course:

Richard Haass, then a United States special envoy, was in Dublin for a meeting with Bertie Ahern, then Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister), when news of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were passed to the two men. Richard Haass decided to continue with his meetings in Dublin and then to travel to Belfast for pre-arranged meetings with political leaders in Northern Ireland..

President Bush's special envoy, meeting with Irish political leaders, on the same day that "undocumented Irish construction workers" were seen going up to the high floors of the Trade Towers, and later spirited away without being questioned? Thats one hell of a coincidence, isn't it?

While in Dublin, Haass would almost certainly have met and worked with Richard Egan, the U.S. ambassador to Ireland. And guess who Egan was photographed with only a month before 9/11?

Ambassador Richard Egan was photographed meeting Joe Cahill, the former head of the IRA's financial network, this month in a publicity coup for Sinn Fein at a time when the United States was launching a war on terrorism.

The same article points out, "Egan is a former businessman from Massachusetts who was the founder and CEO of EMC, a computer data storage company." EMC is a big player in the IT world, who work with government agencies and have done very well for themselves since 9/11:

Automated networked storage solutions from EMC are currently being utilized by many federal and regional government agencies, as well as by leading corporations around the world. Higgins noted that, since 9/11, corporations have focused on the need to implement systems...

I guess we're supposed to think this is all a coincidence. But I think the evidence is pretty clear -- indeed, it's irrefutable -- that Irish elements within the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. I wouldnt be surprised if the hijackers were disguised Irishmen, or perhaps Muslims kidnapped from Afghanistan by FARC and handed over to the IRA for brainwashing, as part of the frame-up job against Al-Qaeda.

And here you all are arguing nonsense, ignoring the real threat. Shame on you. Every "debate" you have -- whether youre pro- or anti-"conspiracy" -- is a distraction that keeps you from focusing on this sinister Irish cabal. It gives them all the cover they need to continue with their shadowy conspiracy, which I've dubbed "Operation Shamrock." That may be the title of I book a devote to this subject one day, if I live long enough to get it compiled.

I guess my Pa was right when he used to say, "never trust a Paddy."

08 April 2006

"Islam Is The Matrix"

Some of it's a bit farther than I would go, but in broad scope, it's spot-on. The great totalitarian threat of our time comes from Islam's Religious Right, not Christianity's. Wake up, Hollywood.

I'll be back soon with more to say. Sorry for the absence.

25 March 2006

When Is A Connection Not A Connection?

It's a question worth pondering as the Iraq war (and the debate about it) moves into its fourth year (or its 15th, if you take the view that the Gulf War never ended as a matter of law). New internal Iraqi documents, captured by coalition forces and now being released by the Defense Department, stand to make fools of those who yell that Saddam and Bin Laden couldn't possibly have been in cahoots.

Of course, the information is still tenative, but the DoD is doing this the smart way for once: posting the documents in their original Arabic, so that independent viewers can consult their own experts for translation and not have to rely on the "official" word from the government. It's a clever way of defusing charges of censorship or manipulative quotation, and the ODNI is to be commended for it.

ABC News has translated some of the documents, and their assessment is, to say the least, bound to be pretty surprising to Bush's critics (boldface added by me).

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)

And then there's this:

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghan informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghan consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghan consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e., an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)

Limited value? That, of course, remains to be seen. But it comes on the heels of several other intriguing tidbits alluded to in the 9/11 Commission Report. It's known that Al-Qaeda and Iraq were negotiating a non-aggression pact in 1998. The Clinton Administration still maintains that the Al-Shifa pharmecutical plant in Sudan was a joint Iraqi/Al-Qaeda operation. It's known that Saddam offered Bin Laden sanctuary in 1999, and there is still the unresolved mystery of Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi, the Iraqi national who facilitated a meeting between the mastermind of the USS Cole attack and two of the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lumpur in 2000, and may have been an active Iraqi intelligence agent at the time.

These new documents only strengthen the Bush Administration's case. When is a connection not a connection?

Hollywood Jahilliya takes no position on the question of whether Saddam and Osama had an "operational" link. That question is largely a red herring to begin with. At this point, I agree with skeptics that the case is not proven beyond doubt. But I'm not blind or stupid, either, and I'm willing to take the evidence at face value until given good reason to do otherwise. I wish other folks on the left would do the same.

False Consciousness Watch: Thankless Pacifists

The Times (UK) reported yesterday that,
(t)he Christian group whose activists were freed in a British-led raid in Baghdad yesterday did not thank their rescuers but instead called on them to withdraw from Iraq.
I'm happy they were rescued, and saddened that one of them was murdered. But I can't help thinking that, like much of the left, they are missing the point. Modern pacifism -- at least, political pacifism -- depends on a moral equivalency between liberal democracies and totalitarian states, between armies who try to avoid civilian casualties and death squads who prefer them. It should be more than intuitively obvious that any such equivalency is hogwash.

I used to think this way. I'm embarrassed by it. I woke up, which is why I have faith that the rest of the left can, too.

20 March 2006

A Vital Piece

Hitchens at his best. Follow all of the links. They're worth the time.

V For Vendetta = D For Doublespeak

All my suspicions about the movie have been confirmed. From the first frame to the last, it is an endorsement of fascism and terrorism dressed up as a triumph of the nonconformist will. A more stylish-yet-vapid bit of propaganda could not have been composed by Riefenstahl herself.

The title character -- Code Name: V -- is of course sympathetic, and any human lacking in apathy feels for him. But his formula for change is brutally simplistic and downright evil, not to mention elitist and totalitarian. He hopes to inspire not reform, but complete destruction.

The climactic set-piece of the film, when London's oppressed citizens, inspired by V's heroic terrorism, trade in fearful obedience for blind conformity by dressing up like him and blowing up Parliament, is portrayed as a victory for freedom. The audience isn't even offered the choice between red or blue pills, as it was in The Matrix. Instead, we're asked to choose between two blue pills.

The confusing thing is whether the filmmakers want us to take this seriously. In all the interviews I've watched or read, they sure seem like they do. Until, that is, they encounter a serious (read: critical) question; then, suddenly, well, it's just a movie.

Nothing in the film leads me to amend my original remarks about its political content and implications. Though I have to wonder: have the Wachowskis or McTeigue or anyone else connected to the production ever paid attention to how masked political mobs actually behave in the real world? Have they never heard of the Ku Klux Klan? Baader-Meihoff? Al-Qaeda? Have they ever watched newsreels from Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia or any other totalitarian society? Haven't they noticed that such types are the only ones in the real world who deliver V's message and live by his example? Haven't they noticed that the only result of actions like those V endorses have been the rise of totalitarian states?

Further, are they conscious at all of the power of propaganda? You'd think so, they way they show Sutler's government using it in the movie. But do they get it that their movie is a piece of propaganda in its own right? That it will have real consequences in the real world? This isn't just a movie about the world inside the movie. It's a movie about the world outside it, too; and in that world, the only side effect messages like this have ever had is to bolster the rise of government's like Sutler's.

And are they really banking on the gamble that the rest of us won't notice this? How dumb do they think we are?

Aestehically, there's a lot to like about the movie. But politically, it is reactionary trash, as right-wing and pro-fascist as V's enemies. If this is any indication of how the Holywood political mind sees the world, then we're in big trouble. It means that Tinseltown has joined Big Brother's side, and done so in the name of freedom.

Doublespeak, indeed.

11 March 2006

False Consciousness Watch: "Sorry, Haters"

I may have spoken too soon in my last post. There's a positive buzz going around town about Sorry, Haters, the indie film starring Robin Wright Penn. Word has it that it's shades of Taxi Driver for the post-9/11 world. I haven't seen the flick yet -- it's over in Pasadena, and I'm not free for a couple of days, so I might actually miss it -- but writer-director Jeff Stanzler had some very interesting remarks about it in the Global Mail review posted on the film's website (here and here). On the second page, he's quoted as follows:
I do think part of what was disappointing about Sept. 11 was, directly afterwards, very very little of the discussion was about, What’s wrong with us, to bring it upon us?”
This is called blaming the victim. And the subtext of Stanzler's further remarks are basically a broken record we've heard before: we brought this on ourselves somehow; it was the result of our sins, be they moral (as they often are to voices from the extreme right), political (from the extreme "left"), or both.

Far too much of the artistic response to 9/11 has been to look at ourselves, to call America the Great Satan (or, in secular leftist terms, an empire). To a degree, that's only natural; humans always wonder, when attacked, what we did to deserve it. But there comes a point when introspection turns to masochism. Those who continue to insist we blame ourselves passed that point long ago.

Al-Qaeda has made it perfectly clear what we did to make them mad:
America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by the people via legislating laws that contradict the way of Allah and permit what Allah has prohibited. This compels the other countries to act in accordance with the same laws in the same ways… and punishes any country [that rebels against these laws] by besieging it, and then by boycotting it. By so doing, [America] seeks to impose on the world a religion that is not Allah's.
That's the first greivance listed in Why We Fight America, an Al-Qaeda manifesto circulated on the Internet a few months after 9/11. It also contained a pre-amble stating that Islam was intended by God to be "the center of leadership, the center of hegemony and rule" and that "the entire earth must be subject to the religion of Allah."

Greivance number two was this zinger:
America, with the collaboration of the Jews, is the leader of corruption and the breakdown [of values], whether moral, ideological, political, or economic corruption. It disseminates abomination and licentiousness among the people via the cheap media and the vile curricula.
In other words, we promote secular democracy around the world as part of a morally wicked Jewish conspiracy. It was our moral – not to mention our political – liberalism that brought punishment down upon us.

According to Al-Qaeda, the U.S. is a hotbed of hebes, homos, harridans and heretics, a modern Babylon where people are free to disobey, to make their own rules, and to live undisciplined lives. It fields a “Jewish” media and military corps that stands in the way of the Master Faith.

Radical Islam -- the new fascism, the Muslim Religious Right -- sees us as a cauldron of decadent liberals and loose women, that dares to tell others that such a life is worth living. 9/11 was an assault on secular liberalism (“Jewish,” of course) by a right-wing death squad under the influence of a supremacist ideology.

There's an icon over here on the left by the name of Chomsky, who's only sensible statement after 9/11 was that if you want to understand why it happened, you should take the terrorists at their word. For once, I agree with him.

What about these words do Hollywood liberals not understand? What about events since then -- the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the targeting of intellectuals and liberals by the "resistance" in Iraq and Afghanistan, the cartoon riots -- aren't we getting? Is there anything we're actually willing to fight for?

:Hollywood and Terror: Looking Ahead

Hollywood is notorious, among war supporters, for its alleged "dhimmitude" and appeasement. Films like Kingdom Of Heaven and Syriana turn tables on reality, reversing real-world politics to apparently make "statements" about what's going on today. And many of our celebrities are equally infamous for their displays of false consciousness, apparently having seen no problem with jihadist terrorism or Iraq until Dubya came along.

But as usual, things aren't so simple. The same year Syriana was garnering attention from the Academy, Showtime's excellent miniseries Sleeper Cell drew exactly the right lessons from 9/11, and defined the struggle in almost exactly the right terms. And later this year, we'll see Flight 93 from Universal, and World Trade Center from Paramount (directed by Oliver Stone!). About the latter film, Stone has disavowed political agendas and sworn to focus on the human drama of the events. So, some kind of message seems to have gotten through even to Hollywood's king of conspiracy thinking. That's a plus, in my book.

And then there's V For Vendetta, about which I am already dubious. That won't stop me from seeing it as soon as possible, though. I'll post my review soon afterwards.

False Consciousness Watch: The Price Of Pacifism

Last year, four members of the anti-war pacifist organization Christian Peacemakers were taken hostage in Iraq. Their kidnappers were unknown Iraqi insurgents. Today, it's been verified that one of them was found dead in Baghdad, with signs he'd been tortured.

I have a lot of respect for honest pacifists. They're decent people, and don't want to see anyone hurt. But too often, their beliefs lead them into a crippling moral equivalency that has little connection to the real world. The U.S., even under neo-conservative rule, is not a terrorist nation, or even a rogue state. It would never do to an innocent peace activist what this man's kidnappers did to him.

Mr. Fox and his fellow Peacemakers went to Iraq in 2002 to oppose the invasion, and seemed, right from the start, to be far more concerned with stopping America's use of force in all circumstances than in opposing Saddam Hussein's far worse fascist regime or in securing justice for its victims. They're also noticeably silent about the vicious brutality of the post-war "resistance" and its death-squads, even as four of their members were kidnapped, tortured and exploited on video by agents of that movement. Now, sadly, one of them has paid the ultimate price for his peace efforts.

This is a direct result of false consciousness. That Mr. Fox was kidnapped and murdered by agents of the "insurgency" and not the big, bad U.S. ought to tell the false Left all it needs to know about the nature of the enemy we face, and the nature of the conflict in which we're engaged. But you wouldn't know it from reading this "petition", which can't even bring itself to acknowledge who the real villains are.

The message is simple: being on the "right" side against American imperialism will not save you. Indeed, it's more, rather than less, likely to make you a target. That's because the real imperialists are on the other side, and they demand nothing less than the subjugation of all infidels. It was enough for them that Mr. Fox was a Christian and a Westerner. That alone was enough to condemn him to a horrid fate of torture and murder; that he was trying to "protect" the Iraqi people from the insurgency's enemies meant nothing to them. Other anti-war activists, put in the same setting, can expect identical treatment.

The more liberal we are, they more they want us dead. The great right-wing threat of our time comes from jihadist fascism, not neo-conservatism; and in opposing it, the United States is on the right side of history, fighting a war for progressive values and liberal civilization. Any liberal or "leftist" who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

  • Ain't It Cool News
  • Andrew Sullivan
  • Christopher Hitchens
  • Cinematical
  • Dark Horizons
  • David Aaronovitch
  • Defamer
  • DhimmiWatch
  • Gates of Vienna
  • Harry's Place
  • Hollywood Reporter
  • Huffington Post
  • Infidel Blogger's Alliance
  • Internet Movie Database
  • Iraq The Model
  • Irshad Manji: Muslim Refusenik
  • JihadWatch
  • Johann Hari
  • Michael J. Totten
  • Nick Cohen
  • Norman Geras
  • The Truman Project
  • Unite Against Terror
  • Wonkette