The efforts of the US to kill people whose primary objective is to get heard - at any cost - is incredible. When we spend years searching for the leader of a terrorist organization that chops heads off of its opponents and that murders to make a point, and then dropping a ton of explosives to kill the leader is both an act of justice and of insanity. It is insane because far better way of keeping murderers from terrorizing a nation is by imposing the rule of law, by maintaining enough order to keep the terrorists from hiding for years before a ton of explosives is required. And it is just because the chopping of heads is just wrong.

It is incredible how the US is going about justice these days. By invading Iraq, torturing our enemies and dropping explosives on terrorists we are dismantling the system that keeps extremists at bay. And today’s news of the new leader of terrorists in Iraq is an indication of how important the rule of law really is. We are not at war with an individual, or a set of individuals. (Nor are we at war with a tactic - such as the tactic of terrorism.) We are, at best, at war with a system of violence. Terrorists build systems that draw attention to their cause, help terrorists build organizations, and that build power through fear. But unlike the system of a nation-state, the system of terrorist organizations is far harder to find and fight in the open, especially when there is no rule of law or when there is general disorder in a society.

The US is going to need to do a lot better at killing those who make up these systems if we are going to kill ourselves out of the mess we created in Iraq. We’ll need to wipe out scores of terrorist leaders, quickly and all at once. Or, more wisely, we could fight these systems by creating effective systems of real justice - through the rule of law.

What are doing now is the worst of both options. We kill a handful of terrorists, at a slow enough pace that replacements can fill in the gaps as we go - and we destroy any hopes of securing civil society. We cannot screw this up, given that terrorists are so terrible. So it is a real shame to see how poorly Bush executes his “war on evil.” The angels must find it hard to watch.

George Bush is a failed President. He has been a failure since he didn’t get elected. Bush failed to respond to 9/11 in a reasonable way, making America less safe. Bush allowed his minions to violate the most basic of human rights, including the rights to freedom from torture and the rights to rule by law. Bush failed to even invade his illegal and dangerous war, making matters even worse. He failed to send a clear message to American command, that would of prevented gross human rights violations in American prisons within Iraq. Bush failed to earn respect from the world, to keep our economy growing, to keep the poverty rate lowering (as it was under Clinton) and to unite America when such unity mattered most. Bush has failed over 200,000 dead citizens of Iraq. He has failed tens of thousands injured and killed American soldiers and their families. He has failed to keep our government from corruption. He has failed on almost every moral front. Bush failed to save thousands from Katrina. And he is failing to secure the economic needs of millions in the Gulf region.

George Bush is a total failure. So it’s no surprise that he is also very unpopular, as reported in the most recent poll putting Bush at a record-low 34% approval.

With Bush such a failure, what is a surprise is how the Democrats remain weak in the face of the total failure, totally unpopular and unpricipled mess that is the Bush White House. Rather than attack Bush on all fronts, the Democrats sit and do almost nothing. What a bunch of worthless jerks. It mattered a great deal that Democrats failed to push the filibuster on the radical, unpopular, anti-American republican values and anti-Congress judges appointed by Bush, especially at a time that Bush was distrusted and feared by a majority of Americans.

George Bush - supported by a mere 1/3 of Americans. Feared only by the people in his path of failures and by the Democrats who cower in the midst of the worst President in our history. Gee, what gives?

Having someone stand over Morales’ deathbed, possibly injecting a fatal dose, would have been a first for California. It also illustrates society’s unease with bringing executioners into intimate contact with the condemned after years of striving to keep a wall between them. AP

There was a time when the Democratic Party stood for radical notions like social security, public welfare, medicare (a step towards universal health care) and opposition to state killings. It was considered a part of “liberalism” to support human rights, which prohibits the killing of prisioners. In fact, all human rights - including the economic human rights to welfare, health care, education and just wages - were being pushed by New Deal, Great Society and post-Vietnam Democrats. But then the Party backed off of these sorts of principles and decided to be the anti-welfare and pro-death party.

I am thinking of this as I read about the moves by human rights activists in California to force the state to have doctors present when killing its convicts. And I am wondering, will things swing back to the days when mainstream Democrats pandered to those of those of us who believe that state killing is wrong, that welfare is just, that poverty is immoral and that it’s possible for America to be a caring and loving country - based on the principles of liberty and justice for all?

Given that there are still terrorist killings in Northern Ireland, perhaps we should review and then end all Irish, Catholic, Christian, White and European firms from providing services to US port terminals:

The family of murdered Dublin man Joseph Rafferty will reportedly be invited to meet US President George W Bush at the White House on St Patrick’s Day.

Mr Rafferty, a 29-year-old father-of-one, was shot dead last April in the Ongar housing estate in west Dublin as part of a family feud.

His sisters claim he was killed by a former member of the IRA and want Sinn Féin to pressure the man into giving himself up.

They have already mounted a campaign for justice inspired by the sisters of murdered Belfast man Robert McCartney.

The McCartneys, who met Mr Bush at the White House on St Patrick’s Day last year, also claim an IRA man was behind their brothers’ killing and have accused the republican movement of doing nothing to help bring those responsible to justice. BreakingNews.ie

Some nonesense from Charles Krauthammer:

The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations — and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations — to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types. Jewish World Review

I agree with George Bush. And I agree with Joe Leiberman. Ouch. That hurts.

I know nothing about the security details of terminal operations, as I know nothing about the specifics of the port operations deal that would mean that an Arab country would be involved in operations of US ports. So it’s possible that something is awry with the deal. That said, I am against any moves to prevent Arab states and companies from doing business like any other company doing business in the US.

It’s nonsense to suggest that Arab-owned companies present a greater risk than non-Arab companies. First, the odds of a terrorist incident happening in the US are low, given how few there have been since and before 9/11. We have bigger worries to worry about. Second, the percentage of “al-Qaeda types” who make up Arab nations is so low as to provide a meaningless difference between such “types” in other national groups - such as American, British, Mexican or Canadian. True, almost all international terrorists (excluding domestic ones, such as the right-wing terrorists in the US) are Islamic (and almost all Arabs are Islamic), this doesn’t make all Arabs into terrorists. Third, stopping all Arab-owned firms from doing business with the US will do nothing to make us safer, and will do much to further the interests of anti-liberalists around the world.

Terrorism is a tactic. It is used by desperate minorities who want to frighten majorities into action. That a minority of extremist Muslims (including Arab Muslims) uses terrorism to impose their beliefs, and to draw attention to their political agendas, has little to do with what most Arabs and Muslims believe, value or want.

So let’s stop acting like the US is under attack all the time. We aren’t. And let’s stop pretending that we can sort out terrorists by knowing whose Arab or not. We can’t. And then let’s start to figure out how to get serious about the real risk we face: Nuclear attacks on the US, wars of aggression by the US on other nations, nuclear wars between nations outside of the US and the rise of religous extremism and anti-liberalism throughout the world, including here in the US.

Bush’s speech last night was lackluster at best, a clear signal that Bush’s team knows that they are finished. I would guess that Congressional Republicans clearly requested that Bush make no bold statements, propose no bold legislation and that he stay out of trouble - as I am sure they want Bush to do no additional damage to the 2006 races. I also don’t think that much more matters to the Bush team. They have invaded Iraq, expanded Executive powers, brought torture, engaged in the warrantless spying of private Americans and made billions of dollars for their patrons already. Anything more is icing on the cake.

Bush is a lame duck. And he is a failed President. It’s too bad that Democrats are so ineffective, since how terrible Bush and Congressional Republicans have performed may not matter come November. As in 2004, it’s ours to lose - Bush is an easy target but we keep failing to hit.

Lamb duck or not, lackluster or not, Bush’s speech was still a prime example of applied cognitive psychology and the science of communication, linguistics and propaganda. While much of the speech was very humdrum - the listing of Clinton-esque programs and a series of claims for how well things are going and how things should go, or why they should go one way or another. The following are examples from three applications of the Rovian Rules for Effective Communication (humdrum removed).

Rovian Rule: Thou shalt associate one’s own weakness with thy enemy’s great moral stances

Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture, and the health of our most basic institutions. They’re concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage.

Rovian Rule: Thou shalt create false categories

Category of social ills: violent criminal, welfare, drug use, abortion and teenage sex.

Category of “entitlement” - a new looming crisis: Social Security Insurance (which is also known as “mandatory spending”)

Rovian Rule: Thou shalt speak in the logic of false dichotomies

You are either go after the enemies of freedom (forces of evil), or you are retreating from your duties (because you want to take the easy route).

You are either building prosperity by leading the world economy, or you are shutting yourself off from trade and opportunity.

You either want an end to tyranny, or you dismiss that goal as idealistic and misguided.

The advance of freedom is either a hopeless dream, or it is the great story of our time.

You either love freedom and fight to keep it, or your will has been broken by terrorists.

You either find security, or you abandon your commitments and retreat.

You either stand up (by remaining the course in Iraq and Afghanistan), or you retreat without honor, meaning that you no longer believe in your ideals or in your own courage (you are therefore a coward without conviction).

You either stay the course, or you surrender to evil.

You are either responsibly critical by supporting success, or you are a defeatist who only acknowledges failure.

You are either wise, or you use hindsight alone.

You either have a strategy, or you second-guess.