There are a couple of possibilities here. According to the article at Jihad Watch, following Pam Geller, the screen-capped Facebook profile from the time that the suspect’s name was released indicated no affiliation with Christianity or conservatism. The one that later began circulating includes those things, as well as an interest in hunting, the name of his high school, and other information. So . . . did he have two Facebook profiles, one in Norwegian and another in English, that differed from one another in these respects, or was the latter a put-up job?
In this morning’s Washington Times coverage of the story, police indicated that Breivik is pretty anxious to explain his motivations, so assuming that they’re at all coherent, we should eventually get some idea of what they are, but one of the reasons that we didn’t run with the story right away yesterday was that the information seemed so conflicted and unsourced that we didn’t want to start talking until we had something fairly solid to go on.
Still, there’s apparently considerable writing online that appears attributable to Breivik that would indicated that he was in some (European) senses conservative, and it’s significant that he decided to shoot up a Labour youth camp. Undoubtedly, there’s much to consider here, but it’s not helpful to jump to any kinds of conclusions. Prayers, as Joy reminds us on her Winehouse post, are more appropriate.
Much more important to consider on the merits of the available evidence at this moment is Bob Owen’s latest Gunwalker piece. He’s been the go-to guy on Fast and Furious, and points us toward evidence that the State Department (!) may have played a role in getting guns into the hands of Zetas. If there’s any truth in that, this story is going to be with us for a long, long, time.
If I were editor at PJM, I would have given Owen’s story the red lettering and left the Norway slaughter one in black, since everyone had that already. Charles Johnson’s already figured it out, anyway.
Ofc, it’s a quite tedious task due to the fact that Facebook has a 50 invitations cap per day. Even with my two accounts I’m limited to inviting a maximum of 100 per day, where an average of 40-50% accepts. Of these 40-50% around 90% have email addresses whereas aprox only 50% are checked on a regular basis. So of 1000 Facebook friends I will achieve a penetration rate of around 20-30%. Not optimal but then again, I can’t think of a more efficient way to get in direct touch with nationalists in all European countries.
John Boehner’s presser, in which he makes it clear that it was “President Lame Duck” who attempted to pull the rug out from under the Legislative Branch.
So it’s the Congress that will have to work this out, and it’s a shame that Obama is wasting more time today by “summoning” legislators to the White House. And, like Charles Krauthammer, I find that whole notion distasteful in the extreme.
The video ran last night at The Right Scoop, which also has some good analysis, and got ‘Lanched. Also, Jazz Shaw remarks at Hot Air that the President’s own presser last night made him look like he was in a “snit.”
Sarah Palin is right; the leadership vacuum is extreme right now.
Also included in the Instalanche was Andrew Malcolm’s writeup for the Los Angeles Times, which emphasizes the element of political kabuki:
Deficit reduction talks between the Obama White House and House Republicans broke down late Friday with Speaker John Boehner saying he was giving up for now and would focus further efforts on dealing with congressional Democrats.
With just 11 days left before the administration’s self-imposed Aug. 2 deadline for an agreement to cut spending and/or increase taxes, Boehner wrote his GOP caucus members: “In the end, we couldn’t connect.”
But, of course, it’s not the end to any budget talks. It’s just the beginning of weekend media talking about the heat-wave struggle with both sides building dramatic bona fides for their political bases.
In Washington negotiations, such seemingly abrupt steps are often designed more for internal consumption by caucus members. And both sides know this. . . .
Boehner is under intense pressure not to agree to any revenue increases (code word for taxes).
And if he appears to show public firmness now, it could help get his restive troops to swallow something distasteful later.
And the truth is, while the talks appear to focus only on the deficit now, politically the maneuvering and posturings are really more about setting up the other side for the 2012 election 473 days away.
The GOP wants to show the liberal Obama as pro-tax and stubbornly resistant to cutting spending and the $14.2-trillion national debt, up 35% since Obama took office. “The president just doesn’t want to do what needs to be done to solve our problems,” Boehner said Friday.
And Obama wants to portray Republicans as the party of rich people unreasonably resistant to increasing taxes paid by a wealthy minority. Talking to reporters late Friday, Obama sought to portray himself as the reasonable chief executive. “I’ve been left at the altar now a couple of times,” he complained.
The Democrat said talks had produced a near-deal that, if anything, was “unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue.”
In an interview taped earlier for broadcast on Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor” Friday evening, Boehner said they were never near a deal. He expressed frustration to guest host Laura Ingraham: “The House has passed its bill. We did our work. We passed our bill. The Senate hasn’t put a plan on the table. The president hasn’t put a plan on the table.”
He described the ongoing talks as “adult,” “polite” and “not tense.” But, Boehner added, “Everyone around the table is frustrated.”
He likened the negotiations to a meeting of intergalactic cultures: “It’s like two groups of people from two different planets who barely understand each other.”
Read the whole thing.
And then, there’s this:
Several of Democrat Rep. David Wu’s staffers quit his re-election campaign last year amid reports that the Oregon congressman was behaving erratically. Now a teenage girl — a recent high-school graduate who is the daughter of one of the congressman’s friends — has reportedly said the 56-year-old Wu molested her last year.
Go there to read the whole thing, obviously, but it’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out on the Left compared with Dominique Strauss-Kahn. As for Wu, he should be in a mental institution, but Congress will have to do for now.
Maybe it’s time to lay it on the line about some of the extremist “environmentalist” opposition to fracking. The debate has become pitched because natural gas is a direct threat to the renewables industries; solar/wind/geothermal have become sacrosanct to many folks who wish these techniques were practical for large-scale production—in a way that they won’t be any time soon.
In the old days, the city bus that ran on natural gas was hailed as an eco-friendly option that might set an example for other municipalities. Now, we aren’t supposed to admit just how clean that energy burns—because under most circumstances, the most fashionable energy sources cannot compete with it.
Mark Green takes this on in the Energy Tomorrow blog, hosted by the API:
PoliticoPro reports that a New York state advisory panel on hydraulic fracturing is taking flak from some environmentalists despite the fact a majority of the committee’s members are . . . environmentalists.
There’s a simple explanation: Some of these folks just aren’t all that interested in helping a process that will bring more natural gas – clean-burning, abundant, affordable – to U.S. Here’s what David Braun, co-founder of United for Action, a New York-based anti-fracking group, told PoliticoPro:
The environmental groups that are involved are too interested in regulating rather than serving their general purpose, which is to defend our resources, defend the people and to not push these sorts of things through.
Braun refers to hydraulic fracturing, the drilling technology that’s revolutionizing access to a 100-year supply of natural gas while creating tens of thousands of jobs and fueling dramatic economic growth in parts of Pennsylvania, Texas and other states.
The guess here is that the concerns of Braun and others go deeper than hydraulic fracturing—that beneath opposition to fracking is considerable opposition to the idea that natural gas can be a game-changing energy source for the country.
That’s not the way environmentalists used to feel, of course. As Reason magazine’s Ronald Bailey noted in a presentation at the American Enterprise Institute in May, just a few years ago key movement figures were calling natural gas and shale gas the bridge to the “21st century energy economy” and the “new energy economy.”
But then that bridge actually took form. Improvements in hydraulic fracturing techniques meant billions of cubic feet of natural gas entering the energy equation—and some supporters of renewable started to feel threatened. The International Energy Agency’s “Golden Age of Gas” report issued last month outlined this fear:
The (Golden Age of Gas) Scenario assumes that support for renewables is maintained but, in a scenario in which gas is relatively cheap, there is a risk that governments’ resolve in this respect might waiver, pushing gas demand even higher than projected here.”
That’s a natural gas demand fed (and satisfied) by abundant, affordable development of accessible, secure U.S. resources. Good news for America, but bad news for those depending on high energy prices to help them with their agendas. Here is Earthworks’ Jennifer Krill in the March Earth Island Journal:
Every dollar spent on new natural gas wells, pipelines, processing and infrastructure does not bring us closer to wind, solar, and energy efficiency. Quite the opposite: It is taking us in the wrong direction by delaying the transition.
So the issue isn’t safe shale gas. It’s no shale gas, because an affordable, plentiful resource delays favored alternatives. And to be sure, shale gas or not, alternatives will still be developed. In fact, oil and natural gas companies are among the leaders in developing them.
The game-changing shale gas revolution just means that until these alternatives become cost effective we will have an abundant, secure and, as the IEA noted, a relatively inexpensive supply of energy to fuel our economy.
This the heart of the matter, and we will get nowhere in discussing it until we begin to confront that truth: some of the people involved in this debate are unwilling to contemplate increased use of any fossil-based fuel—no matter how plentiful or environmentally friendly it might be. After all, it could interfere with their fantasies. Those fantasies may involve denser urban planning, large-scale commuting by bicycle, or entire industries fueled by solar panels. But the impulse, and the disconnection from reality, are the same.
Significant numbers of fracking opponents are not arguing in good faith; to do so is too much of a threat to their world view.
Now at least 87 dead, 80 from shootings at youth camp island. Police believe the shooter to be responsible for the bombing, and have at this point no reason to believe he wasn’t acting alone.
A book that examines Lincoln’s mastery of electronic communications via the telegraph, and how it anticipated our use of email.
Like many of us, Sarah Palin seemed to be taken aback a bit by Obama’s press conference today following Speaker Boehner’s withdrawal from the debt ceiling negotiations. You know, the one where he summoned Congressional leaders, ad imperium, to the White House tomorrow morning (Saturday 7/23/2011), and where he displayed more of his SUPERIOR TEMPERAMENT!; typical, nay classic, Obama- sanctimonious, disingenuous, demagogic, self-righteous, and arrogant…
This is the same president who proposed an absurdly irresponsible budget that would increase our debt by trillions of dollars, and whose party failed to even put forward a budget in over 800 days! This is the same president who is pushing our country to the brink because of his reckless spending on things like the nearly trillion dollar “stimulus” boondoggle. This is the same president who ignored his own debt commission’s recommendations and demonized the voices of fiscal sanity who proposed responsible plans to reform our entitlement programs and rein in our dangerous debt trajectory. This is the same president who wanted to push through an increase in the debt ceiling that didn’t include any cuts in government spending! This is the same president who wants to slam Americans with tax hikes to cover his reckless spending, but has threatened to veto a bill proposing a balanced budget amendment. This is the same president who hasn’t put forward a responsible plan himself, but has rejected reasonable proposals that would tackle our debt. This is the same president who still refuses to understand that the American electorate rejected his big government agenda last November. As I said in Madison, Wisconsin, at the Tax Day Tea Party rally, “We don’t want it. We can’t afford it. And we are unwilling to pay for it.”
Now the President is outraged because the GOP House leadership called his bluff and ended discussions with him because they deemed him an obstruction to any real solution to the debt crisis.
He has been deemed a lame duck president. And he is angry now because he is being treated as such.
His foreign policy strategy has been described as “leading from behind.” Well, that’s his domestic policy strategy as well. Why should he be surprised that he’s been left behind in the negotiations when he’s been leading from behind on this debt crisis?
Thank you, GOP House leaders. Please don’t get wobbly on us now.
2012 can’t come soon enough.
Which, I don’t think I can, or should, add anything of substance here except for a hearty “Amen!” But for your enjoyment, I’ll throw in a link to Protein Wisdom; one where Darleen provides us video of Charles Krauthammer’s delicious take on the President’s presser. It’s worth a few minutes of your time.
What is your opinion, kind reader?