Phony Outrage, Phoney Equivalence

Democratic politicians hit the airwaves today shouting that the leaked reports from the New York Times about general Casey's briefing on troop reductions sounded "like their plans".

Senate Democrats reacted angrily yesterday to a report that the U.S. commander in Iraq had privately presented a plan for significant troop reductions in the same week they came under attack by Republicans for trying to set a timetable for withdrawal.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that the plan attributed to Gen. George W. Casey resembles the thinking of many Democrats who voted for a nonbinding resolution to begin a troop drawdown in December. That resolution was defeated on a largely party-line vote in the Senate on Thursday.

"That means the only people who have fought us and fought us against the timetable, the only ones still saying there shouldn't be a timetable really are the Republicans in the United States Senate and in the Congress," Boxer said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "Now it turns out we're in sync with General Casey."

Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), one of the two sponsors of the nonbinding resolution, which offered no pace or completion date for a withdrawal, said the report is another sign of what he termed one of the "worst-kept secrets in town" — that the administration intends to pull out troops before the midterm elections in November.

"It shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration," Levin said on "Fox News Sunday." "It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq, and the president will then claim some kind of progress or victory."

Let's ask a question here that Levin seems to not understand. If this is "the worst kept secret in town", doesn't that mean that the Democrats were posturing? Ding! Time's up! The correct answer is that if the Dems knew that the plan was already underway, then their activities this past week were all for show.

Word Straight From The Horses…

Pick your own end. Bill "I decide, you listen" Kellor, editor of the New York Times explains his reasoning for publishing the story on the financial tracking program. Right off the bat he descends into the realm of the inane:

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)

Let me just interject a bit here. Why? Because, Mr. Kellor, you and your newspaper already shouted the story from the rooftops. What little we add to the cacophony you have produced is minor.

If anything it gets even more sanctimonious and self serving from there. This is elitist lecturing at it's worst. And it explains nothing. Not one bit of useful information as to why Billy and Pinch thought a good, useful, effective and legal program should be exposed and ruined. The so-called defense of "we don't see any harm" is complete balderdash. How do you see a negative, Mr. Kellor? How do you see that the programs you have destroyed no longer work?

Maybe when Americans die as a result of your efforts? Will that help you see the damage you've done?

Your explanation stinks, Mr. Kellor.

UPDATE: No wonder Kellor is afraid to face an interview with Hugh Hewitt. Others suitably impressed: Don Surber,  Wizbang, American Future, Ace of Spades,

UPDATE: This is from the comments, it's too good not to post up here in the main entr. Blackhawk says:

Gaius, the NYT (New York Trash) piece was condescending and complete utter garbage.

“And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.”

And yet us people, who invented this country, expected that our freedom of speech would entail a responsibility to express that freedom, which would protect from an abuse of the media, as an essential ingredient for self-government. We reject that it is un-wise, and un-patriotic, to always take the NYT editorial stance at it’s word, or to surrender to the NYT important decisions about the merits of an expression of free speech.

“The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases.” True, back in colonial days. Now how does that apply to today? Did it apply in the Clinton administrations?

“The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest.” Whoa…that’s a bit of a stretch.

“For example, some members of the Administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy.” First of all, it’s not ’sectarian violence and insurgency’. It is terrorism: a group of extremists who profane a religion and murder in the name of that religion. And another group who wants to regain power (authoritarian and exclusive in nature) at any cost. Neither of these groups wants freedom of speech…they are trying to play the ‘Pallywood’ game, and NYT is playing along…for what purposes…

“After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco.” Source and context? Are you implying that the Bay of Pigs and Iraq are conceptually connected? That requires more than an OpEd. Oh, and Bay of Pigs was over 30 years ago…been a few administation changes since…and a few laws passed since…

“Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress.” Didn’t your own article say that Congressional committees were briefed and that this particular program was legal? What are you really going after?

“…but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government’s actions and over the adequacy of oversight.” Oh, so you are implying that some unnamed official is concerned about this specific program, and you felt, even though your conclusion is that it is a legal program and Congress has been briefed, that because one (or more, you don’t list your sources) dissented, you felt obligated to publish?

“It’s not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case. While some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far. A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don’t know about it.” WHOA…I need to call a lawyer on this…getting whiplash on this one…

So, your article says the program was briefed to Congress, and was legal. Then you claim in this OpEd that because the program was never tested in courts, it ‘may’ not be legal? Just how do we test this in court? Have AQ file a suit? Or maybe the Congressional oversight? Is a ‘legal test’ proactive or reactive? If proactive, then doesn’t the Congressional oversight constitute a de facto ‘OK’ from the legislative branch? Just when does the judiciary branch get involved? And how? And just how does the issue of ‘some bank officials worry that a temporary program’ that ‘has taken on an air of permanence’ matter? If they are so worried about it, why don’t they file a class action law suit to test it?

“…we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don’t know about it.” But didn’t you already preempt this by publishing this article against the expressed statements of the administration? And wasn’t there already Congressional oversight? Was this oversight not sufficient? That wasn’t in your article, or this OpEd. In fact, you state that “we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far”, which, in a chicken-shit way, implies that the current oversight is not up to task. But you provide nothing to support this, other that “some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality”. Circular logic, at best.

No, the NYT position seems to be, “we’ll print whatever we want, and you, the sheepish reader can f*** off”. And just why should I trust the NYT on this matter?

(Longer than the original post, but well worth reading). Thanks for this comment!

UPDATE: And Iowahawk has found the first draft of Kellor's letter!

Apology - See You And Raise You

Jason Zengerle from The New Republic responds to allegations that he "fabricated" an email attributed to Steve Gilliard. He apologizes quite handsomely for an error. The email did not, in fact come from Gilliard. Zengerle did not check with Gilliard before publishing the email but did (according to his explanation) verify with others.

Here's how the error happened: A source forwarded The New Republic three emails purportedly written by members of the "Townhouse" list–Glenn Greenwald, Mike Stark, and Steve Gilliard–expressing concern about the Armstrong-SEC story. The emails lacked timestamps and headers, so TNR checked the emails with two other sources who belonged to "Townhouse." Both of these sources vouched for the authenticity of all three emails (and two of the emails, Greenwald's and Stark's, are indisputably authentic). After returning to these two sources this weekend, TNR learned that when initially shown the three emails, both sources immediately recognized the 181-word Greenwald email and the 389-word Stark email; having determined that those two emails were authentic, the sources just assumed the 22-word Gilliard email was authentic, as well. We now know it wasn't. These were clearly honest mistakes on the parts of the second and third sources; and TNR has been unable to determine why the first source–who has not responded to messages–included this one piece of incorrect information along with the accurate information the source sent us. Therefore, I won't abide by Glenn Greenwald's demand to disclose the identities of these sources. If Greenwald thinks that makes me, as he's hyperventilated, "a new Stephen Glass," then he can take that up with my editor Frank Foer, who knows the identities of the sources and has reviewed all the relevant materials they provided

He got burned for it. He admits it and life goes on, right?

Well, not exactly. From this relatively minor error, there has been a lot of hyperventilating from the left. Zengerle goes right onto the offensive and immediately raises the stakes as well. Now the astrological underpinnings are into play in the battle.

Good thing we got us some ring girls. This is going to get bloody.

Wheel

Painted Sky

101st Blog Of The Day

Today, my mission to visit one member of the fighting 101st each day led me abroad to the Netherlands. Liberty and Justice is the blog run by Michael Galien, who has been kind enough to link here now and then. Michael also noticed the al Aqsa claim of having WMD and reached much the same conclusion that I did. Please go take a look at Michael's place, he has good blogging sense even if he does link here now and then!

I Know There Is A Special Place

For the people of the Westboro cult (they are not Baptists). They have announced plans to picket the funerals of the two murdered soldiers.

REDMOND, Ore. - A community memorial service for Pfc. Thomas Tucker of Madras, one of two soldiers brutally murdered in Iraq, will be held in Redmond on Saturday, July 1.

Tucker, along with Pfc. Kristian Menchaca of Texas, disappeared last Friday after a firefight with insurgents at a canal crossing checkpoint in Iraq.

Troops stationed a short distance away heard an explosion and small arms fire. When they arrived, they found one soldier dead and Tucker and Menchaca missing.

The soldiers' bodies, which showed signs of torture, were found three days later, booby-trapped near an electrical plant just three miles from where they had been captured.

The U.S. military has launched an investigation to determine why their vehicle was the only one outside a fortified Army camp.

As for the memorial service, it is scheduled to be held Saturday, July 1 at the following location:

Deschutes County Fairgrounds Expo Center
3800 S.W. Airport Way
Redmond, Oregon

The memorial service at the Expo Center will be open to the public. A private internment, which is not open to the public, will follow at the Mt. Jefferson Memorial Park Cemetery in Madras.

A small group of people from the Westboro Baptist Church out of Topeka, Kansas have announced their plans to picket the funerals of both Tucker and Menchaca. Members of the church have picketed several soldier funerals in the past.

To the people of the Westboro cult: you have no decency, you have no humanity and you have no place in the Heaven you think you think you are bound for. You enjoy the freedom to be what you are because of people, much better people than you all are, who you see fit to degrade and abuse. You choose to inflict pain on the families of your betters.

And they are far, far better than you could ever dream to be. For they stood to protect the rights of even such as you.

Please, if you live in Redmond, or are close enough to get there, go to the service. Please show the families that these people do not represent America. And please bring along a flag.

The Palestinians Commit Mass Suicide

The al Aksa Martyrs Brigade (hereafter referred to as the idiots) just announced publicly that they have chemical and biological weapons and will not hesitate to use them.

And they will almost certainly be killed to the last person the first time they even attempt to use one.

 The Aksa Martyrs' Brigades group announced on Sunday that it its members have succeeded in manufacturing chemical and biological weapons to be used against Israel.

In a leaflet distributed in the Gaza Strip, the group, which belongs to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party, said the weapons were the result of an effort that has lasted for three years.

The statement was a response to an Israeli Security Cabinet decision to give the IDF the green light to prepare all the forces necessary for a military operation against Gaza terror cells.

As of 9:00 p.m. a large contingency of Golani and Givati Brigade infantry troops, along with elite units, were amassing on the Israeli side of the Gaza security fence for a possible ground operation there to rescue kidnapped soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit.

According to the statement, the first of its kind, the group managed to manufacture and develop at least 20 different types of biological and chemical weapons.

The group said its members would not hesitate to add the new weapons to long-range rockets that are being fired at Israeli communities almost every day. It also threatened to use the weapons against IDF soldiers if Israel carried out its threats to invade the Gaza Strip.

"We want to tell [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert and [Defense Minister Amir] Peretz that your threats don't frighten us," the leaflet said. "We will surprise you with our new weapons the moment the first soldier sets his foot in the Gaza Strip."

This is total insanity on the part of the Palestinians. If they actually have the weapons, they will more than likely kill more of their own people than Israelis. If they use them, Israel will have no choice but to root out all of them and many civilian deaths will surely occur. The West will not intervene to save them, either. This is beyond the pale and everyone in the world (except the Idiots) know it.

If they don't have them and are trying to bluff, it is probably the all time dumbest bluff in history.

Somebody, Please

UPDATE: 6/28/2006: The Paper that originally reported this has issued a correction. The Sun-Sentinal now states that Murtha said:

Many people around the world consider the American presence in Iraq dangerous to world peace, U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to a crowd of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.

Another Update, 7/6/2006: Well, the original may have been closer to the truth than the corrected story according to the video. 

Stick a cork in John Murtha. He has announced that the US is a bigger danger to world peace than North Korea or Iran. While I'm sure that little pronouncement will play really well in parts of Europe and with Code Pink and the like, I think he may be damaging himself in the district he has to win reelection in.

Oh wait. Never mind. Do, please, keep running your mouth, Murtha.

MIAMI — American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.

Murtha was the guest speaker at a town hall meeting organized by Rep. Kendrick B. Meek, D-Miami, at Florida International University's Biscayne Bay Campus. Meek's mother, former Rep. Carrie Meek, D-Miami, was also on the panel.

War veterans, local mayors, university students and faculty were in the Mary Ann Wolfe Theatre to listen to the three panelists discuss the war in Iraq for an hour.

A former Marine and a prominent critic of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, Murtha reiterated his views that the war cannot be won militarily and needs political solutions. He said the more than 100,000 troops in Iraq should be pulled out immediately, and deployed to peripheral countries like Kuwait.

Conservative Counterweight

Up until now all the media attention has been on the Koz Kiddiez and their antics. Of course, the knives are out now and it's not quite as much fun for the Kidz at the moment. Still, the got a lot of media love for a while, then a bunch of Democratic party pandering before the (inevitable) backlash happened.

Now, Hugh Hewitt is set to roll out the conservative counterweight to the Koz Konvergance. It looks very, very promising, too.

….On July 4, Salem Communications, one of the country's largest radio-station owners, will relaunch an old Web war horse called Townhall.com as a hub for its stable of stars (including Bill Bennett, Michael Medved and Hewitt himself). The hope? That "Web 2.0" wherewithal can transform what was once an op-ed clearinghouse into a single nerve center serving the separate conservative communities of talk radio and the Internet. To Hewitt, a valuable White House ally, the math is simple: add 6 million Salem fans to Townhall's 1.4 million unique monthly visitors and you've got an audience six or seven times the size of liberal site Daily Kos, the Web's biggest political blog. "We will overwhelm them," he says.

Like Daily Kos, the revamped Townhall will focus on motivating and activating the grass roots. That's where Chuck DeFeo comes in. As manager of Bush's 2004 eCampaign, DeFeo was widely credited with winning that year's war of the Web by emphasizing word-of-mouth marketing over fund-raising appeals. Soon after, he signed with Salem and, spurred by Hewitt, spent months building a group blog called Beyond the News. But when the 11-year-old Townhall (a Heritage Foundation-National Review coproduction) went on the block, DeFeo had Salem snap it up. He would still use his 2004 tools to assemble a site where "you're no longer just listening and learning about politics, but can impact the debate and make your voice heard." Only now he would have an existing brand to expand on.

So Townhall gets its second act. Every day, Salem's nationally syndicated hosts will post show summaries, blog entries and podcasts. On the air, they'll encourage listeners to visit the amped-up "Action Center," where users can "push out" petition alerts on customized e-mail lists, set and track fund-raising goals, contact their elected officials and create personal blogs—a first, DeFeo claims, for a conservative Web site. As Kerry '04 blogmaster Dick Bell has said, "the hosts will act as recruiters for the millions of people listening every day—and that could really change the dynamic in terms of impact."

Full disclosure, Hugh Hewitt has been quite kind to Blue Crab Boulevard and has said some nice things about the Crabitat. I was not asked to write anything, or even contacted, about this rollout. I have been aware it was coming from Hewitt's blog, however. It will be fascinating to see where it goes. It really is a whole new convergence of a number of technologies.

Calling For Prosecution

Representative Peter King, Republican from New York, is calling for the prosecution of the newspapers that have published national security information. Specifically, King is asking the Justice Department to go after the editors, publishers and reporters who printed the stories detailing the financial tracking program.

King, R-N.Y., said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urging that the nation's chief law enforcer "begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times — the reporters, the editors and the publisher."

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," King told The Associated Press.

A message left Sunday with Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis was not immediately returned.

King's action was not endorsed by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Certainly whoever leaked it to them should be found and prosecuted. The Times' editor, Bill Keller, appears to be daring the administration to go after him.

I'd say give him his wish.

Military Service And What It Grants

One of the more offensive tactics being used by the left is the chickenhawk meme. It's used to attack those who have not served in the armed forces who support the war. The charge goes like this, "You aren't in the service or a veteran, therefore you have no right to support the war". Of course, logically if we accept that, we must also accept the other side of that coin. If you are not in the service or a veteran you have no right to criticize the military. Seems fair, doesn't it?

Both positions are, of course, wrong. You do not need to be a doctor to hold opinions, pro or con, about medical issues, right? Oh, you're not qualified to do surgery without years of education, but that's not at all the same thing. Conversely if you are a doctor, your education does indeed give you some special insight into medical issues. But it does not grant you unquestioned expertise in all things medical. I'd rather not have an obstetrician doing open heart surgery on me should I ever need it, thank you.

So when I read of John Murtha angrily attacking another House member who is a war supporter, essentially because that other member is not in the field sharing the hardships of the troops, I take offense. John Murtha may be a "decorated veteran" he may indeed have seen some combat - I don't really care. But those things do not grant him the right to be the sole voice opining on things involving the military.

REPRESENTATIVE Patrick McHenry, a 30-year-old Republican from North Carolina, rose during the recent debate over Iraq in Congress and declared that the struggle against "Islamic extremists" was his generation's great challenge. Unlike the "white flag" crowd on the left, he vowed, he would not shrink from the fight.

That was a little too much for Representative John Murtha, the senior Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, an ex-marine and Vietnam vet and also — in the current debate — a leading advocate of a speedy withdrawal of the troops.

"It is easy to stay in an air-conditioned office and say, 'I am going to stay the course,' " he said, angrily, after Mr. McHenry, who never served in the military, was finished. "It is the troops that are doing the fighting, not the members of Congress that are doing the fighting."

While it is quite true Congress isn't doing the actual fighting, our military is and always has been, under civilian control. It is probably one of the greatest overall strengths of our system of government even though it sometimes causes problems. You can - and in fact must - support the troops even if you are not doing the fighting. They are the ones who make your right to have and express your opinions possible. Military service, per se, grants you no special authority. Nor does lack of it deny you a right to support the troops.

The Shame Of Silence

The Associated Press has an article out asking why Europe's Muslims have been largely silent in the face of the terror attacks there that have killed at least 254 people. Bombings in Spain and England have received little if anything in the way of denunciation from Muslim leaders. The AP comes up with several reasons why Muslims have refused to come out against the terrorists. Shame is a recurring theme.

Seek them out in the neighborhoods where they live and work — in the outdoor markets and butcher shops that sell halal meat, in the book stores that display literature on Islam and the West, in the boutiques that promote Islamic dress codes, in the Turkish restaurants and smoky Tunisian teahouses, in their schools and youth clubs — and they denounce, the vast majority unequivocally, attacks against civilians in both Europe and the United States.

"Van Gogh was a crazy man, but no one has the right to kill anyone who says bad things about the Quran," said Mohammed Azahaf, a 23-year-old student who runs a youth center in Amsterdam. "If you kill one, it's like killing the whole of mankind," he said, quoting a line from the Muslim holy book.

Why, then, the public silence?

For some of the more than five dozen Muslims interviewed for this story in Amsterdam, Paris and London, it's a sense of shame, or even guilt, that innocents have been killed in the name of Islam; they say those feelings make them seek to be "invisible." For those lucky enough to have jobs, there is little time to protest or even write letters to newspapers. For others, there is fear of being branded anti-Islam in their communities.

Dutch Muslim rapper Yassine SB wrote a song about his anger over Van Gogh's murder but scrapped plans to perform it out of fear of being ostracized by the Islamic community. He also turned down requests by a popular Amsterdam radio station to sing a song against terrorism.

"If you sing that, it's like you choose the Dutch, not Muslims," said Yassine SB — the initials stand for his surname Sahsah Bahida — who is popular among Dutch North African youths like himself for his songs against racism.

"People will say 'you are a traitor,'" said the 20-year-old musician.

Shame is a strong motivator for many of the people interviewed it would seem. Shame that this kind of terror is being done by people claiming to do it in the name of their religion. Shame and fear that Europeans will see them as Muslims first and people second. There is also some anger.

Why, many Muslims ask, should they have to speak out against, or apologize for, actions of radicals who do not represent them — people they do not even regard as true Muslims?

Many find the very idea of being asked or expected to denounce such acts "extremely offensive and insulting," said Khurshid Drabu, a senior member of the Muslim Council of Britain.

"I'm British," said Tuhina Ahmed, 24, a British-born Muslim in London whose family came from Gujarat in India. "I could have been blown up as well." Why, she asked, should she have to make a public statement to prove her objection to terrorism?

To many, the pressure to denounce acts of terror smacks of President Bush's warning that 'you are either with us or against us.'

"People and politicians say where are the Muslim people, why aren't they on the streets defending themselves? They say we should go into the streets and condemn what happened so they see us as good Muslims," said Karima Ramani, a 20-year-old Dutch born to an Algerian father and Moroccan mother. "I don't feel it's my duty. I'm not responsible for the death of Van Gogh."

These are potentially good points, but there are real problems with these attitudes, too. Yes, you may be offended to have to denounce other people's actions. But if the actors claim to be doing it in the service of your religion do you not have an obligation to separate yourself from such people? The big problem, as I see it, is that the continued silence will end up as being seen as acquiescence unless action is taken soon. It may be offensive to have to denounce it, but things will only get worse unless Muslims step forward and disavow the actions of the few. The shame here is a missed opportunity to stand apart from those doing evil.

Browser Warning

That helpful, free web browser you install may just be dangerous.

A free Web browser that bills itself as a tool for privacy protection is, in fact, a click-fraud engine for pornographic Web sites, security vendor Panda Software warned today.

Browsezilla, whose name and Lizard-like mascot are reminiscent of the open-source Mozilla browser products, claims to help surfers cover their tracks when visiting pornographic sites. It does not use browser history or save data to a cache, and it allows users to save their bookmarks on a remote server, according to the product's Web site.

However, Browsezilla also secretly installs adware that boosts the page view counts on certain pornographic Web sites, according to J.J. Schoch, director of marketing with Panda. "It's being used deceptively to get more hits on their site," Schoch says. "This adware opens a series of adult web pages, although they are not visible to the user."

Panda is standing by it's report, Browsezilla denies wrongdoing, but also refuses to address the concerns Panda raises.

It’s Not Just In The US, Either

The animal rebellion is worldwide and growing daily! Now people in England are being warned to stay away from a giant, evil porcupine that escaped from a nature park. The quilly menace has long, deadly poison-filled quills. It's a stone killer, folks. Run for your lives!

Twinkle, a three-foot (0.9-metre) long female, escaped from her enclosure at Eden Ostrich World near Penrith, on Saturday, prompting warnings because her detachable, poison-filled quills can become embedded in skin, BBC Online reported.

Jim Peet from the centre was quoted as saying that Twinkle was normally "cool" but was classed as a dangerous wild animal because of her spiky appearance.

"She could make a real mess of someone's garden and she should not be approached as her quills contain poison and she could become flustered if backed into a corner," he added.

Twinkle, indeed. Porcine pincushion of pain is more apt. (By the way, three feet long is a darn big porcupine - I've never personally seen one that big).