Back in my HiWired blog days I had a category called internet speech where I documented good and bad news concerning internet free speech you can still find some of those pages in google cache.

One of the things I give major kudos to the company for is none of those posts were ever restricted although they only loosely were on a tech issue.

Well the HiWired blog is gone but next speech issues haven’t:

On Thursday, Cuban blogger Claudia Cadelo, was summoned to appear at the Interior Ministry, which is in charge of domestic security. A day earlier, Yoani Sanchez, the nation’s most prominent blogger, was told by authorities that her activities had “crossed the limits of tolerance,” and was told she couldn’t hold a planned meeting this Saturday of local bloggers, according to Ms. Sanchez.

Ms. Sanchez, who writes a blog called “Generation Y,” is at the forefront of a small group of bloggers in Cuba who chronicle life on the island and occasionally vent against its government, which was run for the past 49 years by Fidel Castro until he stepped aside earlier this year for health reasons and handed power to his brother Raúl. Ms. Sanchez was the subject of a front-page story in The Wall Street Journal in December, 2007. The 33-year-old wife and mother has won several awards recently for her work, and was named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people this year.

Babalu Blog simply owns this story just keep scrolling. He also has a post of round up links to other blogs here.

You know it an odd coincidence that our friends on the left declare President Bush as the great repressor of rights yet people have made a fortune calling him a Nazi, terrorist, idiot et al. Yet it is almost impossible to avoid people going after him in film, print and TV on a daily basis. These people are lionized by the left and called speakers of truth to power.

However it always seems like places like Cuba , Iran, China, North Korea, Syria et-al that tend to actually jail people for their opinions don’t seem to rate that treatment or even publicity for those jailed. I suspect acknowledgment of such violates their political beliefs which seem more like a religion every day.

It brings to mind two Doctor Who quotes the first from Face of Evil:

You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering.

The second from Image of the Fendahl:

But Gran just because people believed the word was flat didn’t it didn’t make it so,

Ah but they Behaved as if ’twere flat

For some left and right as Michelle Malkin points out today, the world will always be flat.

Tom Freeman gets it to some degree. No Nelson for him.

On Feb. 6, 2006, three Pakistanis died in Peshawar and Lahore during violent street protests against Danish cartoons that had satirized the Prophet Muhammad. More such mass protests followed weeks later. When Pakistanis and other Muslims are willing to take to the streets, even suffer death, to protest an insulting cartoon published in Denmark, is it fair to ask: Who in the Muslim world, who in Pakistan, is ready to take to the streets to protest the mass murders of real people, not cartoon characters, right next door in Mumbai?

Good question, its been asked on the right for years and ignored, lets see if that changes when asked by a columnist of the New York Times?

Oh and if you are too young to understand the title of this post read this.

This discussion at the Volokh Conspiracy deserves more than the short comment I left there. Here is the excerpt quoted by Glenn:

ERIC POSNER: “Obama supporters should probably root for Bush to issue pardons. Bush might be just ornery enough to refuse.”

Here is the long version of my answer:

Two interesting things on this thread.

First seems the absolute assumption that that “torture” took place and was sanctioned by the White House. Apparently everybody here has seen Clear and Present Danger enough to know it is an absolute fact.

I have a young friend who I’ve known for most of his life. He was stationed at Gitmo and he said there was plenty of abuse going on, but it was of the guards by the prisoners who knew that the guards had to take it. The loose use of the word torture is particularly offensive when we’ve within the last week seen actual examples of it from our foes that carry no ambiguity, but seem to provoke less outrage among our intellectual class.

If is certainly possible that laws were broken and both those arguing for pardons and those arguing for prosecution have strong credible arguments in their favor. Laws are like muscles if not used they rot but personally I’m not inclined to go after people who successfully protected my family from attacks such as we’ve seen in India this week.

All of this being said here is the overriding consideration why, in my opinion the president-elect will not move on this issue regardless of what the current administration does. Frankly it’s rather crass.

You can take this to the bank: Any successful attack on American soil during an Obama administration is going to be wholly owned by not only that administration but the Democratic party.

It won’t matter how diligent or responsible the administration has been. It won’t matter that they acted in good faith which any fair minded person must assume. It won’t matter if like Hornblower in Hornblower during the Crisis members of the current administration and people who understand how hard it is to be right every time rush to their defense. The public will remember who succeeded in protecting the country and who failed particularly if a major population center is successfully hit.

Any kind of trials will be drawn out affairs and would likely be still going on during a successful attack. How much worse will it be for those who failed to protect the country if those who succeeded in protecting the nation are on trial during their failure? Would they risk it? Would they even consider it? Considering the history of the president elect who has a history of avoiding risk I think not. If his attacks on the current administration were mere rhetoric then he will never take the risk. If they were not I don’t know if he would have the moral courage to proceed and even if he did would people below him with less courage urge him against the risk?.

I just can’t see it, but it is moot because I think the current president will offer those pardons. He has already proved his willingness to take the slings and arrows of those who he has protected. I think he is comfortable enough in his skin to take one final hit for his country and for those loyal to him. The fanatical haters will just be louder but it would it would save the incoming administration from an additional burden. It would also keep national secrets from coming out at any trials. I think the current president has the guts to do it, but it will be a close thing since there is just enough of a that smirk in him to want to watch those who follow him stew in it.

I’m glad its his decision and not mine.

Back in the days when I was blogging for HiWired I tried to show a bit of restraint when talking about the acts of some people.

However one of the great advantages of a personal blog is the lack of said necessity, so lets say some things bluntly:

The people involved in the attacks in India are barbarians.

Those in Islam who support and finance such attacks are barbarians.

Those who excuse such attacks as justified are idiots and/or supporters of barbarians.

Those who try to equate our troops to the killers in India and those terrorists who target civilians in Iraq are either complete dupes of barbarians at best or at worst allies of murders are barbarians.

If someone tries to make such a comparison to you as a reasonable argument or attempts to justify and defend the attackers but will happily condemn President Bush as the greatest murderer since Hitler then; they are not serious people (although they will think themselves so), ignorant about history (though they will think themselves not) and disinterested in the lives of others (although they will say otherwise) and their opinions should be either ignored or Nelsoned like so:

This will likely enrage them more then any bloodshed.

If your value system justifies such attacks and actions then you need a new value system.

If your culture justifies such attacks then it is inferior and you need a new one too.

You have a perfect right to any of the above beliefs if you want to hold them, it doesn’t make you any less of an idiot.

If you don’t like my characterization of any of these things then let me paraphrase Truman and say, “Stop supporting barbarians and murders and I will stop characterizing your beliefs like that”.

Well I promised some politics so here is some:

I was thinking of the attacks on Mormons in California after Proposition 8 won by about the same margin that the President Elect won. There is an awful lot of self justification on the left for their actions and a lot of outrage on the right over the treatment of people. Why gets me is why anyone is surprised by any of it.

First of all consider before the election we were given the mantra that if (then) Sen Obama lost the election there would be rioting. Thus the legions of the left telegraphed that they would not be good losers.

Second of all the lack of attacks on Black Churches and too some degree Catholic Churches are due to the political ally rule. As the Black church is part of the democratic coalition it can’t be attacked or protested, the Catholic Church particularly in LA is left leaning and also highly Hispanic. The left’s history shows that any behavior of a person or group can be excused if it is a political ally. See Congressman William Jefferson D-LA and President William Jefferson Clinton misogyny of.

Third of all the lack of attacks on Islamic Mosques are simple cowardice. See the Mohammad Cartoon of South Park where the network had no problem going after Jesus in the episode but were afraid of having their throats cut if an image of Mohammad was shown being handed a helmet with a fish on it by Peter Griffin. Cowards never attack those who will fight back.

Finally although my fellow Catholics in general and Christians in particular may dispute the definition of Mormons as Christians, no believing Christian should be surprised at the attacks on Christians in general and/or Mormons in particular and the tact support of the media on said attacks. This is part of the job description of Christianity see John 13:16 and John 15 18-22. Any Christian who doesn’t understand this doesn’t understand what Christianity is.

This doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t opposed this behavior. One of my rules of life is the right thing is generally the smart thing too. Our friends on the left should refrain and condemn this behavior because it is wrong but if they won’t for that reason they should oppose it because if it smart to do so. They only need a swing of 4 percent in a future election and they have the media and most of the culture on their side. They are forgetting the lessons of history and will only turn people against them particularly in the privacy of the ballot box. People who feel repressed concerning their opinions tend to get their release in their voting booth. The left’s “fairness” argument is their strongest argument that should be their primary one.

Job description or no we on the right who supported prop 8 should take every opportunity to take the over the top behavior and intimidation of the left and hold it up in the light for all to see. The justifications of such behavior out there would make those at any Nazi, KKK, National Party of South Africa pre 1990, Know Nothing or Al-Qaeda member proud. Fair mined people will see that.