Check out the photo essay of the Walk for Life march in SF yesterday.

AZCentral.com:

Mexico’s human rights agency says it will give out detailed maps of the Arizona desert, including rescue beacons and water stations, to guide migrants safely through the most popular and deadliest corridor into the United States.

The maps were designed by a Tucson-based group, Humane Borders, which plans to hold a joint press conference today with the National Human Rights Commission in Mexico City to announce its strategy.

The maps are the latest effort by activists to aid undocumented immigrants as they trek across the border, helping to fuel a raging debate over illegal immigration in Arizona and other parts of the United States.

From the LA Times:

But I’m not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they’re wussy by definition. It’s as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn’t to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

…

I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I’m tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you’re not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you’re willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it’s Vietnam.

…

I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn’t so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it’s really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I’m listed in the phone book.

I’m not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn’t be celebrating people for doing something we don’t think was a good idea. All I’m asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Presumably he doesn’t support Saddam’s torture chambers either, but I wasn’t able to Google up anything he had written to that effect.

Swanky Conservative says that Joel should tell that to his [SC’s] wife’s face.

In war, if you don’t support the troops and their mission, then you want them to lose and the mission to fail. That usually involves the losing side losing a number of people. If you don’t support us winning, then you in at least a passive manner want some of us to die. This isn’t competitive sports or a National Honor Society debate tournament where the stakes are a trophy or a scholarship. This is your countrymen, neighbors, parents, sons and daughters living and dying.

Look my wife and son in the face and tell them you don’t want me to succeed, should I be deployed to Iraq.

Michelle Malkin agrees. Joyner has more.

Say Anything: “Will the war in Iraq make us safer from global terrorism? Has it been worth the expense paid both in tax dollars and American blood? My answer is a resounding “yes” to both questions, but I’ll grant that each are valid and worthy of debate. Yet even if your answer is “no” to both questions saying that our troops somehow aren’t worthy of a sincere “thank you” for the good they have fought for overseas is ridiculous on its very face.”

Down With Absolutes thinks that Stein is writing satire.

Alpine Summit is of the opinion that we need more of this type of honesty from liberals.

Bluto appreciated the irony of this:

Stein says that pacifists who claim to support the troops are “wussy”, but also mentions that pretty much any of the troops would be able to beat him up. Interesting stance, embracing wimphood as a virtue.

Dr. Rusty notes: “In past wars an article like this would have landed the author in jail. Encouraging troops in battle to disobey commands is worse than the kind of defeatism that FDR would have arrested you for–it is inciting to treason.”

Surprisingly, Sadly No agrees with Michelle on two fronts.

UPDATE 1/25/2006: Wow. Joel sure stirred up a firestorm with yesterday’s column, which I’m sure was not unintended. Hugh Hewitt interviewed him yesterday and the transcript is here. It’s hard to excerpt without missing key points, go read the whole thing. At the end, Hugh brings Joel around to realizing how foolish he looks (he doesn’t know anyone in the military, has no idea about the military really, basically has no clue what he’s talking about) and Joel admits that he should have been a bit more cautious. I suspect Hugh will be following up with Joel’s editor with some more questions.

Uncle J. takes Joel to the mat line by line. Mark in Mexico has more.

Oh, and incidentally, maybe after Hugh’s radio interview, maybe the [self described, so I’m not slamming him] rabblerousing reject at Down with Absolutes will have a second opinion about the idea that Joel’s piece was satire.

Soldiers’ Angels adds to the criticism. Michelle highlights Hugh’s interview.

Captain Ed excoriates Stein’s position:

Supporting the troops really just means that you appreciate that they stand ready to carry out the policies of the United States in defense of our freedom and liberty, as expressed in the policies of our elected government. That has no bearing on any particular mission or enterprise, but instead comes from the sacrifice offered by our fellow citizens in uniform to give their lives so that we may remain free — free to select our own leaders, free to write blogs, free to disagree with each other … and in Stein’s case, free to make an ass of himself by writing one of the most ill-conceived pieces of tripe published in a major media outlet.

Reuters reports that Stein is complaining about “hate mail.” Hugh sums up the interview on his blog.

As I suspected, Mr. Stein really doesn’t know anyone on active duty, hasn’t been to any bases or any of the service academies, hasn’t met with wounded or returning troops, and generally admits to being blissfully ignorant of the military. He could not recount a single book he has read about the military, and doesn’t even know how big it is. He thinks the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who have died in the GWOT have died in vain. He does not feel grateful for their service.

Oblogatory Anecdotes wants more honest liberals.

What Joel Klien wrote is outrageous and idiotic but at least he had the guts to say what he really believes. Maybe more liberals will follow his lead and admit to other things that they truly believe but are too afraid to say it. Purhaps other liberals will come out with articles admitting “I really do believe in the redistrubution of wealth, high taxes and big government” or “I really do believe communism and socialism would work if only we were in charge” or “I do believe human behavior should be severely restricted in the name of the environment”. It would be the death nail to liberalism but at least they could hold their heads up with at least a modicum of honor.

Ian notes that Stein has his own website and a Wikipedia entry.

Heh.

Meanwhile, for those of us who are alumni of the Homer Simpson School of Romance (and thus won’t be thinking about any of this until Feb. 13), the article also offers some cautionary words of wisdom: “Valentine’s Day is not the time to give your lady anything that plugs into the kitchen wall.”

Taking a page from Crooked Timber and Pandagon: Who said this? Pat Robertson? Michael Moore? Osama bin Laden?

“You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for [God] to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

[…]

(iii) You [permit] the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You [permit] acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget President Clinton’s immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he ‘made a mistake’, after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

[…]

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it. ”

Captain Ed states exactly what I’ve been thinking ever since Hillary started screeching about Iran. I’ve been intending to try to articulate this, but the Captain says it perfectly. [Emphasis mine]

However, the missing ingredient is that Democrats have a bigger problem than lacking a coherent theme; they’ve lacked a coherent program, especially on national security. Nowhere does that come across more than in the divergent approaches to Iran and Iraq. For three years, Democrats have screamed that the Bush administration has taken a “unilateral” approach to Iraq and trashed our relationship with European allies — despite trying for five months to get them to enforce 12 years worth of useless UN resolutions. Suddenly with Iran, the Democratic front-runner claims that allowing Europe a significant role in negotiations amounts to “outsourcing” America’s responsibilities, and they scream that George Bush hasn’t been unilateral enough.

For that matter, the NSA program gives voters another stiff neck from the Pong Game Of Politics that Democrats have employed. Since 9/11, Democrats have sought to blame the Bush administration for being asleep at the switch before 9/11 and dragging their feet afterwards in protecting the country from further attack. However, when the New York Times revealed this program that the administration put into place — and about which they kept key Democrats fully briefed continuously since — all of a sudden they start screaming about personal privacy, when most Americans worry about stopping the next al-Qaeda attack. The most vocal start threatening impeachment when many people start feeling relieved that the attack-free period following 9/11 doesn’t appear to have been a mere fluke after all.

This one’s the best I’ve ever heard.

“My son accidentally fell asleep next to wet cement in our backyard. His foot fell in and we can’t get it out.”

If you missed this story a few days ago, Jay Tea won’t let us forget.

Judge Suzanne DelVecchio gave a teacher who had sex with a 15 year old student a suspended sentence because it was almost legal because the student was almost the age of consent. This morning, Jay takes to task reporter Eileen McNamara.

Others commenting include…

Mass Resistance, Clayton Cramer, Corruption Chronicles and Stop the ACLU.

Rusty Shackleford reminds us who we are fighting. The pictures are graphic.

A New York cabbie, who runs a blog about her daily exploits, has been featured in an AP story.

Welcome to the world of Melissa Plaut, a taxi driver who chronicles her chaotic, adventurous job in a blog called “New York Hack.”

With words and digital photographs, Plaut offers a glimpse into the life of the New York cabbie, from the locker room where she and other drivers wait to begin their shifts to the pit stops they make and the gridlock and grueling 12-hour night shifts they endure.

Congrats, M.P. on the press for your little piece of the web!

From the BBC:

Iraqis and Afghans are the among most optimistic people in the world when it comes to their economic future, a new survey for the BBC suggests.