Putting legal theories in a blender

It appears that the Democrats are losing little time in pushing through their anti-gun agenda. I've seen reports indicating that the Democrats are going to try to renew the "assault weapons" ban and may even try to go after "sniper rifles" as well.

I'm not going to get into the details of the debate but I will state that the hypocrisy of the left is something that never fails to impress me.

For example, since 9/11/01, the left has been screaming about the suspension of civil liberties and the elimination of constitutional protections. Even if we take their arguments as factually and legally correct, how can one reconcile their position on things like a person's right to associate with terrorists with their position on firearms ownership by individuals?

There is a very clear constitutional provision that guarantees individuals the right to own firearms. Yes, there is some debate on the meaning of the first clause, but any sane person knows that the phrase "well regulated" meant "ready for use" and not "cobbled by laws and restrictions".

Anyway, I'm not going to get into this legal argument right now, but I want to ask this question. Why is the doctrine of "prior restraint" so important when it comes to the first amendment but not when it comes to the second amendment.

I KNOW that there is no judicial history of using the concept of prior restraint for the second amendment, but I'm asking why, in concept, should prior restraint be such an evil when it comes to the right to speech but not when it comes to the right to bear arms?

If we regulated speech as we regulated guns the law would be nothing BUT prior restraint. We'd silence all muslims since some muslims are terrorists. We'd silence all blacks since some blacks commit crimes. In fact, just about everyone would be silenced simply because they belong to a class that has had individual violations in the past.

The attempts to ban all weapons of a certain type is nothing more than prior restraint of a constitutional right and I don't understand why it is such a favored tactic of Democrats, especially since they are the ones who scream about this when it happens to speech.

I guess it all comes down to the fact that the Democrats deal in hypocrisy.

Speaking of which, the NY Times gets the award for "unclear on the concept" for this editorial today. Apparently they haven't noticed the disconnect between their love of all gun bans and their fear of an over-reaching government...this is about as clear an example imaginable of why the individual right to own firearms is so important and the editors of the NY Times simply can't connect the dots that they drew.

Let me connect the dots: THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT AGAINST THIS POSSIBILITY AND YOU FUCKERS ARE CALLING FOR IT TO BE ELIMINATED.

February 19, 2007
Editorial
Making Martial Law Easier

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation’s governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.

In Todd We Trust

Other than hating Oakland and raging against liberals and the NY Times, baseball is one of my more positive obsessions. I'm a huge baseball fan and a Mets fan in particular.

So today, as I was engaging in self flagellation (reading the Sunday NY Times), I came across a story about my favorite former Met, Todd Pratt.

I may be the only Mets fan who thinks Todd Pratt is worthy of "favorite Met ever". The reason, of course, is that Todd Pratt was a backup catcher (to Mike Piazza) and there are really only two plays of note in his career. The first was this:


That's Todd Pratt in the bottom of the 10th inning in the deciding game of the 1999 National League Divisional Series and his home run sent the Mets to the Championship Series in Atlanta. This was during the John Rocker year...

The second play that he's known for happened one cold, rainy night at Shea a week or so later, during the fifth game of the National League Championship Series. The Braves had taken a 3 game to none lead in the NLCS and had were on the verge of elimination. The night before (a game I was at), they beat the Braves to bring the series to 3-1.

15 innings and Robin Ventura wins the game with a grand slam. Sort of. Todd Pratt, unable to contain himself, ran out and grabbed Ventura before he could touch home plate (actually, before he could touch second) and thus the Grand Slam Single was born.

Other than that, Todd Pratt has had a fine career as a backup but there's no reason for anyone to consider him a hero.

For whatever reason, I do. I hope the Yanks put him on the roster.

And here's the NY Times' story.

February 18, 2007

Old Met Knows Pride of Yankees

By TYLER KEPNER

TAMPA, Fla., Feb. 17 — There were 55,913 fans at Yankee Stadium on Oct. 21, 2000, and millions more watching on television. Todd Pratt had the best seat of all for the moment that came to define a Yankees dynasty.

Pratt is in camp with the Yankees now, trying to win a job as the backup catcher. In 2000, he started for the Mets in Game 1 of the World Series. He had scored the go-ahead run in the seventh inning, and the Mets led, 3-2, in the ninth. The Yankees had swept the past two World Series, but Pratt could sense a momentum shift.

“If we had won that game,” he said at Legends Field this week, “we might have broken the Yankees’ glow, or whatever they had.”

It was up to Armando Benítez to close it, with Pratt guiding him. Jorge Posada flied out to start the ninth. Paul O’Neill came to bat, hitting .182 since mid-September. He could not catch up to Benítez’s sizzling fastball, and was helpless against the splitter.

Benítez got ahead, a ball and two strikes. But O’Neill would not give in.

“It was just incredible,” Pratt said. “He kept fouling off tough pitches after tough pitches. It was mentally wearing me thin back there, going, ‘Come on, he’s got to swing and miss, or he’s got to put it in play.’ ”

One foul ball landed just beyond the reach of third baseman Robin Ventura, whose range was restricted by the extra box seats set up for the World Series. Benítez kept firing, and O’Neill kept fighting.

On the 10th pitch, O’Neill walked on a high, outside fastball, enough to rattle Benítez and rouse the Yankees. O’Neill went on to score the tying run, and the Yankees won in 12 innings. They captured the series in five games.

Pratt pointed to another play in Game 1, Derek Jeter’s pinpoint relay to cut down Timo Pérez at the plate in the sixth inning, as the pivotal moment. Jeter has never gotten enough credit, Pratt said, for whirling and throwing without a crow hop, somehow knowing that the speedy Pérez had not run hard all the way.

But O’Neill’s at-bat had greater symbolism, Pratt said, for what it represented about those Yankees.

“That was the heart right there,” Pratt said. “Every foul ball was a beat of the heart. It just kept them going, kept them going. That would be the description of that team.”

Much has changed for the Yankees since then. But Jeter and Posada remain, and the two Yankees who hit Pratt with pitches that night — Andy Pettitte and Mariano Rivera — are his new teammates this spring.

Pratt turned 40 this month, and he said this would be his last season in the majors. He will retire if he does not make the Yankees out of spring training. “I’m not going to take a younger guy’s job,” Pratt said.

Pratt would seem to have an excellent chance to make the team. On the first day of workouts, he caught the staff ace, Chien-Ming Wang, in the bullpen. On the second day, he caught Rivera.

He also has a low uniform number (14), the locker next to Posada and a much longer track record than the other leading candidate, Wil Nieves. The initial front-runner, the veteran Raúl Chávez, broke his hand in winter ball, prompting the Yankees to call Pratt.

Pratt was glad to accept their invitation. He was a candidate for the backup job last year until the Yankees signed Kelly Stinnett, who had experience catching Randy Johnson. Pratt signed with Atlanta and hit .207, his lowest average in five years.

But he reported here in good shape and has a strong supporter in the third-base coach, Larry Bowa, his manager in Philadelphia for more than three seasons. Bowa praised Pratt for his preparation and said he was the rare backup who could be a team leader.

“He’s not afraid to get on somebody,” Bowa said. “Even though he’s not playing, if he sees something, he’ll say something.”

Part of the reason players listen, Bowa said, is that Pratt can also laugh at himself. It was Pratt, after all, who rushed from the Mets’ dugout to hoist Ventura in the air as he rounded first base after smacking a ball over the fence to end Game 5 of the 1999 National League Championship Series. Ventura never made it to the plate, turning a grand slam into a single.

“When he plays, somebody’s going to laugh at something he does,” Bowa said. “Whether he screws himself into the ground on a swing or fouls a ball off his foot, he just has that personality.”

Pratt, whose home run clinched the Mets’ 1999 division series victory against Arizona, can appreciate the major league life because he once gave it up. In 1996, when Pratt was 29, he retired after the Seattle Mariners cut him in spring training.

He returned home to Florida, worked at Bucky Dent’s baseball school and entered the business world. Pratt’s goal was to own a Domino’s Pizza franchise, and to do so, he tried to learn every aspect of the job.

Three years before, Pratt earned a World Series bonus as a member of the N.L. champion Phillies. He spent it on a luxury car, which turned out to be an unusual way to deliver pizzas.

“I wasn’t a delivery guy, because you’re not learning much there,” Pratt said. “But there were times when we were short-handed and I had to go out. It was kind of funny, because I was delivering pizzas in a BMW. It cost me in tips. People would see the car outside and say, ‘Hey!’ But I needed the tips.”

The Mets brought him back into baseball in 1997 and improved his salary. Ten years later, Pratt has pulled up to the Yankees’ door for his final stop.

It's better to burn out than fade away

As many of you know, I used to live in the Oakland hills. I hated just about everything about that area, primarily the politics. The Oakland hills is home to one of the most homogeneous liberal/left populations in the country (it bordering Berkeley should be a tipoff).

If you want to see the type of liberal domination of the area, read my previous post on the subject
Among other things, I said this:

So this is the piece of shit that Oakland residents are apparently going to elect as their leader. Imagine the political ladder for a typical Oakland resident. Your councilmember is an extremist liberal. Your mayor (Dellums) is a socialist with among the most extremist left wing views of anyone in office in America. Your Representative (Barbara Lee) is the fetid spawn of your mayor, a vile left wing bitch who didn't hesitate to embrace al Qaeda after 9/11. And then you go up to your two Senators (Feinstein and Boxer), ignorant liberal cunts of the highest order.

There is a neighborhood organization from my former home, the North Hills Phoenix Association. It was founded after the Oakland Hills fire as a way to get community resources organized to rebuild the area. A laudable goal, for sure, but the organization turned into nothing more than an amen corner for the left wing politicians of the area. The members turned the organization into a political soapbox for liberal/left causes and the politicians use the organization as cover for their own fraud and corruption.

In other words, I don't much care for the NHPA and I really don't care for the way that they push their politics on homeowners.

Barbara Lee is the House Rep for the area and her politics are a mirror of the local politics (or vice versa). Most rational people remember what the likes of Barbara Lee did after the Islamic terror attacks of 9/11. Barbara Lee and the left insisted that we must have done something to provoke the attacks, that we should not protect ourselves, that we should consider our evil actions and work to understand those who attacked us.

You may, at this point, be wondering where I'm going with this.

A week or so ago one of the leaders of the NHPA, Howard Matis, sent out a broadcast email to the group asking for help. Here is the text of that email:

My wife and I are offering a $1000 reward for information leading to
the arrest and conviction of the person or persons who have shot out
my windows or dumped paint over my house at 6824 Sherwick Drive.
Please ask workers at your home because they may have seen something
driving in the neighborhood. A gambler would bet that the person
is local because as soon as I put the reward signs, an anonymous
person called code compliance. If anyone sees someone loitering
around my house, I would appreciate being contacted.

I really should get a video camera installed because there is no
guarantee that the criminal would not strike again.

Howard

Truly, a sad story. No one wants to see vandalism. However, something about Howard's request struck me as odd. Here is a leader of a group that is very active in the Barbara Lee style of politics, someone who very likely voted for Barbara Lee AND Ron Dellums AND Barbara Boxer, and he's complaining that someone attacked his home. It reminded me all too much, in very general terms, of the Islamic terror attacks of 9/11.

Since my wife has told me that I spend too much time being annoyed at issues relating to the Oakland Hills (we moved away from there almost three years ago), I figured it was time to sever my ties with the group. Rather than just unsubscribe from the mailing lists, though, I decided I'd make a statement and see whether they are open for the type of dissent and free speech that they used following 9/11. So here is what I wrote in response to Howard:

Howard-

While I'm sorry to hear that this has happened, I think you need to reconsider what you are saying. Perhaps instead of assuming that the perpetrators are criminals you should consider what you may have done to cause someone to want to do this to you.

Perhaps your fancy house in the Oakland Hills is a reminder to a person of color that there are unequal opportunities in this country and they are, justifiably, lashing out at the reminder of the racism that still exists. You know, no justice, no peace.

Or, perhaps it is an environmentalist who sees the house that you built on a once-rural hillside as a slap in the face of mother earth and a threat to the survival of the planet.

While we can never condone the acts of whoever has attacked your house, we also can't let your loss turn into fear mongering and vigilantism.

What I'm saying, Howard, is that rather than perpetuate the cycle of retribution, where you put a price on the head of someone who has taken issue with some aspect of your existence, perhaps you try to understand what has made them so angry with you. Once you understand why they are so angry as to strike at your home, then you can come to grips with the steps you need to take to calm down the aggrieved.

It may mean that you have to tear down your house or move or utterly gut your way of life and embrace another way of life at odds with yours, but hey, learning to appease those who hate is something you've supported before, isn't it?

What I was trying to do was use the same arguments that the left used after 9/11 as a response to Howard's sense of outrage over being attacked. I knew that a lot of the very dull-witted libtard members of the NHPA would not understand the political satire and would attack me, and that's exactly what happened.

I received a flurry of attack emails, claiming that I was a racist, that I was an evil person, that I should support Howard rather than berate him, that if I was so interested in appeasing criminals I should invite them to my home, etc.

Clearly, they missed my point entirely. This was, to my mind, a beautiful experiment in the capacity of the liberal mind. What I think it shows is that they couldn't even understand what it means to have an argument dissected and applied to similar factual situations.

Here's an example of one of the angry responses I received:

What a bunch of psycho babble BS. Sounds like excuse mongering to me.

Since they seem to be so angry at hill dwellers, as you speculate, and you
are an "aplogist" we'll give them your address, they can splash paint all
over your house, shoot out your windows and you can hopefully catch them in
the act. Maybe you can then be kind and gentle and sit them down and talk
to them about their anger.

I'm sorry if my reply offends people on the forum, but geez give me a break.

See? When their own logic is used against them, they refer to it as "psycho babble BS" and "excuse mongering". Note how the writer thought my idea of understanding the source of the criminals' anger was not appropriate. Gee, isn't that exactly what these people were saying we should do with Islam?

And then, the email I expected arrived.

It was the leader of the NHPA and he showed the true nature of the liberal/left's agenda of "dissent is patriotic, free speech is the most important thing in the world, there should be no censorship!"

What did he do?

He condemned me for dissenting and stripped me of my free speech rights.

The message you sent regarding Howard Matis's plea for help after his home had been vandalized and been shot at is one of the most offensive messages that has ever been sent on our Open Forum list-serve. This forum exists for the mutual benefit of our neighbors. Anonymous posts which are designed to hurt and offend others are not welcome. Despite my requests in the past that you both identify yourself and moderate your tone, you continue to send uncivil messages that do not belong on this forum. Someone whose home has been the target of bullets does not deserve the hateful insinuations that you offer in lieu of help. I am therefore ordering that you be removed from Open Forum. I hope that you can learn to communicate civilly. In the North Hills Phoenix Association, we are free to disagree, but we are not free to hurt. Open Form discussions are the equivalent of chats taking place in a living room. You have shown that you are not capable of accepting the rules that reign in our home.

In peace,
David Kessler,
NHPA President

*****************************************************
David Kessler,The Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley, Berkeley CA 94720-6000,
dkessler@library.berkeley.edu, 510-642-8174 (work), 510 643 2548 (fax), 510-843-5122 (home)
"We have got to know what both life and death are, before we can begin to live after our own fashion" -H.D. Thoreau

Boo fucking hoo. I am quite proud to have sent the most offensive email ever to this group of left wing morons. However, I had to respond to David Kessler's email, and this was my response:

Dear David-

I'm not surprised to receive your email of censorship. It's funny that you draw a comparison to a chat in a living room, as I have never been in a living room chat where people were not allowed to speak their opinions. In case you didn't notice, the instances of my emails being deemed hurftul or offensive were emails where I expressed a political viewpoint that was contrary to the liberal/left dogma that pervades the Oakland/Berkeley Hills. My last email to Howard was a turn on the liberal/left statements in reaction to the war we are currently engaged in. Perhaps the satire was lost on you, but I was using the same arguments that you liberals used in reaction to the Islamic terror attacks on the United States.

It's quite interesting that you allow people to send blatant or subtle left wing political messages without trying to censor them. For example, on Halloween I send a response to a pro-Democrat message where I took issue with the politics being espoused. My response was deemed offensive but the initial email from another member was considered fine.

Truly, you are engaging in the censorship and clamping down on free speech that you and your ilk claim the current administration engages in. It's interesting that President Bush has never censored me but a ragtag group of leftists in the Oakland Hills has. You leftists trade on the tragedy of brave soldiers who have given their lives for this country and don't hesitate to use that for political gain and as fodder for your hate filled messages, but you take issue with my satire that involved someone having some minor vandalism to their home. Your moral equivalence is a powerful, disgusting thing.

So if you think that a viewpoint that is not in lockstep with your closed minded, liberal/left slogans is hurtful and offensive, I think you have provided more proof of my basic message than I could have otherwise obtained by sending emails.

Perhaps you should change your tagline to "In censorship and intolerance for other viewpoints" rather than "In peace".

I think this is a good snapshot of the state of liberal/left politics in America today. They love dissent, but not when it's dissent directed at the things they care about. They hate censorship, unless it's censorship of a view that offends them. They think that we should understand what motivates those who hate us, unless it's someone who hates them, in which case there should be harsh judgment imposed.

Hypocrisy, exposed.

Sunday Night Quickie

Who has the most to lose if President Bush's revised strategy in Iraq (getting rid of Rumsfeld, the troop surge, etc.) improves the situation or even leads to an outright US victory (however that is determined)?

Al Qaeda? The Sunnis? The Shi'ites? Syria? Iran?

No, No, No, No and No.

The Democratic Party of the United States.

Yep.

They need the US to suffer defeat in Iraq before the election in 2008. If they have a US defeat to use as a weapon, they will likely defeat any Republican candidate.

Think about that as you watch Congress over the next few months.

I'm done laughing.

A few days ago I said that I was too busy laughing to comment on what is going on among the "Palestinians".

Today, I'm done laughing.

Affe and I spoke today about this and I said something to him that is worth repeating here. As background for what I'm about to repeat, the news today was that the Hamas/Fatah truce, which lasted a good day or so, was over and six Palestinians were killed in internecine violence.

If you're too lazy to click the link, here's the important part:

Hamas gunmen ambushed a convoy guarded by the Fatah presidential guard and hijacked two trucks filled with tents, medical kits and toilets, security officials said. The United States and some Arab countries had pledged to give equipment and training to the security forces loyal to Abbas.

The attack sparked the new fighting, which killed six people in Bureij, including a security officer, hospital officials said.

Soon after, separate gunbattles broke out in Gaza City and in northern Gaza outside a military intelligence post. Security officials said Hamas militants fired a rocket at the post and then sacked it, wounding five members of the security forces. At least two Hamas supporters were wounded, Hamas said. In all, hospital officials said 59 people were wounded in the clashes.

Hamas militants fired mortar shells near Abbas' residence in Gaza City, and nearby street battles sent residents fleeing in terror. Abbas was not in Gaza at the time.

As I've said before, I'm happy to see Palestinian Arabs killing each other. It saves us bullets and international condemnation. But the intra-Palestinian Arab violence is something that should be considered.

The Palestinian Arabs have claimed that they use violence only as a reaction to the "occupation". Well, Gaza isn't occupied. Gaza is about as close to autonomous as it gets in the region.

So what did the Palestinian Arabs do when Israel ended the occupation of Gaza? Did they go about proving how well they can govern themselves, how once freed of the evils of the occupation they would revert to a peaceful existence, using all the billions of dollars that had previously been used for terror to create a prosperous community?

Hardly.

Where at least there had been, for example, flourishing greenhouses under Israeli rule in Gaza there are now rocket factories, suicide belt factories, bomb factories...Without Israelis to kill, the Palestinians simply went after themselves.

They can't help it. They are nothing more than bloodthirsty animals, singular beings who exist to create violence and shed blood.

They are proving, at this moment, that there is no need for a Palestinian Arab state.

Why should we believe that they would do anything different if they also had Judea and Samaria? They don't care about having their own state, they care about covering the landscape in blood and, as a byproduct, destroying Israel and Jews.

They've always said that ending the occupation was simply a step on the way to destroying Israel and they're showing us that they weren't kidding about that.

With all the money that is sent to them, they could be creating farms, factories and jobs (well, jobs that don't involve an explosion). They could prove to the world that they are good citizens and that even if they still have a beef with Israel, they are ready to be civilized and solve the problems that afflict their people.

Instead, they can't even last a day without going back to bloodshed.

I've met a lot of Palestinian Arabs and many of them are very bright people. There is no doubt that individually, Palestinian Arabs are capable of being productive citizens. There are scores of Palestinian Arab doctors, engineers, lawyers and businessmen. So why do they, when they are gathered together, seem capable of nothing but sowing violence?

I don't know.

What I do know is that history shows us that they, as a community, refuse to even attempt to be civilized and productive people.

Where are the Palestinian Arab kibbutzim and moshavim? Where are the Palestinian Arab tech companies?

And, most important, given the long history of Palestinian Arab terrorism, where is there any indication that we should trust them to give up violence?

UPDATE 2/4/07

I'm not the only one who thinks that the Palestinian Arab civil war is proof that they don't deserve autonomy or statehood. The Palestinian Arabs themselves are saying the same thing:

Palestinians: We don't deserve a state

---

Khaled Abu Toameh, THE JERUSALEM POST

Feb. 4, 2007

---

As the fighting between Fatah and Hamas continues in the Gaza Strip, many residents here said Saturday that they were concerned that the international community would turn its back on the Palestinians.

Although the street battles remain restricted to the Gaza Strip, tensions are mounting in the West Bank between supporters of the two parties, particularly in the aftermath of the abduction of several Hamas figures by Fatah gunmen over the past few days.

Many Hamas leaders in the West Bank, where Fatah remains the stronger party, are said to have gone underground for fear of being targeted by members of Fatah's armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades.

On Friday, the group issued a warning to all Hamas leaders in the West Bank to condemn the fighting in the Gaza Strip or face retaliatory measures.

On Saturday, a number of Hamas figures in the West Bank came under attack by Fatah gunmen. In Kalkilya, the gunmen opened fire at the home of the city's Hamas mayor, Wajih Kawwas. No one was hurt. In Nablus, three Hamas members were kidnapped and the offices of the movement's legislators were set on fire.

Fayez Abu Rawdah, a senior Hamas official in Ramallah, was kidnapped for four hours on Friday night. His Fatah captors released him after handing him a letter addressed to the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip. The letter contained a threat to kill all Hamas leaders in the West Bank.

"Everyone here is disgusted by what's happening in the Gaza Strip," said Shireen Atiyeh, a 30-year-old mother of three working in one of the Palestinian Authority ministries. "We are telling the world that we don't deserve a state because we are murdering each other and destroying our universities, colleges, mosques and hospitals. Today I'm ashamed to say that I'm a Palestinian."

Ayman Abu Khalaf, a 40-year-old businessman, said he was seriously considering moving with his family to Jordan because of the growing state of anarchy and lawlessness in the PA territories.

"The situation is very dangerous and many people are afraid to leave their homes," he said. "I'm very worried about the safety of my children. There are many armed gangs and everyone is afraid. If the situation does not improve, I will take my family and go to Jordan. This is not the Palestine we want to live in."

Hafez Barghouti, editor of the PA-funded daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, said he was concerned that the fighting would tarnish the image of the Palestinians. "Tens of millions of people now look at us as worthless gangsters with no values," he complained.

Addressing both Hamas and Fatah, he added: "Take Gaza and turn it into a state of the Muslim Brotherhood. Take the West Bank and establish a state of your own there with all the Abu's. Your people no longer want a state. We no longer like our killers and executioners."

Columnist Mahmoud Habbash also acknowledged that the fighting had caused grave damage to the Palestinians on the international arena. The internal fighting, he said, has distorted the image of the Palestinians in the eyes of the world.

"The world is watching how the Palestinians are destroying their institutions and achievements with their own hands. They see how we are mercilessly slaughtering innocent people. We are losing the sympathy of the world. I'm afraid the world will now view us differently."

Reflecting the gloomy mood on the Palestinian street, political analyst Ikrimah Thabet said: "There is no reason for optimism. This is a real conflict stemming from two contradictory programs and political and ideological discord. The divisions are so deep that no temporary cease-fire will help. The bloody events have caused enormous damage to the reputation of the Palestinians, especially in light of the filthy and painful violence that has claimed the lives of children, activists, leaders and innocent civilians."

On this topic, I've been emailing the NY Times editors and asking them why there hasn't been a single picture of dead Palestinian Arabs from the week or so of fighting. There have been dozens of Palestinian Arabs killed by other Palestinian Arabs, some of them children, and had it been Israel doing the killing it would have been front page coverage with plenty of pictures. I've alleged that this is the flip-side of the Palestinian Arab propaganda machine-they stage scenes to show Israel as the aggressor and bring in media to document what was allegedly done, but when there are dead Palestinian Arabs in the streets resulting from internecine violence, they forcibly keep the media away. This is a fraud upon the world and the media have an obligation to cover the story if they can't get access to provide images.