Free Republic

To quote the Orthodox St. Seraphim of Sarov, "Save your own soul and you will save a thousand with you."

To paraphrase an old Orthodox saying, which I believe sums up the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this question, "We know where God is. We don't know where He isn't."

bump for later

bump for later

I partially agree. There need to be more ads about Kerry's anti-war activity, particular his coordination with the North Vietnamese communists. But, it's looking like the Swifties have enough resources now to do many ads. If that's the case, I see nothing wrong with returning to the questions over Kerry's activities in Vietnam, and more importantly his false claims about them afterwards. Especially with his non-answer on TV the other night, and Slate defending the possibility of being in Cambodia, this just might force Kerry to come out and say whether or not he was on any "secret mission" to Cambodia with the CIA or SEALs. And since he wasn't, no matter which way he answers - he loses.

This is all supposition, but I agree that it would be a hoot if rumors/leaks about anthrax started to emerge over the next couple of months. Could be a real wildcard in the election. I agree that the domestic terrorism story won't be retired unless, as you say, the powers that be are willing to go PUBLIC with an alternative. A very big UNLESS, for now at least...

It's a long story, and you're right it doesn't make sense outside of the context of the theory the blog is devoted to (and which while I find curious I don't necessarily endorse). The angle the writer is pushing is that if you "read between the lines", what DOJ is saying is that October 1 is the drop dead date for formalizing the "domestic terrorist" scenario by bringing a case to court (presumably against Hatfill). And that thus it is also the date by which, if the "domestic terrorist" scenario doesn't come together, DOJ could then put forward a new scenario - such as floating evidence of a connection between the anthrax attacks, foreign terrorists, and even a state sponsor.

It's a long story, and you're right it doesn't make sense outside of the context of the theory the blog is devoted to (and which while I find curious I don't necessarily endorse). The angle the writer is pushing is that if you "read between the lines", what DOJ is saying is that October 1 is the drop dead date for formalizing the "domestic terrorist" scenario by bringing a case to court (presumably against Hatfill). And that thus it is also the date by which, if the "domestic terrorist" scenario doesn't come together, DOJ could then put forward a new scenario - such as floating evidence of a connection between the anthrax attacks, foreign terrorists, and even a state sponsor.

BTW, do you know if the old bioterrorism ping list is still being used? I haven't seen anything on it in a long time, even though I still follow the issue closely (less now that I know longer work in public health). I expect we'll need a BT list again in the future, sadly.

Oops, sorry for not bleeping out the profanity in the quote in the previous post...

For old times sake, here's what former Freeper The Great Satan had to say about this story on his blog (http://hatfill.blogspot.com/, too lazy to hyperlink) today:

Ashcroft's DOJ is now hinting that the 'domestic terrorism' story on the anthrax will be publicly retired shortly before the presidential election. I wouldn't take that threat too seriously; we've been here before, in the run-up to Bush's speech to the U.N., and still the administration pulled its punch at the last minute. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the same thing happens again, and a new line is floated come October. Who'll remember or call them on it? I mean, it's all bullshit, right? We understand that. Anyway, who would want to open that can of worms? No one, right?

Back in 2002, the target of the hint campaign was Saddam Hussein, who was quietly being entreated to take an exile deal. Presumably, the audience this time is John Kerry and the savvier members of his party. The message is: we can change the psychology of this thing in an instant, with a single coup de main. In this, as in other, ways, Kerry and his minions are being warned not to go overboard in exploiting the necessary secrecy over the casis belli for our war with Iraq. Bush has defined the boundaries of the rhetorical sandpit all sides can play in, and he's signaling that, whatever constraints he's under, he's still the boss. Bush controls the horizontal, Bush controls the vertical; he can change the focus from a soft blur, to crystal clarity — all in an instant. Democrats beware.

For those who don't know, TGS was at the center of a hot and long running FR debate over the connections between the anthrax attacks and 9/11. His theory (never really proved or disproved) was that Hussein was behind both 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, that the Administration knows this, that the intention of the anthrax attacks was to warn the Bush Administration that if we went after Hussein for 9/11 he'd retaliate with anthrax, and that Hatfill is a spook who's in on this and part of a government cover story.

Great. I've got to spend next week in the Big Apple on a business trip, taking the subway every day from Newark to Times Square. Sigh.

They sure can do it. I live about 20 minutes outside of Santa Fe. The SF Chamber and business leaders fought it long and hard, but the new $10 minimum wage law for the city passed anyway. There's some good, conservative folks in and around SF, but they are (barely, I think) outnumbered by the hardcore political Left.

All things considered, though, it's still a great place to live. Very minimal government regulation on a lot of stuff, especially in places like Pecos where I live. No mandatory auto inspections, almost no regulation of home schooling, and so on.

I live in the Los Alamos area and was tempted at first to take this seriously. Stranger things have happened than a cult through a variety of hoaxes gaining access to a semi-secure national laboratory. But, the "social justice and disarmament" link certainly gives me pause. What is that convinces you this is BS?

NR's John Derbyshire has now posted a link to this thread on The Corner, National Review Online's group web log. Hi John!

Thank you all for the wonderful thread. I'm off to take my turn at the vigil over Christ in the tomb, holding down the 2AM to 3AM slot. Great to find such an edifying article while I Freep to stay awake until its time to head out. If any Orthodox Freepers ever make it to Santa Fe, please look us up at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church!

Blessed Feast!

Agree about Lawhead's Pendragon books. Amazing.

I can't believe after over 150 posts, no one's mentioned Patrick O'Brian! Truly the master of historical fiction. I'm on the 12th book in the series, and they really do read as one long saga. However, you can start pretty much anywhere in the series and get a taste for it.

Aubrey/Maturin are as good as Holmes/Watson or Frodo/Sam or Quixote/Pancho amongst great fictional partners. And the movie version of Master and Commander is even good!

If you're looking for a new mystery author, try Michael McGarrity. His novels set in Santa Fe and New Mexico are quite good. I also recommend Nevada Barr and Tony Hillerman.

He was latently gay, or confused, or neurotic, or just incredibly selfish/amoral.

As you imply later, due to other social factors (lack of good parenting, especially), an increasing proportion of Americans fit this description.

Whenever an adult man claims to have been "seduced" into a gay relationship, he is lying. He is a repressed homosexual

So, you believe that "sexual orientation" is entirely predisposed, genetic rather than behavioral? I think this is a dangerous line of reasoning, as it is the entire basis for homosexuals to claim that they can't help themselves, that they can't change who they are, and that thus they must be recognized as a "minority", with all the protections this entails.

It's a mistake to downplay or disregard the threat of expansionist homosexuality, just as much as it's a mistake to downplay or disregard the threat of expansionist Communism or Islamism.

It doesn't make one gay or bisexual to acknowledge that homosexuality MAY be appealing, under the right set of circumstances (and that homosexuals are incredibly devoted to arranging those circumstances), any more than it makes one a thief to acknowledge that stealing MAY be appealing, under the right set of circumstances.

There's a great series of detective stories, written many years ago by the conservative GK Chesterton. The detective is a priest named Fr. Brown. Brown makes it clear that the reason he is able to solve crimes is because he is able to imagine what goes through the criminal's mind, to really put himself in his position. "There but by the grace of God go I," so to say. Same principle here. If we want to defeat our enemies, it is smart for us to be able to imagine how their motivations and interior world operate.

He frequently mentions on his site that he is HIV+ and on antiretrovial therapy. Don't know if he's developed full-blown AIDS.