Terror works. Until the day they ran into the dumb cowboy from Texas. Then the bets were off.

And of course if terrorists–and their nests and hives–are of no threat, are we to understand we should just bring hom the Boys from, say, Afghanistan???

It is the nuts who can't quite manage their own wardrobe or missles (like Kim Jong Ill) and other seemingly laughable rubes with marching orders from the Propher who're more likely to nail us in one grueseom form or another (if for no other reason than they muck things up in the attempt) than Russia or China. The other reason is they are fearless. Government fear. Some individuals don't.

The attack on 911, which is to some not quite on par with "a threat", caused almost incalculable monetary and psychological damange to this nation. The ripple effect is still being felt.

The age of the tanks and guns warfare of lining ones self up to be shot at whilst you shoot is gone.

Who told you that?

Is that we hire the coast guard and they place THEIR lives on the line with more than a little time, money and effort to interdict all manner of shenanigans both small and large?

As to those handy stats–it is the SILENCE, that is the real complicity here. A strange pall from not just the left, but more importantly large swathes of Muslims who see their own "countrymen" blown to hell and into dime sized chunks and say little. So the allegedly small (how small???) percentage of the Islamic community that is highly charged and radicalized that now contained numerous converts raised on Brit fish-n-chips but are hot for decapitation: Just how many constitute an "existential" threat?

Several hundred? Thousands? Armed with nukes rather than merely adept at making quickie gory bofo snuff films?

Where is that magic line of demarcation where annoyance is threat to the commonweal?

That is being worked on while we sleep, sir.

That is but a matter of timing–not intentions.

I PROMISE you.

Little comfort found in that little puppet show of yours. The paper tigers still have teeth, even if they might not drink from the same well twice or favor jetliners to dirty nukes in the next session of horror.

The endless harangue about not capturing the (probably 6 feet under) figurehead of Bin Laden (though that baton has long passed on) from the Left regarding GW Bush tells me more than a few liberals too are nervous about visits to Manhattan.

That works as well, though I'd agree that if one must speak these days, having a lawyer is every bit as requisite on speech issues as needing one in case you're found on the street with 25 pounds of heroin.

NOTE TO SELF ADDENDUM:

Geert Wilder's party might be out of favor, and he joins big mouths like Michael Savage in being on par with head smashers and gut splats from Hamas as far as concerns Jacquie Smith and some other similar tavern mutts who now control the plupart of Euro culture. Nevertheless, it seems these kinds of guys are not going to just disappear, politically, into the morning mist."

(click)

"DEAR DIARY:

(click)

No, I don't have to agree with them. Why would I agree with a deranged individual who seeks to improve his own readership through fear-mongering? If the "awareness" that Steyn seeks and you champion is achieved through the pedaling of lies, I think I have a right to dismiss it without debate, to state in no uncertain terms that it has zero intellectual value (other than as an exercise in Lefty-baiting), and to repudiate the author's credentials.

I agree, one does not have to attribute falsity to all of Steyn's writings because he is "wrong once or twice" (rather generous on your part). Nor do we have to attribute him with infallibility because he happens to get something right in the paranoid froth of his usual writings. In fact, casting doubt on his work due to repetitive wrongness seems to me much more justified than giving him the proverbial Benefit Of The Doubt when reading every credulous rant.

What am I afraid of? That the vocations of Liar and Journalist become indistinguishable in my lifetime.

I personally agree with Johann Hari who thinks multiculturalism must be off the table if there's a chance we will ignore the plight of oppressed women from paternalistic cultures in order to not step on any toes. But to even think that the far-right parties represent an unselfish, thought-out, honest, constructive and critical outlook on the issues associated with immigration have suffered complete abandonment of the faculties one would expect in a voter who's had basic education. Now they'll whine about "elitist intellectual dismissal of any non-mainstream parties and grassroots movements", but I personally voted for the Pirate Party.

Yeah, many of them are poor, prejudiced, not very educated and have very self-centered views on feminists, left-wing fellow citizens and anyone capable of seeing through their obsolete and shoddy thinking. I'm not going to send them to a camp but I am not going to let them feel proud of their flaws. Neo-nazis and self-appointed vanguards of "classical" Europe and all our poor defenseless womenfolk are the ones attacking left-wing politicians in Sweden and elsewhere, not the other way around. I'd personally rather see all the seats in the EU parliament currently being held by far-right bloviators to contain a random assortment of Romes or immigrants. Their "working-class" concerns and agendas are an embarrassment to all Europeans

Simply put, most people aren't interested in far-left political magazines. Most people aren't interested in far-right political magazines, either. Most people aren't interested in wallowing in ideology. No amount of advertising will fix that.

No, should not. Nobody should be stripped of their second citizenship or forced to give it up. Perhaps a mutual misunderstanding here.

Now, which of these is false? Wells seems to be denying (3) entirely (hello??) and provides some argument against (1). As for (2) he seems to suggest that Steyn actually believes Europeans are fascist sympathizers.

So Wells, If Steyn mischaracterized Kalniete, then call him out on that (you did). If fascism is actually declining or just going through statistical noise, then fine, make that argument (you didn't, but hinted at it with the Austrian statistics). Beyond that, you generated a lot of heat and very little light with this article. Steyn's was a hell of a lot better.

Abuse of a state mechanism doesn't indicate systemic censorship of unpopular opinion. Perhaps if you were more in tune with what's around you, you would realize you were commenting on the most recent Steyn article appearing in a recent issue of Maclean's, despite the 'censors' that are denying them freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

Posting what you did on this article defeated what you were expressing in your post. I hope the irony isn't lost on you, bro(mide).

Ken Whyte may be emperically challenged but I give him full marks for chaos. I was unsettled when MacLean's started indulging a tabloidish bent (I recall wrinkling my nose at a West Nile Virus cover quite a few years ago) but I keep coming back. I guess I'm okay with sensationalist headlines and cranked ledes, as long as you get around to some real journalism somewhere around the second paragraph.

But I'm still calling you "Babyface" from now on.

I've been writing for Ken Whyte for 15 years at three publications, and I am here to tell you he doesn't believe in planning when chaos is so much more fun.

Does this look a little manufactured to anyone? Kinda like a pro wrestling match where the heel (Steyn) and the babyface (Wells) chat in the locker room before hand to plot the match?

So, out with it Paul. What was your role in this? Did you see the story before it ran? Did you voice any objections?

As print journalism enters its circus phase, it would be nice for us readers to know who's in on the act and whether I'm the only dupe.

so canadians living abroad who have acquired a second citizenship should be stripped of their canadian citizenship (which, btw, isn't possible due to constitutional constraints)? ya, that isn't creepy at all. only born and bred nativists that stay in canada are The True Canadians. very creepy.

Is it a F-A-C-T that it was on his "parent's cash", or are you playing fast and loose with facts and utterly distorting reality so as to make a point??

If the latter, I would consider your statement to be morally (as well as factually) wrong.

Talk about tired, ad-hominem attacks…….

I have since read Filthy Lucre and am part way thru The Efficient Society. If I had it to do over, I'd have started with The Efficient Society, then Filthy Lucre and then Rebel Sell. Oddly, the order in which they were written doesn't seem to match the development of the theses….

The "this argument was also used against X" canard is beneath refutation. It is asinine and sophomoric and tiresome, and it does not refute documented facts and statistics.

We believe in free speech, freedom of movement, freedom to live as you please. the essence of being a liberal is to believe in the liberty of the person!

A socialist, like me and millions of us, also believe in working as a society to eradicate inequality and tolerance of all – something that I cannot say for those who are on the right, far-right, ultra-right of the political spectrum – and I would add you to one of those rightist curriculum.

You and I know that the UKIP will be, as much as the BNP, annihilated in the general election. The UKIP much like Veritas are nothing more than a protest vote – and, you being the guy who believes in the free markets as you do – really don't want the UK to bottle it in Europe. You want an open and free market where your dubious Adam Smith ideals will become the norm – yet, as I have said to you before, the UKIP, Tories, "New" Labour will do the same as Thatcher did and only incorporate certain aspects of Adam Smith philosophy and forget the other stuff that you don't like.

There is no real conviction in the UK to up sticks and leave. Most will make a comment on leaving the EU, then it will, as always, come back to UK policy – that is where the UKIP should take their blinds off. By all means become a political force in the UK, yet, I just can't see it happening.

How many of the UKIP will be standing for parliament in 2010?

I hope you are one of them, Tim – and I do hope that you get elected – it will be interesting to see how your view changes while a member of parliament.

Yeah- well many of us are tiring of the I've-travelled-extensively-in-Europe multicultural bollocks.

And in case you didn't know, Catholics have never suggested the global expansion of a RC "caliphate", nor do they have a system of theocratic law, nor do they advocate the killing of non-believers.

I have LIVED (not just travelled) in the UK for 15 years, mainly in London, and I know your "observations" are disingenuous.. I think some Europeans are finally starting to wake up, albeit in the form of getting the hell out (Brits going to NZ and Oz as never before- which is my own plan) rather than confronting this insanity head on.