Terrorism by Degrees.

We don't wish to be indelicate, but we must ask: Is "moderate" brutality any less an affront to human dignity than, say, "radical" brutality? Is it even a distinction worth making?

We were moved to ponder this after giving a moment's consideration to difference between "radical Islam" and that thing called "moderate Islam."

What is the distinction if not simply a matter of degree? Is it that "moderate Islam" organizes societies by Sharia law, which requires things like limb amputations as punishment for theft, or stoning to death by a crowd as punishment for adultery, or which condones the mutilation one's teenage daughter for any reason at all?

What is the difference between those who practice such things, and those who blow themselves up in crowded restaurants, really? Does savagery cease to be savagery once it has been enshrined in legal code.

We have had the privilege of having some wonderful friends who called themselves practicing Muslims. But as pointed out in a previous piece, no matter what they called themselves, no matter what shrines they visited, if they obeyed the laws of this land, they are cultural Christians. Or if you prefer, cultural "Judeo-Christians;" because the laws of this land are the social expressions of Judeo-Christian faith systems. We spelled it out clearly: a "moderate Muslim" is nothing more than a cultural Christian, for we all know what is meant by "moderate Muslim" even if nobody dares to say it: he is one who practices the Golden Rule.

We see no distinction in quality between Islamic terrorism and Sharia law: only a distinction in degree.

The Enemy of My Friend: The Establishment Right and the Radical Left See Eye to Eye.

We notice that the more shrill the objections to Sarah Palin's audacious existence, the louder the insistence that she is an insignificant hick and attention-seeker, the less true it becomes; and we doubt, of course, that it was ever true at all.

In fact, we should rephrase the idea thus: we notice that the louder Mrs. Palin's detractors squawk, the more they prove their own woeful incompetence in judging such matters.

We also mark with amazement the arrival of society at a sort of (yet another) tipping point: That is, the existence of Mrs. Palin seems to drive some particularly unstable people quite over the edge. Just the other night, some otherwise intelligent sounding lady called a radio talk show to complain that Bristol Palin's appearance on Dancing With the Stars is proof of The New Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The left, it appears, is showing stress fractures, and this is but one anecdotal symptom.

But not just the left. The Alleged Right -- the home of that Vast Right-Wing-Conspiracy -- none other than Karl Rove has expressed his disdain for the lady governor from Alaska, and so too, as you know, has that venerable Godmother of the Establishment Right, Mrs. George Herbert Walker (Barbara) Bush. Babs has said, "she's pretty; she ought to stay in Alaska." A very polite indication of panic. We know who these folks will be discussing at Thanksgiving.

We detect by these emissions yet another proof of that old, mysterious, and utterly true saw: Politics makes strange bedfellows. This makes us a bit nervous, because it means those decaying bastions of power are nervous about Sarah Palin's genuine self and its popularity with genuine Americans. One must be concerned with what lengths they will go to to preserve what's left of their power. For it seems that the Establishment Right and Radical Left have joined forces in eliminating their common enemy: The Will of The People.

Obama Brings Home The Bacon?

The First Rule of Decoding the Media is this: "the more they say it, the less true it is."

So let’s apply this lesson. We’ve been hearing over and over from the Information Complex that President Obama’s trip to India is "...a mission to increase trade which will result in significant job creation in the US..." [paraphrasing the party line]; or, as Fox has headlined: President Obama announced several "landmark" trade deals the White House says will create tens of thousands of jobs back home.

This is so improbable, and, in fact, so nearly impossible, that it can only be a cover for something, and probably in response to all the criticism “the people” have expressed about the size and expense of Obama’s entourage, which is apparently beyond calculation.

The last time we checked, India was the place where we outsourced to. So what are they gonna buy from us?

Correct us if we're wrong, but we think you can still get a top programmer in India for a fraction of what you'd pay for a US citizen of equivalent skill (assuming you can find one). When we last chatted with acquaintences in Mumbai a coupla years ago who worked for that big bank -- the guys who'd come over for a couple of months so that they could learn them how to jobs that New Yorkers were doing (somebody we know once got a tech support call from Mumbai in a moment of charming irony) -- they said that outside the city, where most people live, it's still a third-world country.

We can't figure out what they're gonna buy from us that will create "tens of thousands of jobs" here. Oh, maybe fighter jets. Maybe all those destroyers that Obama sent over were sales props. Otherwise, the only way we can see for them to create jobs here is to devalue the dollar so that our standard of living is roughly on par with the peasants in India. Then they'll be able to afford to trade with us.

And we ought to be thankful that this cover story can't be true, because if it were, that would mean that it's come to this: the President of the United States going hat-in-hand to persuade a 2nd world nation to give us back the jobs we outsourced to it over the last 20 years. And it would mean that we've reached the point where we're supposed to celebrate the "creation" of 50,000 call-center jobs. Oh, my, how the mighty would have fallen, were the story true.

Yeah, "Obama brings home the bacon." It’s obvious the Information Complex thinks we’re all complete idiots. Which brings us to the Next Rule of Decoding the Media: "Always ask, 'why are they spending time and money to make me believe this?'" We’ll have to stay tuned, because Rule Three is, “the truth always outs, thought never intentionally and usually from the most unlikely places.”