Yeah, don’t everybody?

After all, “Jones” is the most common last name in Wales, the second-most common last name in Britain, and the fourth-most common last name in the United States. These facts were apparently known to Gethin Jones, Cardiff-born TV presenter, who took it upon himself to host a…Jones extravaganza.

This event, properly entitled “Jones, Jones, Jones,” was a successful attempt to beat the world record for a gathering of people with the same family name. The record had been held by the Norbergs, who brought 583 people together in Sweden in 2004, but after Friday, November 3, the Jones had doubled the number and won the record. From as far away as Australia and the United States, 1,224 Jones gathered in Cardiff, Wales. Guinness World Record officials were present and made all the Joneses prove their identity to confirm the breaking of the record.

The event was watched closely by the Norbergs, but alas, they were not to keep their place in the book of world records. But then, who knows? Perhaps they have another get-together in mind.

Yesterday a Brooklyn man was arrested on charges of conspiring to support a terrorist group. Javed Iqbal allegedly provided Hezbollah’s sattelite channel, al-Manar, in the U.S. via his sattelite company.

The U.S. Treasury Department in March designated al-Manar a “global terrorist entity” and a media arm of the Hezbollah terrorist network. The designation froze al-Manar’s assets in the United States and prohibited any transactions between Americans and al-Manar.

...

Mark Dubowitz of the Coalition Against Terrorist Media (CATM), which is composed of Jewish, Christian, Muslim and secular organizations, said yesterday he is “saddened” that a U.S. resident was allegedly facilitating the transmission of al-Manar “but pleased that the U.S. is taking the necessary steps to ensure al-Manar’s incitement to violence is stopped.”

Mr. Iqbal, who owns and operates the sattelite company from his home, has been arraigned in federal court, and bail set at $250,000.

Former war supporter William Buckley made a surprising admission in his most recent National Review column:

One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed . . . And the administration has, now, to cope with failure.

This follows up on another recent statement Buckley made, where he explained that “If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.”

John Marshall has an interesting column that deals with Buckley’s change of mind.

Back in October of last year, I published an article in Virtue Magazine titled “Why They Hate Us.” In the article, I stated:

. . . government meddling in the political affairs of other nations can come to no good. The current invasion and regime change in Iraq is no exception: war supporters are loathe to admit it, but the possibility of Iraq deteriorating into a full-scale civil war is becoming more likely day by day.

Someone didn’t like that statement too much, and in a “Letter to the Editor” the following issue, this person claimed that the above statement was purely “opinion.” Furthermore, he stated:

It is the media’s view, not eyewitness, objective observations from Iraq. What we’re seeing is an attempt to get those insurgents to find that they can have a voice in a democratic nation. In that way, they will decrease in number, and violence will decrease.”

Obviously violence hasn’t decreased, so that’s strike one. Strikes two and three are the latest news reports coming out of Iraq that indicate the country is nearing the brink of civil war:

The negotiations had been mired in sectarian differences, prompting the U.S. ambassador to warn that Washington had spent too much tax-payers’ money in Iraq to tolerate sectarianism and militias in government.

Talabani summoned leaders of all sides to a summit Thursday morning to calm sectarian tension after the bombing.

“This new ugly crime comes as a warning that there is a conspiracy against the Iraqi people to spark a war among brothers,” Talabani said. “We must cooperate and work together against this danger, the danger of civil war. This is the fiercest danger because it threatens our unity and our country with a devastating civil war.”

Read the news reports. It’s becoming painfully clear that events are not going well, and all the spin and whitewashing war supporters will undoubtedly try to engage in won’t change what’s actually happening in Iraq.

From the U.K. Independent:

In a number of respects civil war in Iraq has already begun. Many of the thousand bodies a month arriving in the morgues in Baghdad are of people killed for sectarian reasons. It is no longer safe for members of the three main communities ­ the Sunni and Shia Arabs and the Kurds ­ to visit each other’s parts of the country.

“Iraq is in a Weimar period like Germany in the 1920s which will either end with the country disintegrating or in an authoritarian government taking power,” said Ghassan Atiyyah, an Iraqi political commentator.

A little fun with past State of the Union addresses:

“Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year [fill in the blank!], the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving.”

“[Saddam Hussein’s] war machine is crushed. His ability to threaten mass destruction is itself destroyed.”

“We will defend our security wherever we are threatened, as we did this summer when we struck at Usama bin Ladin’s network of terror.”

(Thanks to Cultural Revolutions Online at the Chronicles Magazine website.)

Two news items have popped up in the last day or so, and both involve our (largely ignored) problems on the Mexico/U.S. border.

First, the Mexican government announced yesterday that it would be distributing over 70,000 maps to potential illegal immigrants gathering near the U.S. border. The maps illustrate where, for example, highways and water stations exist in Arizona. They also warn Mexicans where not to go in Arizona.

But don’t worry—none of this will promote illegal immigration into the U.S.!

The National Human Rights Commission, a government-funded agency with independent powers, denied that the maps—similar to a comic-style guide booklet Mexico distributed last year—would encourage illegal immigration.

``We are not trying in any way to encourage or promote migration,’’ said Mauricio Farah, one of the commission’s national inspectors. ``The only thing we are trying to do is warn them of the risks they face and where to get water, so they don’t die.’‘

I like what Mark Krikorian—executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies—had to say:

``What’s next? Are they going to buy them bus tickets to Chicago?’‘

In another slightly-related incident, a standoff in Texas between the U.S. border patrol and Mexican smugglers has drawn a fair amount of attention despite the national media’s virtual cover-up of the story.

A West Texas standoff along the Rio Grande between U.S. law enforcement officers and heavily armed Mexican drug smugglers in military-style clothing prompted congressional demands Tuesday for an international investigation and a call for deployment of U.S. troops to the border.

The incident, which occurred Monday on U.S. soil at an isolated river crossing about 50 miles east of El Paso, is the latest involving armed incursions along the U.S. border with Mexico.

And it comes less than a week after Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called a California newspaper’s account of such border incursions “overblown.”

The incident Monday involved an encounter between two Hudspeth County Sheriff’s Department deputies and three Department of Public Safety troopers and 10 heavily armed drug smugglers at an area about 50 miles down the river from El Paso.

Let’s see if President Bush will actually do something about the border now.

La Shawn Barber and Michelle Malkin both have done quite a bit of blogging about the subject.

A new Pentagon report says that the U.S. Army has become a “thin green line” that is in danger of breaking if no help comes soon.

How thin, how dangerous, and how soon?

It is likely, the study says, that the army literally won’t be able to outlast the insurgency in Iraq:

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon’s decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

Interestingly enough, on Monday Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno asserted that U.S. forces must prepare for a long war spanning a minimum of two decades:

“This generation of servicemembers will be in what we’re calling the Long War,” the general said. “Our estimate is that for at least the next 20 years, part of our focus will be on how do we deal with the extremist networks that will continue to threaten the United States and its allies.”

Where do you draw the line? That’s what Matt Welch at ReasonOnline wants to know.

In his “Pro-war Libertarian quiz,” Welch asks the question: How far are you willing to go to win the war on terror?

Writes Welch:

By now, we all know the pattern:

1) A new revelation is published or broadcast about a controversial new policy or by-product of the War on Terror. (Abu Ghraib/torture, extraordinary rendition, the outing of Valerie Plame, an alleged plan to attack Iran, secret propaganda in Iraq, FISA-free NSA surveillance of Americans, and so on.)

2) Some supporters of Washington’s foreign policy wonder whether the reporter or news organization or leaker who revealed the information might be guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy.

3) The media, Democrats, and anti-war activists are criticized for piling on, for ignoring worse crimes committed by the enemy, and for hysterically exaggerating the underlying issue.

4) Think-pieces are written about how this controversial or possibly illegal policy should actually be legalized and embraced.

5) Some self-described small-government conservatives and libertarians exasperatedly ask if critics of the policy understand that we’re at war, and explain how this latest kerfuffle illustrates why libertarians should never be invited to the grown-ups’ table when discussing foreign policy.

So Welch has come up with 10 questions to ask the pro-war pundits, since he wants to know “how far is too far on the war in terror.” (Welch’s answer to every question is “no”).

1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?

2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell?

3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?

4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?

5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?

6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?

7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?

8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?

9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?

10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?

Welch concludes:

My belief, crudely summarized, is not only that you do not need to imitate totalitarians to beat them, but that it doesn’t actually help.

But that’s just me; before the next scandal cycle of bloggery bickering begins, I’d love to know where my pro-war friends draw the line.

I’d love to know.

After signing a bill last week that outlaws the torture of detainees, President Bush quietly stated that under his powers as commander in chief, he has the ability to bypass the law whenever he deems appropiate.

Well, that didn’t sit so well with Congress, and yesterday an article appeared in the Boston Globe about three GOP senators who have condemned the president’s recent assertion.

John W. Warner Jr., a Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, issued a joint statement rejecting Bush’s assertion that he can waive the restrictions on the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment against detainees to protect national security.

‘’We believe the president understands Congress’s intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees,” the senators said. ‘’The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the administration’s implementation of the new law.”

Separately, the third primary sponsor of the detainee treatment law, Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told the Globe in a phone interview that he agreed with everything McCain and Warner said ‘’and would go a little bit further.”

‘’I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified,” Graham said. ‘’If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations’ leaders from doing the same.”

One has to wonder . . . . is there any action Bush believes he can’t exercise under his “powers as commander in chief”? The answer seems to be “apparently not.” The current situation boils down to:

Congress: We’re going to pass a law that outlaws torture and closes every loophole: no torture no matter what the circumstances.

Bush: I’m signing this law but I can ignore it whenever I want.

Anyway, you can read the rest of the Globe article here/

The next time you drive around your neighborhood looking at Christmas lights displays, keep Carson Williams of Mason, Ohio in mind.

For three years, Carson has hooked up roughly 25,000 Christmas lights around his home and programed them to . . . well, dance.

To Christmas music.

Playing on FM radio.

Not only has Mr. Williams attracted hundreds if not thousands of people who drive by to view the amazing display, he has also attracted the attention of national media, including NBC’s Today Show and the Associated Press:

This is the third year Williams has assembled the display, which grows every year. He said he merely built on a suggestion from his wife, Sherry.

“She wanted some lights on the house, and I work with computers, so I said, ‘There’s got to be a way to control it with computers,’” Williams said.

He explored the Web and found examples of other synchronized displays. It takes him about an hour to program each minute of the display, which flashes to music by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra.

That doesn’t mean neighbors have to listen to the sound track repeat itself all night.

“The sound, we actually broadcast on a low FM transmitter, so there’s actually no sound in the neighborhood,” said Williams, an electrical engineer with Cincinnati Bell Technology Solutions.

A sign tells passers-by where to tune to listen, and Williams often stays outside for hours at a time chatting with visitors and directing traffic.

Williams hasn’t had any problems with neighbors so far, and he has said that if anyone complains about the display he will shut it down. You can read the entire article about him and his house here.

Make sure you check out this incredible three minute video showing how the whole thing works! Remember to turn on your speakers, so you experience the whole thing with the music! (The ending is especially fantastic.)
————————