Ramon looked for you. Who else is looking?

Hi, You're in my contact list, so I looked for you on Reunion.com — but you weren't there. Come join me at the largest people-search service, and see who else is searching for you! —Ramon Reunion.com - Life Changes. Keep in Touch.™ You have received this email because a Reunion.com Member sent an invitation to this email address. For assistance, please refer to our FAQ or Contact Us. Our Address: 2118 Wilshire Blvd., Box 1008, Santa Monica, CA 90403-5784

The Council on American-Islamic Relations - CAIR: Article Contents

It's about time.

Read more at www.cair-net.org/defaul...

Al-Qaida Is Losing, By Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens at Slate:

The fratricide within the insurgency offers a perfect opportunity, which one hopes is being fully exploited, for infiltration, for the spread of damaging rumors about secret negotiations with one faction, for sabotage and for provocations that will increase the misery and distrust now infecting the ranks. It also offers an occasion to reverse the questions that we have been so anxiously asking ourselves. It is for the murderers and video-beheaders to ask themselves: How long can we sustain this effort? How many casualties is too many? Was our postwar planning adequate to the task? Are we winning hearts and minds? Are we endangered by sectarian strife within our own camp? And they have to pursue these discussions in secrecy, with superstitious reference to dreams and omens and prophecies, whereas at last we can pursue our argument in the open.

Read more at www.slate.com/id/213476...

Major Concession From Osama Bin Laden

Today's news that Osama has offered a truce is amazing, totally unforeseen news in this war. Some see it as a major victory for the United States, in the sense that Osama has actually offered a truce, but I differ in one respect. Yes, traditionally in war, when someone "sues for peace" they are on the losing side or have come to the conclusion that it is a stalemate. We had this dilemna in the Vietnam War when we realized that the North was willing to literally sacrifice millions of men for their victory. However, this is the first global, and most unconventional war ever fought. There is no particular position to be had, or lost. There is no border that has been breached, no geographical boundary like the Rhine or Seine. Bin Laden has been in hiding for years, and has escaped our grasp, he is not, I don't believe, up against a wall. I thus don't see how he could be trying to cut his losses when he seems to have an endless supply of men willing to die for him.

However, I think the major concession for Bin Laden really was his acknowledgement, indirectly, that his efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have made him the bad guy in muslim countries. More and more is being written about the fighting between the "insurgents" and the Kurds and other natives of Iraq. Osama may finally realize that bombing weddings and mosques is really not making anyone come to his corner in the Middle East.

I actually thought it would be a long time until he tried to hit us again, simply because it at first caused us to attack Iraq, which is likely something he wanted to a certain degree. He probably didn't realize that there would be a tightrope act when we actually got here, and his men are not necessarilly keeping their balance.

Any concession is a good concession. What were the terms of that truce???

CLM by Nagin (Career Limiting Move)

Poor Nagin, went too far.  Remember, you can't say it's a [insert ethnicity] city and claim to be representing the ethnicities not included in that remark.  Apparently Nagin was voted in by a majority of whites, no less; blacks rejected him.  CLM by Nagin, it seems.

Read more at www.imnotchocolate.com/

Biden Says Something Intelligent....

Joe Biden, the senator who was the undisputed champion of the "who said something ridiculously stupid" contest during the Alito hearings, finally says something all of us agree with: the Senate should scrap the whole hearing process and go right to the floor debate.

I've thought this for a long time. If we know the nominee is a wizbane, and we know what we object to is really their ideology, and are left to pointing out ancient associations and off-the-cuff remarks from their days in a frat-house, why give the sage the opportunity to rehabilitate any of the bad information with a hearing? If you can't figuratively "Bork" the candidate, that is, make them look like an ill-tempered lunatic, then just get on the floor, say they are too ideological and have bad associations in their past, and vote NO. Seems to me this calculus is elementary. If you try and fail, you look like, well, Ted or Joe. yipes....

The Billable Hour.....

The perfect gift for a corporate lawyer....

The Coolest Website, Ever.....

Wayyy too cool.

There Should Be A Law......

Against Wal-Mart. The legislature in Maryland decided that it will run large companies' health insurance programs. This is such a horrible piece of legislation it boggles the mind. To say that Maryland is a "test case" state, to me, sounds like socialists are comparing this law to the anti-smoking laws passed around the country. I can deal with health nuts, I used to smoke, and I hated the laws, but, it wasn't a redistribution law.

This law effectively states that you pay a certain amount to your employees for health insurance, which, effectively raises their compensation, or you pay the STATE the difference. Horrible.

Malkin is pleased...

Read more at www.nytimes.com/2006/01...