Harshest Critics

Would appreciate the take/opinion of my lovable, but harshest critics – SDA readers. Started a podcast several months ago, worked out the majority of bugs, thus resulting in a sort of “final product.”
Sample 1
Sample 2
If you are so kind, have the time, or are just bored and need to listen to something whilst running, please feel free to tear away.

What difference, at this point, do elections make?

From Kevin D. Williamson’s “The Front Man” at NRO:

Instead of delegating power to a would-be president-for-life, we delegate it to a bureaucracy-without-death. You do not need to install a dictator when you’ve already had a politically supercharged permanent bureaucracy in place for 40 years or more. As is made clear by everything from campaign donations to the IRS jihad, the bureaucracy is the Left, and the Left is the bureaucracy. Elections will be held, politicians will come and go, but if you expand the power of the bureaucracy, you expand the power of the Left, of the managers and minions who share Barack Obama’s view of the world. Barack Obama isn’t the leader of the free world; he’s the front man for the permanent bureaucracy, the smiley-face mask hiding the pitiless yawning maw of total politics.

Read the whole thing here.

The Sound Of Settled Science

New Study Shows That Dogs Use Color Vision After All;

…researchers have long believed that dogs seldom rely on colors to discriminate between objects, instead looking solely at items’ darkness or brightness to do so. But a new experiment indicates that this idea, too, is a misconception.
As described in a paper published yesterday in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a team of Russian researchers recently found that, at least among a small group of eight dogs, the animals were much more likely to recognize a piece of paper by its color than its brightness level–suggesting that your dog might be aware of some of the colors of everyday objects after all.

Bin Laden Is Dead And Ambassador Stevens Is Dead

Dore Gold;

In the Daily Beast last week, Bruce Riedel, who served for years as a CIA analyst on the Middle East, wrote an important article with the dramatic headline, “Al-Qaida is back.” Riedel, who today works for the Brookings Institution, was taking a position against the conventional wisdom, that was widely heard in Washington prior to the 2012 elections, that the U.S. had al-Qaida “on the run”. Riedel’s claim was based on his examination of the outcome of a coordinated attack by al-Qaida’s Iraqi affiliate against two high security prisons, which led to the escape of at least 500 al-Qaida members.
In breaking into the Abu Ghraib and Taji Prisons, al-Qaida used mortars and suicide bombers. According to its own account, its forces detonated 12 car bombs. The Iraqi Army proved to be useless as it failed to stop the assault. Former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey was quoted in The Wall Street Journal saying that if al-Qaida could “take down Abu Ghraib,” it could also “take down the Green Zone in Baghdad”, where the U.S. Embassy was located.

Related: “A year ago Obama said al-Qaida is on the run, and now WE are on the run”
h/t Frank

On Closed Embassies, the Worldwide Travel Alert, and Wimpitude

Daniel Pipes;

Don’t know about you, but I find this pre-emptive cringing unworthy of a great country, even humiliating. Why do we allow a bunch of extremist thugs to close us down, rather than the reverse? For what purpose do we pay for the world’s best military and largest intelligence services if not to protect ourselves from this sort of threat?

Via Wretchard – “This is global “shelter in place”. If they can’t use the interval to catch the perps the AQ can create a tremendous amount of economic damage simply by being a threat-in-being.”
I question the timing.

Navigation