Tom - I subscribe via iTunes at home but my CD burner's on the fritz so I'm trying to download here at the office.   I've downloaded #s 110 & 111 but while the link shows an .MP3 extension in the URL window, when I 'save target' I get a .mpeg extension and therefore it burns as a data file.   I'm unable to play these on my car's CD player.   As I have an hour or more commute, SNN is mandatory for my sanity.   ;-)

I have a Mac at home but Wintel here at the office.   I've even changed the extension before I clicked 'save' but nothing changes.

 I've also tried at Podcast Ready but (obviously) it's the same file.

 Any words of wisdom?

Thanks.   Sorry to use a comment box for the question.

Allan

Allan,

Not sure why that's happening, I recorded it and saved it as an MP3 as normal.

E-mail me at pacificjournalist@gmail.com and I'll send you the MP3.

Tom Paine

Tom, thanks for the particularly excellent and funny blog news you delivered this week. You really were on top form! Meryl's piece was, as always, impassioned, to the point, and wildly entertaining.

I was somewhat perturbed by some of what your Hollywood guest had to say. For example, glowingly referring to the success of The Passion of the Christ - which, while Mad Mel has every right to tell the story his way, caused a great deal of anxiety among many Jews, myself included, who have read enough not-to-distant history, to understand the impact of the passion story on relationships between Jews and Christians.

Another thing Mr. Sayet stated was that the US is the only superpower that has not embraced imperialism. This is patently untrue! The landmass of the United States stands as evidence of American imperialism. When the country expanded from the initial 13 colonies, whether through conquest, treaty or purchase, they engaged in an imperialistic acts, much the same as the British did in their heyday. In essence, Evan's own home in California sits within a colonial acquisition. The essential difference is that Britain, rightly or wrongly, felt she had to look overseas for territory to sustain the growth of a tiny island country, whereas the US merely expanded to encompass a huge portion of North America, as well as Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. The US didn't need extensive overseas territories because they had amassed vast amounts of territory within North America.

My sense of Evan was that he was more concerned with narrow jingoism. He was definitely worth hearing, but I'm afraid he is more interested in American Exceptionalism, than in the much-needed unity of the Anglospehere.

Apologies for the rant. Just had to get that off my chest. Keep up the good work, all of you.

Hey! Are you guys still out there?

I know, I know. You've seen the error of your ways, and so now you want to change SNN from being a center-right anti-jihadist podcast to being a center-left anti-jihadist podcast. Of course, that would take time to arrange. I fully understand.

Anyway, happy holidays. And I hope that Brian of London isn't still cooling his heels in Tel Aviv. Maybe he ought to forget about New York, and just emigrate directly to Israel and be done with it. He's already there, anyway.

Cheers,

Joanne

Dear sport, thanks for reminding me about your wonderfully toned site. It's great and I've been such a fool to not have thought about it. Ah, Evan Sayet, great stuff. I wish P.J.O'Rourke had as daily a profile as Mark Steyn. P.J's humour and insight is what got me moving away from Leftoid drivel.

Here's a bit from the generally pathetic Australian MSM on "What me Jihadist?" Davo 'shitbag' Hicks.

"...in a May 2001 letter to family, Hicks wrote: "By the way I have met Osama bin Laden 20 times now, lovely brother, everything for the cause of Islam. The only reason the west calls him the most wanted Muslim is because he's got the money to take action."

 AFP lawyer Andrew Berger said Hicks had admitted taking part in four al-Qaeda training camps between January 2001 and August 2001 - a month before the terrorist attacks in the United States.

 Here's an amusing post I wrote on the exploding pudding head at the time.

http://colonelrobertneville.blogspot.com/2007/06/rocket-launcher-wasnt-mine-i-just.html

All the best from Melbourne Australia, Colonel Neville.

I'm ready for my next podcast. Thank you...

Mark W, Evan Sayet is perfectly correct, the US is the only non-imperialist superpower in history.  Those cases of expansion you site occured before it was a superpower (except perhaps Guam? hehe), and most of them occured before it was even a United States.

Brett :) You're incorrect. Most of the expansion of the United States occured while it was already the USA. That is, post-revolution. Other large countries, such as Canada and Australia were essentially unions of previous British colonies.  Most of the modern United States is made up of purchased or conquered lands - again taking place post-formation of the United States.

Next, I should have been more explicit: The Superpower USA did not need territorial expansion the way the British needed it - they had (at that time) almost infinite resources within their own territory. The country had, after all, expanded across an entire continent.

And if you're going to cite non-contiguous territory, you'll have to go further than Guam! Hawaii, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, etc.

Lastly, I must make it clear that I understand that the US populace is non-imperialist, tending at various points in history towards the opposite impulse, namely isolationism. In fact, the USA is indeed the most benign Superpower the world has ever seen. I was merely taking issue with the commentator's contrast of the US with Britain as the world's major power. Basically, there is no doubt that the US has, in its past, been an expansionist power like all other great powers. The fact that the country has, in the past, been self-sufficient in terms of resources, goes a long way towards explaining why the Superpower USA has been non-Imperialist.

I don't think it's right to say that the US has been non-imperialistic. Having colonies directly governed by the "mother country" is not the only way in which imperialism, or neo-imperialism, has existed. You're using too narrow a definition here. The US has exerted its power, often though not always to the detriment of weaker peoples, via its economic dominance and the selective use of its army and marines. Just ask Latin Americans. Just ask the Iranians and the Greeks and the Philippinos and the Dominicans and so many others. We have sponsored so many coups d'etat, and backed so many cruel dictators that I've lost count. To describe the US as non-imperialistic is simply wishful thinking. And please don't tell me that it was all in the cause of "freedom." Not all of it was.

Puerto Rico?  The US could have taken over the whole American continent north, central and south if it had had truly imperialist intentions.  Japan would still be a colony, as would most of Germany, France, and Korea.   Oil would come free from the protectorates of Venezuala, Canada and Mexico.

Did the USSR invade Czechoslovakia and Hungary because it wanted their resources?

And unless the US formed with fewer than 25 states (which it didn't) then more expansion was done prior to, than after, union.  And how much since it became a superpower (say 1942)?  Which was Evan's point.

Did anyone else pickup on the "pause" by Evan Sayett when Tom exclaimed "I wouldn't work with Vanessa Redgrave.  She's a communist!".  He made some diplomatic remark and moved on.  Clearly Evan has either gone beyond, or never imbibed in the leftist idea of "thought crime".  Some former lefties need to take note...