My friend Jedmunds has had a hard day. Blogger ate his really cool post (About what? Not sure.) where he said he was really loose, fingers on fire, just lettin' it fly. His words magically formed into astonishing sentences, which when completed had a nice, organic quality to it. Knowing Jedmunds the way I do, I'm sure the post was indeed the cat's pajamas.
He's going to try to re-write it this weekend, but says,
". . .Though I'm not sure where I'll find that time as a certain medical ethics advocacy group I am a member of has decided to protest in front of the homes of prominent surgeons, waving placards with pictures of tumors and open chest cavities and whatnot, hoping to make people realize just how gross surgery is."
I am proud of Jedmuds for being a member of that group! All I do is sit in this house all day complaining to my husband about how gross surgery must be. Like a C-section? I always ask my husband if he thought he could've handled that if it came right down to it when I had our son.
He's like, "No way! Too gross! You would've been totally on your own."
And I'm like, "What??!! Are you kidding me??!! You would've been lucky that you were in a hospital because I would've killed you! For the damage I would've inflicted, they would've had to rush you into surgery immediately!!
But, see? We're all talk, talk, talk. And talk is cheap. Jedmunds is actually doing something about it! Good for you, Jedmunds! Wave a placard in my honor tomorrow!
All this talk about gross things and killing leads me to my original reason for this post. Integrity and Pat Buchanan.
Jedmunds continues in his post:
"I don't know much about The American Conservative as a publication. They probably don't represent the highest standards of integrity. But neither do I, so I'll link to their rumor without caring about it's veracity. If true though, I'd probably be pretty outraged, but only if my outrage hadn't been beaten into a cynical pulp by the continuing stream of outrages flowing from the Bush White House. Seriously, this is probably only the third or fourth worst thing this White House has done, and it's a doozy, if true of course. And I-ran I-ran so far away..."
The latest rumour out of the Bush white house, which if true we'll all be outraged by, but will result in the majority of Americans supporting the new front in the War On Terror, while we -- the outraged ones -- blog, blog, blog away -- is this from Justinlogan.com by way of Matthew Yglesias the TPM
What Is the Plan If There's Another 9/11?
According to Philip Giraldi, writing in the new issue (not online) of the American Conservative, it's to nuke Iran:
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
True? Rumor? Rumor that will turn out to be true? Who the H-E-double toothpicks knows. I am not writing here to figure out whether or not we are going to bomb Iran in the aftermath of another 9/11-type attack. (I guess yes, right in time to really use it in the run-up to 2008.)
No, I want to give Jedmunds a little background on the American Conservative so that he can make an educated decision as to whether the writers there do or do not have integrity.
Ok. According to Franklin Harris of lewrockwell.com, the American Conservative was launched by Pat Buchanan in September 2002 with two other gentlemen: Scott McConnell, late of The New York Post, The New York Press, and Antiwar.com, and Taki Theodoracopulos. (Say that last name three times! Do it now!)
Given its backers, it is clear the American Conservative plans to focus on the one area where Buchanan is strongest: military intervention.
The magazines mission:
"It is written especially for those who have begun to question whether Conservatism means, as many Beltway conservatives now would have it, that the United States should have bombed Serbia and should now embark on countless other wars that have little to do with America's own vital interests. It is written for those who question whether we ought to completely remake our wonderful country through continued mass immigration from all corners of the globe. It is written for those who understand what George Washington meant when he warned Americans of the dangers of passionate attachment to foreign nations."
"If Buchanan, Taki, and McConnell didn't think the American conservative movement needs a drastic change from the pro-war rantings of Fox News and The Weekly Standard, they wouldn't bother starting the magazine in the first place, would they? The purpose of the American Conservative is to change minds, not follow polls.
For that matter, what has all of its warmongering got The Weekly Standard? It is supposedly the leading "conservative" publication, yet it couldn't survive a day without its sugar daddy, Rupert Murdoch."
And this from DemocracyNow.org:
John Kerry received an endorsement from what many thought was an unlikely source: The American Conservative magazine.
In the article endorsing Kerry, the American Conservative writes: "The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.
Excerpt of an interview Amy Goodman had with Scott McConnell, executive editor of the magazine:
AMY GOODMAN: We're joined right now by Scott McConnell, who is executive editor of The American Conservative, author of the article on the November 8 issue, endorsing Kerry. The headline: 'Kerry is the One.' Why are you so critical of George Bush?
SCOTT McCONNELL: Well, he has made very, very bad decisions as president, and the invasion of Iraq is, I think, the worst decision any American president has made, certainly since World War II, and perhaps longer. And it's made -- if democracy means anything, somebody who makes a decision like that has to be thrown out of office.
So, Jedmunds -- there you go. A little googled background on the American Conservative. Is it enough to know if they have any integrity? I have no idea. After all, while I think Amy Goodman is pretty cool, I have no idea who Franklin Harris of lewrockwell.com even is! He could be a total lunatic for all I know.
But they are Conservatives and they did endorse Kerry and they completely mistrust the Neocons.
Hope this helped.