Evelyn Nieves reports that the “peace” protestors are shifting to anti-Bush protests, as though this hasn’t always been about hatred of George Bush.

She writes, apparently with tongue nowhere near cheek:

In broad terms, according to leaders of some of the largest national peace groups, the antiwar movement is reshaping itself to become an anti-Bush movement.

Yup, they’re clearly moving on to yet another winning bandwagon, as the President’s approval ratings soar in the wake of a successful Iraqi campaign.

The whole article is (I suspect unintentionally) amusing, in that it clearly shows how desperate, and out of touch with reality they are.

Michael Negler, who teaches in the Peace and Conflict Studies department at the University of California at Berkeley and who has written extensively on nonviolent protest, said the current antiwar campaign “hasn’t been as effective as it could be.” Whether nonviolent civil disobedience actions at military installations and corporations that stand to profit from the war will have an effect remains to be seen, he added. “In nonviolence, we don’t always judge by immediate results,” Negler said. “Nonviolence is confident it will have positive effects down the line.”

I liked this next passage:

Just how the antiwar movement plans on challenging the president depends on which group you ask. Some are focusing on registering voters to challenge Bush in 2004. Others say their emphasis will be on finding congressional candidates to run against those who have supported or acquiesced to the Bush administration. Still others say they will emphasize creating permanent community-based groups that will fight the administration’s policies. Some also say that while they plot their next big moves, they will continue to hold teach-ins, protests and other forums to criticize the current military policies and practices in Washington and fortify their ranks.

It reminded me a lot of this hilarious article from the Onion about the South (not) rising again.

Though Southerners are overwhelmingly in favor of rising again, few were able to provide specific details of the rising-again process. “I don’t know, I reckon we’ll build us a bunch of big, fancy buildins and pave us up a whole mess of roads,” said Bobby Lee Fuller of Greenville, MS. “I ain’t exactly sure where we’re gonna get the money for that, but when Johnny Reb sets his mind to something, you best get out of his way.”

But Ms. Nieves is apparently serious.

Or many of the other guests could go hungry.

Michael Moore may show up to a White House dinner.

David Frum says that the next target in the War on Terror should be the UN itself.

Read the whole thing, but here’s one part that I’d never previously considered:

Behind all of these problems is a larger one: The UN is inherently incompetent to deal with the problem of terrorism. The UN Charter forbids states to use force against other states — which was the UN’s excuse for condemning Israel for bombing Iraq’s French-built nuclear reactor in 1981. But the Charter has nothing to say about the use of force by non-states or quasi-states — which is why the UN kept silent when Hezbollah, with Iranian help, bombed the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing more than 100 people.

Yes, I’d say that at least in terms of global security, the organization has long outlived any usefulness it may have once had.

And I found this little bit here thought provoking:

Some of the oil contracts between Iraq and France are hugely disfavorable to Iraq. Saddam seems to have believed that these special deals would win him France’s political support. A new Iraqi government might want to renegotiate or even cancel these contracts — how would it benefit the Iraqi people for that to be prevented?

If that’s the case, then why shouldn’t these contracts simply be considered odious debt that should be forgiven?

Iraqis are having a hard time dealing with American soldiers’ ethnic diversity.

…Corpsman Benedict Bito, 19, of Alameda, Calif., may have gotten the strangest question while at his post in Numaniyah.

“One kid asked me was I related to (martial artists movie star) Jackie Chan,” said Bito, who is Filipino. “I was standing guard in the square and the people started to stare at me. At first they told me I was Chinese, then they said Korean and finally one guy thought I was Vietnamese.

“They just couldn’t believe I was American.”

Iraqis are having a hard time dealing with American soldiers’ ethnic diversity.

…Corpsman Benedict Bito, 19, of Alameda, Calif., may have gotten the strangest question while at his post in Numaniyah.

“One kid asked me was I related to (martial artists movie star) Jackie Chan,” said Bito, who is Filipino. “I was standing guard in the square and the people started to stare at me. At first they told me I was Chinese, then they said Korean and finally one guy thought I was Vietnamese.

“They just couldn’t believe I was American.”

Iraqis are having a hard time dealing with American soldiers’ ethnic diversity.

…Corpsman Benedict Bito, 19, of Alameda, Calif., may have gotten the strangest question while at his post in Numaniyah.

“One kid asked me was I related to (martial artists movie star) Jackie Chan,” said Bito, who is Filipino. “I was standing guard in the square and the people started to stare at me. At first they told me I was Chinese, then they said Korean and finally one guy thought I was Vietnamese.

“They just couldn’t believe I was American.”

Part of the current conventional wisdom is that the UK (along with the rest of Europe) is becoming increasingly secular, which is one of the reasons that they are appalled by an American president who appears to be a sincere believer in God.

David Carr has an interesting post on how Brits, having been abandoned by their churches, have taken up paganism.

I came out about in the center of the “right libertarian” quadrant on this political quiz.

Don’t miss the latest column from Mark Steyn:

Some of his allies – the Prime Minister of Britain – have overcome their squeamishness to regime change. Some of his opponents – the Prime Minister of Canada – were still objecting to regime change even after the regime had changed. But it was Bush’s position that counted: one of his strengths is that he won’t sacrifice the objective to the process. By contrast, it wasn’t always apparent that his predecessor had objectives: what exactly was the desired end when Mr Clinton bombed that aspirin factory in the Sudan? In foreign policy, Clinton had tactics, not strategy: his inability to reach what the special prosecutor Ken Starr called “completion” extended far beyond Monica’s gullet. On his tax cuts, on missile defence, on Saddam, Bush is completion- focused.

Plenty more where that came from.

Blogging will be light to non-existent for a while.