Sadly, No!

Ok, I’m sure may of you thought we were being quiet to pay our respects to Ronnie, but actually someome just screwed up….

The good news is we are back, the bad news is we are back.

The Corner, April 2004:

THE WAR ON TERROR – WE’RE WINNING [John Derbyshire]
“There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969…” Much more in this State Dept. report.

InstaPundit, April 2004:

HEY, MAYBE IT’S WORKING! Both CNN and the BBC report that terror attacks are at their lowest level in 30 years.

Reuters, yesterday:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The State Department said on Thursday its report
that the number of international “terrorist” attacks fell last year was
wrong and in fact had risen sharply.

The Department also said the number of resulting deaths was expected to be
higher for 2003 than the 307 initially reported, but officials said it may
not exceed 2002’s 725 fatalities. […]

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said both totals were
understated because of errors in compiling the data by the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center. The interagency group was set up last year to address
the failure of U.S. intelligence agencies to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001
attacks. […]

Boucher initially said preliminary indications were that the correct data
would show “a sharp increase over the previous year” in both incidents and
deaths, but he later said he was not sure if the number of deaths would
exceed 2002’s level. [Emphasis added]

Nice to see that, yet again, this administration has its shit together.

Thanks to Blair for the Reuters link.

Well, Friday is almost here and our world renowned kindness and generosity allows us to offer this week’s Flash Friday early, at the request of absolutely nobody. (Be warned however that this week’s installment, while scoring a 10 on the craptacular scale, weighs in at a healthy 6MB.) We won’t say what it’s about, but we promise it’s very good, if by “very good” you mean “shows once and for all that Sadly, No! is staffed by freedom-despising, America-hating, rape room enthusiasts freaks.”)

Our thanks to Pete from The Dark Window for his help.

(For old time’s sake: Last week’s She Drives Me Crazy, the Chalabi Special, and the one that started it all.)

A friend of the management writes with a cry for help:

By a hilarious twist of fate, a short scholarship essay I wrote on community service was nominated by MTV as a finalist in the Choose or Lose Contest. The final winner, who receives $5000 and an appearance on TRL (HA!) will be decided by public vote all this week at:

http://www.mtv.com/chooseorlose/voting/

If you could take a few seconds to vote for Essay #7(look for Joshua) […] I would be much obliged!

As we told Joshua we voted for Allison, who is in our humble opinions way cuter than he is. Should you not be as superficial and shallow as we are, we do however urge you to vote for Joshua.

On account of today being a holiday in selected states of the Federal Republic of Germany and preparations for tomorrow’s Flash Friday, you are encouraged to visit the many fine blogs listed on the right. Also Hairy Fish Nuts.

Thank you.

The National Review’s Reagasmic Circle Jerk is in full swing. Ronnie loved freedom and democracy you know. This Michael Novak column from 1999 lists “the spreading of democracy” as the fourth pillar of Reagan’s legacy. To be sure no one makes foolish assumptions, he helpfully added:

That is a far more difficult and complicated job then it may seem.

You don’t say! It was this NRO “flashback” column from 1981 that caught our eye however:

The Reagan revolution rolls forward, picking up momentum. [..] A more balanced policy toward southern Africa.

What did a more balanced policy mean? Thanks for asking:

…nuclear cooperation was a focal point of U.S.-South African relations during the Reagan Administration […] the Reagan Administration increased nuclear-related assistance to Pretoria by approving exports of nuclear material, computers and high technology items to South Africa. The Administration also re-negotiated with Pretoria for the resumption of uranium imports, prohibited when Congress passed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act in 1978.

U.S. policy toward South Africa since 1962 has been shaped largely by strategic and economic concerns, including the preservation of access to South Africa’s immense mineral resources and the protection of markets and investments. […]

Throughout his tenure, President Reagan studiously avoided criticizing the South African government, repeatedly praising the Botha Administration for making substantial reforms despite the overwhelming evidence of the continued and extensive exploitation and oppression of the black majority in South Africa. He has directly and openly embraced the Botha Administration as “an ally and friend,” demonstrating what critics saw as a callous indifference to world-wide demands for human rights and basic freedoms for the blacks. […]

Early in 1981, the newly-elected Reagan Administration introduced its policy of “constructive engagement.” As outlined by its chief architect, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Chester Crocker, this policy comprised two ideas: first, that change in South Africa had to be controlled and second, that the region had to be made “stable” before initiating controlled change. [Emphasis added]

There’s nothing like being friends with totalitarian regimes and helping out with their nuclear program, is there?

Reagan knew why the EU won’t work

The European Union is marginally better than fascism, Nazism and communism.

According to Michelle Malkin:

Skutnik jumped out of his car near the Fourteenth Street Bridge, where a crowd watched helplessly as a female passenger screamed for help in the icy waters. A helicopter rescue team had tossed her a line, but she was unable to hold on. Skutnik instinctively ripped off his overcoat, kicked off his shoes, dove into the river, and pulled 22-year-old flight attendant Priscilla Tirado to safety.

After Reagan’s speech, a cynical press referred sneeringly to the “Lenny Skutnik moment.” This elitist disdain for recognizing everyday heroes persists. [Emphasis added]

To the LexisNexis, hurry!

The entire audience joined in a standing ovation for Lenny Skutnik, who dived into the frigid Potomac River to rescue a victim of the Jan. 13 airplane crash here. Mr. Skutnik sat with Mrs. Reagan during the address and was hailed by the President as epitomizing the heroic spirit in the United States. –Howell Raines [!] in the New York Times, 01/27/1982.

Reagan ended his address by praising America’s heroes. He singled out two men listening to him in the House chamber–Sen. Jeremiah Denton (R-Ala.), a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, and Lenny Skutnik, the young federal worker who dove into the Potomac to rescue a woman after the Air Florida crash two weeks ago.

Skutnik and his wife were guests of the Reagans, seated next to Nancy Reagan, during the speech. When the president mentioned his name, the audience rose for a standing ovation and Reagan waved up to him in the gallery. –The Washington Post, 01/27/1982.

Two weeks before the State of the Union, the Washington Post published a front page story on Mr. Skutnik:

Lenny Skutnik, who dove into the ice-choked Potomac River Wednesday to save the life of a drowning woman following the jetliner crash in the Potomac, has had little experience in the hero business. 01/15/1982

We could find no newspaper article with coverage of the SOTU that included the expression “Lenny Skutnik moment.” Google produces 6 hits, including this Slate piece:

Ronald Reagan is credited with creating what is now known as the “Lenny Skutnik moment” in State of the Union addresses. In his 1982 address, Reagan pointed to Skutnik, a government worker who leapt into the icy Potomac to rescue a woman after a plane crash, and extolled his heroism. Since then, pointing to heroes in the gallery has become an obligatory SOTU flourish. And what in 1982 was a stirring moment has become a tedious gimmick. [Emphasis added]

Maybe Michelle doesn’t remember her bedtime stories extremely well.

The Road Map for A Sovereign Iraq

According to bloggers, we the UN picked a wicked awesome Interim Iraqi Government.

It was only three weeks ago that we launched Brian Cherry on the path to internet stardom he so richly deserves with this post. Brian has a new column out, and given that we are the number one result on Google for Brian Cherry, we feel it is our responsibility to see what he’s up to. What literary sticks is he going to use in order to poke us liberals?

Let’s find out, as Brian takes us on a journey through The New Inquisition:

Separation of Church and State, regardless of how it is worded in the constitution is a reasonable way to run a country. [Emphasis added]

Is it reasonable? Yes. Does it matter what it says in the constitution? No. Is this pretty rich coming from a conservative, given how often conservatives complain about liberal judges inventing rights? Oh yes.

Inquisitors were charged with eliminating heresy wherever they could find it. People whose views were contrary to the Churches were either excommunicated (basically a form of exile), or tortured and killed.

Not only that, but most people didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition! Right! If that’s the way you want it — Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions!

This continued till an uppity monk named Martin Luther nailed a parchment with 95 reasons he believed the Catholic Church was wrong to the front door of the Wittenberg Castle Church then presumably ran for his life.

So we see that little has changed in Germany in the last 487 years — Germans are still going around being uppity and upsetting the world’s moral leaders.

In hindsight we all agree the days of Inquisitors and the Catholic rule of Europe was a dark period in world history.

And thank God we do — after all, at the time it seemed like such a brilliant plan to everyone involved. Especially those evil Atheists:

Today Atheist leaders are manipulating constitutional verses to serve their own needs in an attempt to perpetrate acts of educational genocide against any idea that conflicted with their teachings.

Luckily, it doesn’t matter what it says in the constitution, so there is hope after all.

We have seen it time and time again. The institution of precedent law means one decision builds on another.

To which we say: fuck the institution of precedent law! (Though we give Brian credit for inventing the expression.)

By trying to eliminate this idea from the public school system with the excuse that it is unconstitutional, not only do we improperly instruct the children about the document that sets this nation apart from all the rest, but it is an attempt to rob them of opportunity to make a choice about God but attempting to deny them knowledge of his existence.

Those damn unconstitutional excuses! If God is outlawed from our schools, then only outlaws will believe in God. If you want to help Brian we can only recommend one thing: shine your headlights from now until Independence Day.