Mark A. Kilmer (the weblog)

This is the President, from this morning’s presser:

“I’m aware of the Amnesty International report, and it’s absurd. It’s an absurd allegation.”

Unfortunately, though, it’s not funny.

The President is right.

From the Christian Science Monitor. It’s Vitaly Naumkin, a Moscow-based expert on Central Asia, pontificating on what began the riots earlier this month in Uzbekistan:

“There is a danger of Islamic revolt in this area, though most of the people in Uzbekistan are not particularly devout Muslims or concerned with religion. What we are seeing is a combination, where Islam provides a vocabulary and ideological pretext for rising up against the authorities, but the real reasons are old-fashioned social and economic grievances.”

And this, to a large extent, is what is happening with the jihad against the United States. Social and economic reasons, the United States is a better place socially and economically and is seen as a global authority, and the mullahs use Islam to spawn the jihad. Give the democracy and capitalism, a better way of life, and the would be less likely to attack the U.S.

That is the President’s operating thesis.

This is from Teddy Kennedy, on the Senate floor today (Thursday):

“There is a radical right out there that is loose in the country.”

And, as per mythology, this racial right will one day face the radical left, who select the nominees to target with a filibuster, in the battle for supremacy.

But we already know who will win. Wait for the news next week.

This is from Laurie Gould, spokeswoman for the Bend-La Pine School District in Oregon:

“It’s not like we are the hug Nazis.”

I probably could let that one stand with no explanation. It might be better that way, but…

That school district has banned “lingering hugs” (nudge, nudge), and given a 14-year-old girl detention for lingering in her hugs. I don’t know what happened to the boyfriend.

There is some dissent:

“I think we should be able to hold hands or hug at least,” said Annie Wilson, 12. “Because it’s not doing anything bad.”

It’s a district-by-district decision, I think, and we don’t need… Oh, I can see it now: Senator So-and-so, who wants to be President and thus appeals conservatives, convenes a committee to investigate lingering hugs. “When Bill and I were that age,” she pontificates…

From George Voinovich this (Thursday) morning (WashPost:

“What message are we sending to the world community when in the same breath we have sought to appoint an ambassador to the United Nations who himself has been accused of being arrogant, of not listening to his friends, of acting unilaterally, of bullying those who do not have the ability to properly defend themselves?”

Was that a U.S. Senator referring to an ambassadorial nominee, or was it a Euro-proxy complaining about our President?

Voinovich is out of touch with the American mainstream. Or most streams in which one would be willing to wade.