Tomfoolery of the Highest Order

You knew it would happen someday. A job that Kofi Annan and the U.N. are truly qualified for, in order to bring intenational legitimacy to the solving of a dispute with vital international ramifications.

UN called in to solve dispute ... over dustbins

EDINBURGH (AFP) - If the United Nations (news - web sites) did not have enough on its plate already mediating in Iraq and the Middle East, a new dispute has emerged to tax its dispute-solving powers -- over the size of Edinburgh's dustbins.

The latest call for UN intervention follows angry confrontations between residents and council workers in the Scottish capital following the installation of large, wheeled bins in some of the city's most historic streets, a report said on Friday.

Locals are angry at the size of the new six foot (1.8 metre) bins, saying they are inappropriate in a part of the city which has been designated a UN World Heritage Site, the Edinburgh Evening News said.

Now residents have been told that UN cultural organisation UNESCO, which monitors such heritage areas, is to step in and inspect the dustbins over the coming summer.

This should only take 7 or 8 U.N. resolutions to solve, unless somehow they can blame Israel. Then, they'd have the problem solved by Monday.

"They are obviously taking it very seriously -- I wish the council would," association secretary Susie Lynn told the newspaper.

"We have been telling them for months the bins are a threat to the World Heritage Site and perhaps this will make the council wake up."

The U.N. doesn't take nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons seriously, nor genocide, mass murder, or mass torture. What makes any of them think they'll take this dispute seriously?

...that homelessness causes mental retardation? I didn't. At least until I attended a function on Monday night at the law school that I am going to attend starting in August. (I won't say which yet. If they read this blog, they might revoke my acceptance.) During that function, there was a small seminar where some second-year students discussed a case about mental retardation and the death penalty. I got to hear some of the most laughable liberal nonsense. It was quite hilarious, to say the least. They are just going to love me.

However, I did go to a bar on two other nights to meet up with some of my future classmates. I had a great time and met some really terrific people, so despite the liberal laugh lines I heard at the seminar, I am quite anxious and excited to get rolling.

...I don't seem to remember reading stories about Arabs being outraged at the hundreds of thousands murdered and placed in mass graves, the rape rooms, torture chambers, or shredders. But, show some "poor" Iraqi having his feelings hurt by an American, and they are outraged!!

Iraq Prisoner Images Anger Arabs, Bush

CAIRO, Egypt - Arab outrage flashed across the Middle East on Friday as TV stations showed graphic images of naked Iraqi prisoners being humiliated by smiling U.S. military police. President Bush condemned the mistreatment, saying he shared "a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated."

Ayed al-Manna, columnist for the Kuwaiti Al-Watan daily, said the "barbaric" treatment of Iraqi soldiers will rally anti-U.S. sentiment among Islamic fundamentalists and Arab nationalists.

In Syria, Damascus merchant Sahban Alawi, 45, asked "what's the difference between them and Saddam Hussein? They are doing to Iraq more than what he did."

Yawn...Wake me up when they are not angry about something. Plus, just look at the dope that the AP quotes. He says that "[We] are doing to Iraq more than Saddam did." He means that we are worse than Saddam, but his statement is technically correct. Read this to see why.

I though the Democrats were more united than ever? After all, that's what they keep telling me:

Newsview: Dems Fear Kerry Looks Like Gore

WASHINGTON - It's a recurring nightmare for Democratic strategist Tony Coelho — the party's presidential candidate portrayed as a flip-flopping opportunist, ill-served by a strife-torn staff. It happened in 2000, when Coelho ran Al Gore (news - web sites)'s campaign. Now, it's happening to John Kerry (news - web sites).

Democratic leaders fear he's getting "Gored."

"What the Kerry people don't understand is, it's succeeding," Coelho said.

Scores of Kerry supporters like the former California congressman say their initial response is to remain hopeful, based on polls showing the presumptive nominee tied with President Bush (news - web sites) while the Democratic Party is better funded and more united than in 2000. But they are worried about history repeating itself.

"No question, it's a rerun of 2000," said Donna Brazile, campaign manager for the former vice president's 2000 race.

So much for that "united" jazz. This is my favorite part:

"They're painting Kerry as a liberal, and it's succeeding. They're painting him as somebody who flip flops, and they're succeeding," Coelho said, adding that the race is far from over because Kerry has time to show voters his own biography and character. The campaign plans to unveil new biographical ads as early as next week.

New biographical ads? How pathetic is that? I almost feel sorry for them, thinking that Kerry's problems are because people don't know him. In reality, it is exactly like a recent ad Bush had out there, "The problem isn't that people know him, it's that people do." C'mon, what is he going to put in this biographical ad? Something like this maybe:

"Here's John Kerry. He served in Vietnam. He backstabbed his fellow soldiers for selfish political gain when he returned home. He married a rich woman. an for Congress twice and lost. Was Dukakis' Lt. Governor. Ran for Senate and won. Has voted against every defense program that came before him, and for every tax increase and liberal program he saw, while introducing zero legislation of significance. Divorced rich woman. Married even richer woman, a widow of one of his fellow Senators. Flip-flopped throughout. Vote for Kerry."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Wasn't it a few months ago that we heard over and over again about these 16 words in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address?

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

We heard over and over again, especially from Joe Wilson, who allegedly investigated it, but in realty did not do much more than drink tea with the natives. Now, we get this from Mr. Wilson:

Book Names Iraqi in Alleged '99 Bid to Buy Uranium

It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.

That's according to a new book Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying to buy enriched "yellowcake" uranium. Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source.

Left wing lies, exposed again. It is pathetic how the Washington Pst tries to minimize this revelation:

That knowledge has not altered Wilson's much-expressed view that the Bush administration distorted intelligence on Iraq's weapons capabilities to help make the case for going to war.

Nice wording. Covering for Wilson while being literally truthful. Yeah, that f'n liberal media.

Read this post from my favorite Aussie blogger. I would love to sit and have a beer with that guy.

I am glad to see that is some decency left in the world:

Sinclair Stations to Boycott 'Nightline' Tribute

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A major television chain, the Sinclair Broadcast Group, will bar its ABC-affiliated stations from airing a planned "Nightline" tribute to fallen U.S. troops in Iraq, saying the program is a political statement disguised as news.

ABC News plans to devote Friday's entire "Nightline" segment to the tribute, with anchor Ted Koppel reading aloud the names of hundreds of fallen American servicemen and women as their photographs are shown.

The network's intentions drew a denunciation from Sinclair, a Baltimore-based owner of 62 television stations in 39 markets reaching roughly 24 percent of U.S. television households.

Sinclair said the "Nightline" segment "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."

That is exactly what it is, and more. It is right at the beginning of "sweeps" period. Don't you believe for a second that sweeps wasn't the reason for this, even more so than a political statement. How long before we hear that Bush is behind this?

More news from the "non-partisan" 9/11 Commission:

WALK OUT: 9/11 COMMISSIONERS BOB KERREY AND LEE HAMILTON LEAVE IN MIDDLE OF BUSH/CHENEY TESTIMONY

And, get why:

In a written statement, Kerrey said he left an hour early to attend a previously scheduled meeting with Senator Pete Domenici on Capitol Hill.

Hamilton left Bush/Cheney 70 minutes early to meet with the Canadian Prime Minister.

Kerrey continues his VP audition, and Hamilton thinks that he is a wise-ass, acting as if the Canadian Prime Minister is more important than our President. If anyone has an ounce of faith in that rag-tag bunch of jackasses, I'd love to hear why.

...there are many, many levels of not only liberal bias, but liberal comedy too.

Kerry Says Bush Ignoring Imminent Threats

PHILADELPHIA - Amid warnings that another devastating terrorist attack on the United States could be imminent, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Thursday accused President Bush of leaving the nation's chemical plants vulnerable because of his political ties to the industry.

That's right, Bush is leaving them vulnerable because he is in bed with them!! Think about that logic for a minute. Isn't that the exact opposite of how you are supposed to take care of your cronies? Then again, to Kerry, it is perfect logic.

Kerry painted a bleak picture of the danger facing Americans and suggested there could be an attack before the November election. He said every report out of Washington shows that it's not a matter of whether there will be another terrorist attack, but when.

While I am not saying he is hoping for one, we all know that Kerry believes that a terror attack here will turn us all to Spainiards and we will run to vote for him. Between now and the election, you can bet that Kerry will warn about every possible type of attack just so he can say he warned us.

Canada, that alleged free country, is getting worse by the day. If you are a white, heterosexual Christian, keep your mouth shut and whatever you do, don't say anything bad about gays or anything good about the United States. Don't get a satellite dish so you can watch non-government apporved TV, or you'll be arrested. But, if you are a Muslim who hates the West, you are not only welcome, the government will support you, and bend over backwards to conform to you. Get this shit:

Canadians Allow Islamic Courts To Decide Disputes

TORONTO -- Suad Almad, her head wrapped in a blue silk scarf, was discussing her beliefs with a group of friends. She said fervently that she thought the lives of all Muslims should be governed by Islamic law, known as sharia.

"It's something nobody can change and we must follow," said Almad, who came to Canada from Somalia, then engulfed by war, more than 12 years ago. "We come to Canada and we become lost . . . We need our own court and we need our own law," she said, her voice strong and certain. "That's what I believe."

What??!! If she is not happy with the lack of sharia, then she should move back to that paradise Somolia!!

I can just see it now: The United States, bordered to the south a third-world country, and to the north, a de facto Islamic country, because all of the Christians will have come here. Thank God it will take just long enough for me to be dead and buried.

Via Allah Pundit: (By the way, please do not issue a fatwa, oh great Allah. I am not stealing your precious bandwidth.)

A reader was kind enough to e-mail this artice for a college paper called the Daily Collegian. My friends, this is what they are teaching in college these days:

Pat Tillman is not a hero: He got what was coming to him

Let me share with you a little of this dope's (U Mass Grad student Rene Gonzalez) brilliance:

You know he was a real Rambo, who wanted to be in the "real" thick of things. I could tell he was that type of macho guy, from his scowling, beefy face on the CNN pictures. Well, he got his wish. Even Rambo got shot in the third movie, but in real life, you die as a result of being shot. They should call Pat Tillman's army life "Rambo 4: Rambo Attempts to Strike Back at His Former Rambo 3 Taliban Friends, and Gets Killed."

Wow!! He probably had his dorm mates rolling over with that one.

However, in my neighborhood in Puerto Rico, Tillman would have been called a "pendejo," an idiot.

Pendejo? How quaint. In South Philly, we have several words for this writer: Jerkoff. Douchebag. Strapper. Prick.

Tillman, in the absurd belief that he was defending or serving his all-powerful country from a seventh-rate, Third World nation devastated by the previous conflicts it had endured, decided to give up a comfortable life to place himself in a combat situation that cost him his life. This was not "Ramon or Tyrone," who joined the military out of financial necessity, or to have a chance at education. This was a "G.I. Joe" guy who got what was coming to him. That was not heroism, it was prophetic idiocy.

Look at that, Charles Rangel would be proud. "Ramon and Tyrone" are signing up, meaning that poor blacks and Hispanics are "forced" to join up to escape poverty. Ok, whatever you say genius. Perhaps a few weeks on Parris Island would shape up this prick.

Matters are a little clearer for those living outside the American borders. Tillman got himself killed in a country other than his own without having been forced to go over to that country to kill its people. After all, whether we like them or not, the Taliban is more Afghani than we are. Their resistance is more legitimate than our invasion, regardless of the fact that our social values are probably more enlightened than theirs.

That last sentence is a real howler. Our social values are probably better than theirs? I guess the stoning, "honor" killing, female gential mutilation, subjugation of women, wanton murder, and mayhem is only slightly worse than things over here, huh?

I hope this scumbag feels real good about himself today. I actually feel sorry for him, with his blame-America first attitude. Funny how he is proud of his Puerto Rican heritage, yet chooses to live here on the mainland. I wonder why that is? OK, I already know: Because Puerto Rico is a shit hole. I have been there, and I saw it first hand. Perhaps if Gonzalez is so socially concerned, he should go home and start there.

Do me a favor, either call or e-mail this scumbag and let him know what kind of jackoff he is:

rene@student.umass.edu (413) 253-9639

[Update: It seems that Senor Gonzalez has been getting swamped with e-mails. Death threats, though, are way out of line. People should have just told him how much of an asshole he is, that's all. Here's the form e-mail i got from that dirtbag scum:

Unfortunately, I cannot respond to the various emails and phone calls I've
received. It has been very disconcerting to receive death threats and so much
hatred. I hope this email clarifies my views better. Please take this as an
honest attempt from someone trying to right a wrong misunderstanding.

Clearing up the misconceptions in the Pat Tillman Article

I wrote an article entitled "Patrick Tillman is not a hero", in which I tried
to contradict the American society viewpoint that Pat Tillman was a hero for his
service in Afghanistan. I disagree with the conflicts that he took place in,
but that's not why I did not think he was a hero. I thought (and still think)
that there is an unhealthy tendency in the American public to knee-jerk into
hero worship, but instead of persuading people to look at this issue, I just
inflamed the hero worship and the situation. Re-reading my words, I did come to
the conclusion that my words were inflammatory and tainted the meaning of my
article. I do admit I was partly sarcastic on an issue that seems to be dear to
a lot of people. I did not write my words with sufficient "political
correctness" to make them palatable. For the insensitivity, I apologize.

I mean no disrespect to the family of Patrick Tillman, and I would be very
distraught to learn they were hurt by my comments. That was not my intent. My
intent was to open up a debate on whether or not serving in the U.S. military is
a de facto reason for considering someone a hero. I've been quite bothered by
the continued calling of U.S. soldiers as "heroes", especially in conflicts that
I find nothing to be proud of.

Regardless of that, I stated clearly that if Pat Tillman had been defending the
East coast of the United States from invasion, I would have thought his service
to be heroic and laudable. I think the same of soldiers who fought in conflicts
like World War II. However, I'm not proud of dishonorable American
interventions throughout history (Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua,
Haiti, Grenada, Panama, The Phillippines, Iraq 2004), and I adamantly refuse to
consider soldiers in those wars, heroes. Every American intervention and every
American soldier's action is not automatically heroic, and that was my point.
Each case must be examined critically, and I don't feel the American public is
undertaking any critical examination of the legitimacy of the conflicts in
Afghanistan and Iraq, nor the legitimacy of the actions of the troops there.

I did learn one lesson, though: there is freedom of speech in this country, but
not much toleration for its expression. Freedom of speech exists only for those
that parrot the "party line". For those that even peep a dissent, only scorn is
awaiting them.

I hope this letter clears up the misconceptions that have arisen. My criticism
was not for Patrick Tillman (who may have been the most honorable man alive) or
his family, or even soldiers serving the United States today. It is to the
society back home, which seems to be unable to distinguish between honorable
American interventions and honorable American soldiers, and soldiers who served
in dishonorable interventions and, therefore, dishonored themselves. And, for
the reasons outlined above, I cannot support troops that have dishonored
themselves by serving in a dishonorable war, and much less consider them heroes.

Rene L. Gonzalez Berrios, M.A.
Political Science / University of Massachusetts
rene@student.umass.edu

F Him.

It seems that the liberal Democrat media tools are devising new ways to hurt President Bush, since support for the President has increased despite the events of the last 6 weeks or so. First let's look at what CBS is doing tonight:

Abuse Of Iraqi Prisoners Probed

(CBS) A few weeks ago, the U.S. Army announced that 17 soldiers in Iraq had been removed from duty, and six of them were facing court martial for mistreating Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the infamous prison where Saddam Hussein and his henchmen tortured and executed Iraqis for decades.

60 Minutes II has obtained photographs of what was happening in Abu Ghraib. The photos show American soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisoners.

In his Wednesday morning briefing, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said the photographs may be shown in Dan Rather's report on 60 Minutes II, Wednesday at 8 p.m. ET/PT.

How long will it be before those so-called human rights groups, the same ones who had nothing to say about Saddam, nor have anything to say now about Castro and Kim Jong-Il, seize on this to act like what our soldiers did is somehow morally equivalent to rape rooms, torture chambers, and shredders? I am appalled when a few of our soldiers embarrass the rest with idiotic actions like these. But, in no way are those dopes representative of the fine men and women we have protecting us and helipng Iraq. Still, you know Dan Rather will do his best to make you think that this this the norm. And, we have this, another poll. Funny, they seem to miss showing these polls when they favor Bush. First, let me pull out my favorite cartoon, which tells you all you need to know about polls:



Now, on to the poll:

Poll: Growing Doubts On Iraq

(CBS) One year after the declared end of major combat in Iraq, Americans have new doubts about the war and doubts about what the Bush Administration has said about it.

Just 32 percent, the lowest number ever, say Iraq was a threat that required immediate military action a year ago.

Less than half, 47 percent, now say the U.S. did the right thing taking military action in Iraq, the lowest support recorded in CBS News/New York Times Polls since the war began.

There are growing concerns about the long-term impact of the war. 41 percent now think the war increased the threat of terrorism against the U.S. 71 percent say the Administration’s policies have worsened the U.S.’s image in the Arab world.

Read the last two. First, 41% of people think that going to war has increased the threat of terrorism? They are all dopes. To think that, you must think these the terrorists were peaceful souls until we riled them up. Second, worsened our image in the Arab world? Who gives a shit? That could only mean that before the war, they really hated us. Now, they really, really hate us. What a crock!

And, as expected, here comes the Iraq=Vietnam angle:

The continued intensity of the fighting in Iraq surprised many Americans, and Americans believe it also surprised the Bush Administration. 44 percent say the fighting there has been harder than they personally expected, but 67 percent say it has been harder than the Administration expected. Nearly half say the war in Iraq was a mistake -- a finding similar to the public’s assessment of the Vietnam War as measured by the Gallup Poll in 1968.

Yeah, OK. Anything to make the Democrats feel better. I say to CBS and the New York Times, keep this up!! Give your people false hope and comfort. When November comes, it'll be like 2002 deja vu all over again, when you wonder how Democrats got their asses handed to them again.

I wouldn't spend the 50 cents to buy a copy, but often in airports I find an abondoned copy of USA Today and pick it up. This morning, while boarding the $29 Albuquerque to Phoenix flight, I picked up today's edition, and here is a sample of the liberal tomfoolery I found (I could not find an online copy of the front-page photo of an Iraqi carriying an alleged "injured" child):

Kerry defends Vietnam record Says medals issue is campaign 'distraction'

There they go, carrying Kerry's water, instead of saying, "Kerry contradicts himself (again) on throwing away his medals. The article is full of laughs, but this is my favorite:

The actions of Bush and Cheney during the Vietnam era are also under scrutiny. Bush has faced questions about whether he fulfilled his Guard service. After a furor, the White House in February released pay records, but they were inconclusive.

Democrats responding to Cheney's speech noted that he tried as Defense secretary to trim Cold War-era weapons systems and received deferments that kept him out of Vietnam.

Notice they mention the reason for Bush being under scrutinized, but fail to mention why Cheney is? Because liberals have said that Cheney and his wife HAD A BABY in order for him to avoid serving. Even the USA Today is too ashamed to write that. However, from the liberal playbook, they still put the accusation out there without the laughable reason.

'Nasty' resistance spawns fierce fighting in Fallujah 2 soldiers killed in Baghdad blast

Yeah, OK, whatever you say. Read the opening:

FALLUJAH, Iraq -- Insurgents and Marines clashed in ferocious firefights here Monday, jeopardizing a fragile cease-fire and raising concerns that the continuing defiance will embolden Iraqi resistance against occupying U.S. forces.

That's right. According to this logic, Iraqi insurgents are on the same moral plane as our troops and they will hate us more (if that's possible) unless we sit there and do nothing. Embolden them? Uh, no. More like accelerate their demise.

Marines battled the guerrillas around a mosque in Fallujah's Jolan district, a poor neighborhood where insurgents are concentrated. Black smoke hung over the city. Tank fire demolished a mosque minaret from which Marines said gunmen had been firing.

They must use the same stylebook as the AP and the New York Times. Gotta mention that it is a poor neighborhood, and use the term "Marines said" because, after all, who are you going to believe? Those wonderfully honest rebels or the lying Marines?

And the headline of the day:

Libya's rehabilitation in the works since early '90s U.S. lifts sanctions as Gadhafi agrees to abandon WMD

Gee, how often do you see a headline that long? In this case, can it really be denied that the reason for this headline is to make sure no one thinks that it was Bush's taking out Saddam had anything to do with Libya giving up their WMD stocks? Of course it can't.

Get this:

The White House has defined Libya's decision in December to give up weapons of mass destruction as one of its biggest foreign-policy achievements and a byproduct of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Speaking at a fundraising event in Coral Gables, Fla., on Friday, after lifting most trade restrictions on Libya, President Bush said, ''Because we acted, Libya got the message, and it now voluntarily decided to disarm.''

No bias there, huh? The White House said it, so it may or may not be true. that's the message of this alleged straight news story. They continue:

But the story of Gadhafi's long road to rehabilitation is more complex.

No look who supports the writer's view:

- Mohammed Bukhres, a Libyan-American with close ties to Gadhafi's sons

Uh, never mind. Read it for yourself and laugh at the revised history and the massaging of Clinton's legacy. And, finally, there's this:

Special interests corrupt what is and isn't news

That is exactly right, starting with this very newsrag.

In the spring of 1990, Philip Morris circulated a top-secret proposal suggesting that the nation's biggest cigarette manufacturer acquire a news company such as Knight Ridder in order to ''improve the climate for the marketing and use of tobacco products.''

Luckily, Big Tobacco never acquired Big Media, and the nation was saved from the prospect of newspapers run by the Marlboro Man. Since then, the threat of special interests' owning news outlets hasn't gone away. In fact, it has come closer to reality.

First, I love the euphemisms "Big Tobacco" and "Big Media." (They forgot "Big Oil") If it says "Big" in front of it, you are supposed to understand right away that they are the bad guys. Second, interests groups already run media outlets, that is the reality. Top newspapers and networks are the de facto P.R. arms for every left-wing interest group out there, not to mention for John Kerry and the Democratic Party. Just look at how newspapers today have made Kerry's medal issue about Bush's National Guard service. Just try and deny that.

Earlier this month, at its annual meeting in Pittsburgh, the National Rifle Association (NRA) launched NRANews.com, a private news company that offers a daily Internet talk show and plans to acquire TV and radio stations.

NRA President Wayne LaPierre was candid about the goal: to give the NRA's media arm the same legal recognition as a mainstream news organization, so that it can push pro-gun views and candidates without the pesky constraints of the campaign-finance law's ban on certain donations.

Not to mention the blatant anti-gun bias throughout the media. Funny, but they never seem to have the same cynicism when it comes to MoveOn.org and their ilk.

USA Today is a joke, plain and simple.

...this would have been the result:

Just a few years ago, this guy was out of the league and was selling insurance. Now, despite the fact that he hasn't won jack, Tommy Maddox's feelings are hurt:

Maddox meets with Steelers after team drafts QB

PITTSBURGH (AP) -- An angered Tommy Maddox met Tuesday with Steelers coach Bill Cowher to discuss the team's use of a first-round draft pick on quarterback Ben Roethlisberger.

Maddox, Pittsburgh's starting quarterback for the past two seasons, left the Steelers' training complex without talking to reporters and there was no word on what they discussed.

Maddox initially planned to talk to Cowher on Monday, but told his agent he was too upset to meet then. He also wanted to talk to Steelers chairman Dan Rooney or president Art Rooney II about his contract situation, but it is believed Tuesday's meeting was only with Cowher.

Awww, poor baby. The Steelers should just release his ass. He would not be a starter for anyone else in the league, because he's a stiff. Perhaps if he played better, this would not have happened to him.

So we are clear upfront, just in case the CIA reads this, your boss George Tenet is a worthless, incompetent dope who should have been fired on September 12, 2001.

Blog-Tracking May Gain Ground Among U.S. Intelligence Officials

People in black trench coats might soon be chasing blogs.

Uh-oh!! What a scary thought!! They are coming for us!! (And ridiculous opening sentence, considering the rest of the article)

Some blogs are whimsical and deal with "soft" subjects. Others, though, are cutting edge in delivering information and opinion.

As a result, some analysts say U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials might be starting to track blogs for important bits of information. This interest is a sign of how far Web media such as blogs have come in reshaping the data-collection habits of intelligence professionals and others, even with the knowledge that the accuracy of what's reported in some blogs is questionable.

Tell them to start with Little Green Footballs. They could learn something, and see the true nature of the Palestinians. Then tell them to read Power Line for some seriously smart analysis.

Let's not kid anyone. The real object of this article is to get pro-Bush bloggers to rip him and the administration, since most of us have a lot of libertarian leanings. If we didn't want everyone possible to read our opinions, we wouldn't blog. I'll be more than happy to give the CIA something to think about.

How could they be considered anything less than that after 15,000 french people died there last year in a heatwave?

France braces for new crisis as temperatures rise

PARIS, April 27 (Reuters) - President Jacques Chirac on Tuesday urged French authorities to brace for another heatwave, as a leading doctor said hospitals were ill-prepared to cope with a repeat of last summer's searing heat.

With temperatures hitting 24 degrees Celsius (75 degrees Fahrenheit) in parts of France on Tuesday, Chirac -- whose conservative government was heavily criticised for its handling of last year's crisis -- warned regional officials to be ready.

"As summer draws near, I call for your extreme vigilance in mobilising our systems of surveillance, alert and treatment so that a tragedy like last year's heatwave is never repeated," Chirac said.

The 2003 heatwave killed 15,000 people, most of them elderly and suffering dehydration, as temperatures passed 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit). France's death toll far exceeded those of neighbouring countries with similar weather.

What a bunch of wimps!! I live here in Tempe, Arizona, and it is 97 degrees now, and it is not even May yet. It will be 115 or so before you know it, and no one will die here from it. That socialized health care system really works well, doesn't it?

I have been a little upset, as have some other people, that Bush did not order an immediate attack on Fallujah over the weekend when he discussed it. However, deep down I knew he was making sure they had every opportunity to give up, to make sure he can say, "we did everything we could to avoid it." Of course, those dope holdouts in Iraq don't see our decency for what it is, they see it as weakness. I wonder how weak they think we are right now:

U.S. Aircraft Hammer Fallujah After Dark

FALLUJAH, Iraq - Multiple explosions shook Fallujah after dark Tuesday, and large plumes of smoke billowed into the sky as fighting erupted for the second straight night. An American AC-130 gunship hammered targets in the city.

As you would expect in an Associated Press report, the bias is quick to appear.

Blasts and gunfire went on steadily for more than half an hour in sustained fighting, apparently in the northern Jolan district, a poor neighborhood where Sunni insurgents are concentrated.

Yep, as usual, Bush is hurting the poor.

Flames could be seen rising from building, and mosque loudspeakers in other parts of the city called for firefighters to mobilize.

Yeah, OK. The mosques were calling for firefighters. Sure. And I got a date with Heidi Klum tonight.

I love this part:

The fighting erupted as a two-day extension to a cease-fire ended. Earlier in the day, U.S. aircraft dropped leaflets in the city of 200,000 people, calling on insurgents to surrender.

"Surrender, you are surrounded," the leaflets said. "If you are a terrorist, beware, because your last day was yesterday. In order to spare your life end your actions and surrender to coalition forces now. We are coming to arrest you."

Perfect. No more f'n around.

While they are trying to revive the twice-debunked nonsense about Bush's National Guard service, they are ignoring the fertile U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, as well as this:

SUDAN ORDERS SYRIAN WMD OUT OF COUNTRY

LONDON [MENL] -- Sudan has ordered the removal of Syrian missiles and weapons of mass destruction out of the African country.

Arab diplomatic and Sudanese government sources said the regime of Sudanese President Omar Bashir has ordered that Syria remove its Scud C and Scud D medium-range ballistic missiles as well as components for chemical weapons stored in warehouses in Khartoum. The sources said the Sudanese demand was issued after the Defense Ministry and Interior Ministry confirmed a report published earlier this month that Syria has been secretly flying Scud-class missiles and WMD components to Khartoum.

Syrian WMD's? Well, golly-gee, I wonder where Syria got those from?

The latest from The Associated Press, which is once again carrying the water for Jean Francois Kerry:

Kerry Demands Bush Prove Guard Service

Uh, been there done that. I cannot wait for the debates. If Kerry runs this at Bush, he will get smacked back like he will not believe. If Kerry wants proof that Bush served, tell him to read his hometown paper.

Let's just say for a minute that Kerry gets some traction ripping Bush's guard service. If that happens, he'll wish he never did, because all Guard members will feel slapped int he face. Perhaps Mr. Nuance will learn the definition of Phyrric victory.

Last month, I said this about Howard Stern and his incessant complaining about being a victim of the Bush administration:

Stern is brilliant. He knows that blaming Bush will get him huge sympathethic play in the media, which brings more attention to his show, which helps his ratings. I was in the radio business a long time, and that is the game, and he is the best. You don't have a top-rated show for nearly 20 years without knowing how to keep yourself relevant.

Well, I was (not surprisingly) right on the money:

Howard Stern's Radio Ratings Up Amid FCC Flap

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Federal regulators may have painted a big bull's eye on Howard Stern's back, but the recent government crackdown on indecency over the airwaves has proven a boon to the shock jock's ratings.

The ribald radio host scored major gains in listenership during the winter quarter ended March 31 in the three biggest U.S. markets -- New York, Los Angeles and Chicago -- according to figures made public on Monday by the Arbitron radio ratings service.

In Stern's home market of New York, where his show is broadcast on WXRK-FM, he topped all morning drive-time competition with a 7.2 share in total audience, up 22 percent from the fall quarter and 18 percent from last winter, Arbitron said.

Stern is perhaps the most brilliant self-promoter to ever take to the airwaves. Whether you like his show or not (and I always have), you must admit he is an all-timer.

Yesterday, a lot of people with too much time and not enough to worry about marched in D.C. to promote (not support or defend, no matter what they say) abortion. Take a look at these pictures to see the types of clowns who showed up for that nonsense. (Especially the medical students for choice. Gotta make sure he has some future customers) I think this comment from Maxine Waters nicely sums up the stupidity of these people:

“I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion.”

Think about that for a moment. Astonishingly dumb. Take a look at why I am anti-abortion:



(There you go Cynthia, an updated photo of Emily that was taken 4 days ago)

If legalized abortion is the most important thing in your life, I feel sorry for you. Just ask your liberal friends to solve this paradox: Why are you so anti-death penalty when it comes to some scumbag who murdered one or several people, yet think nothing of killing an unborn baby in the name of convenience? If thinking abortion is a sin and a crime against nature makes me a right-wing sexist wacko, then, by God, that is exactly what I am.

John Kerry looked like a jackass on Good Morning America, trying to weave his way out of a blantant lie concerning the medals that he threw away. Yet, what is the Associated Press headline?

Kerry Criticizes Bush on Military Record

Hilarious. Tell Kerry to keep up the National Guard meme. It is a real loser. Just smell this bias. First this part:

Bush adviser Karen Hughes turned to what Kerry did after returning from the war. Hughes said Sunday she was offended by Kerry's anti-war activities in 1971 and accused him of not actually throwing back his medals when he and other veterans protested in Washington.

"He only pretended to throw his," Hughes said in a CNN interview. "Now, I can understand if, out of conscience, you take a principled stand, and you would decide that you were so opposed to this that you would actually throw your medals. But to pretend to do so — I think that's very revealing."

And Kerry's PR team's, uh, I mean, the AP's writers next sentence:

Kerry has never said he pretended to throw away his medals. For years, he has said that he threw his ribbons over a fence at the Capitol, not his three Purple Hearts, Bronze Star and Silver Star. He also has said that after the protest he threw the medals of two other veterans.

Talk about a distinction without a difference. The writer acts as if Kerry was accusing of pretending to throw his medals, a la a pump fake in football. We all know what he has been accused of for some time now.

Kerry got caught red-handed in a bold-faced lie. He and his liberal media cronies can spin it all they want. And, he can run to Bush's military record. Bottom line, which Kerry fails to understand, is that people are judging him on not only his Vietnam service, but his post-war record too. And, people are judging Bush on his National Guard record and his record since. And, Kerry is getting creamed in that battle. And, we all know it.

(Hat tip to Calliope for the GMA transcript link)

Ask yourself this question: Throughout history, what has been the traditional punishment for looting? Being shot on sight, right? Well, Oliver Willis, a liberal blogger who I like a ton actually, is upset over some Frontline clip of our soldiers using a tank to crush a looter's car. (Go visit Oliver and watch the video, then come back)

Notice how the clips ends: The son story of how he was a "taxi driver" and how his living was ruined. Oh please. He was damn lucky he wasn't shot.

Which reminds me. Remember when, at the start of the war, liberals were having the vapors over all the art being looted (which, as usual, we found out later was crap), and they were upset that we "did nothing to stop it?" Well, here, just like they wanted, our guys are deterring looting. What would they have our soldiers do, ask them to "kindly not loot?"

[Update: Read the comments there too. I think Oliver was suggesting that I am a racist for not taking the wood thief at his word.]

When I read this headline in the Washington Post, I thought it was some "Woe is me, my job has been outsourced because of that evil corporate crony George Bush" diatribe:

Why Did Bush Take My Job?

Upon reading it, I quickly realized I was wrong. It was almost nothing of the sort. Get this:

JERUSALEM -- President Bush apparently has taken my job.

Until the Bush-Sharon press conference on April 14, I was the chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization, the only internationally recognized entity that has a mandate to negotiate a permanent peace with Israel. But then Bush appeared on television, standing at the White House next to a beaming Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, and announced that he had accepted Israel's claim to illegally occupied Palestinian land. He further determined that Palestinian refugees would never be allowed to return to their homes in Israel and would instead have to be resettled in a Palestinian state, vast tracts of which he had just given away.

In so doing, Bush reneged on the 1991 U.S. Letter of Assurances provided to the Palestinians by his father's administration; the letter said that "no party should take unilateral actions that seek to predetermine issues" and that "the United States has opposed and will continue to oppose settlement activity in the territories occupied in 1967." Bush, as the self-appointed Palestinian negotiator, finally exposed the "Middle East peace process" for the charade that it has become -- a mechanism by which Israel and the United States impose a solution on the Palestinians.

That's right. Bush has "wrongfully" asserted himself, and, instead of deferring to those jokers at the PLO, he has finally stopped acting as if the Palestinians really want peace. How dare he not side with the Arafat cronies? Let me cut to the end:

The primary beneficiaries of these developments are extremist groups throughout the Middle East. The leaders of such groups could not have invented a better method of recruitment than the Bush-Sharon press conference. The reality is that as a result of the positions taken by the Bush administration, we are farther away from a permanent peace than we have ever been, and many innocent people on both sides will die in the coming months and years as a result.

My role as chief Palestinian negotiator may have been taken from me, but I retain my role as a Palestinian father. I am determined to teach my children that violence is not the answer. President Bush has not made my job any easier.

Straight from the left-wing playbook. Bush and Sharon are causing more violence by not bowing to the PLO, and the leadership of the PLO is powerless to stop it. Oh, and the "children" card too. One small thing to think about: If the chief negotiator is powerless to stop the violence now, why should anyone think that he will regain the power to control the Palestinians later?

Why did Bush take your job? Because your job is a farce, and you do not want peace. You could have had it at Oslo and Camp David, but did not take it. Arafat does not want peace. Bush isn't deluding himself like Clinton and Albright did.

...when you have the New York Times? Read this regular column, The Ethicist, and the letter they printed:

My partner and I have discussed marriage -- one of us wants to marry; the other has issues with the institution, specifically the fight over homosexual marriage (we are heterosexual). We believe that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals. Why should we be privileged with the rights and protections of marriage when others are being denied?

Is it ethical for us to walk down the aisle? C.K. and D.C., New York

If I hadn't met so many silly liberal dopes in my life, I would think that this ethicist made this letter up. (OK, part of me still does think that) Even if this letter is legitimate, isn't there an editor around who says, "we can't print this joke of a letter?" Look at the response:

I share your opinion of the marriage laws but not your conclusion that you must defer your wedding until utopia arrives.

Of course he shares that opinion. He would not be working at the Times if he didn't. And, is allowing gays to marry utopia? C'mon. If that were really utopia, it would already be legal. The laughter continues:

Many who sincerely denounce the inequities of our society inevitably profit from them. If you're a man who works at a job where the lack of flex time or on-site day care disadvantages women who do the bulk of child care, you benefit from sexism.

Huh? Every company that does not have flex time or on-site day care is sexist? Did it ever cross his mind that flex-time is not an option in a lot of businesses, especially ones that are customer-oriented? As for on-site day care, this might shock the New York Times, but many companies cannot afford to do something like this, and if they were forced to, a lot of jobs would be lost. And, then there is this howler:

If you're a middle-class white person who attended a decent high school and then applied to college, you had a huge advantage over a poor kid or an African-American from an inferior high school.

When was this? 1966? Is surely is not that way today. Anyone who says that this is true either is lying through their teeth or a pure fool.

It is impossible to lead an immaculate life in an imperfect world. The task is not merely to insulate yourself from being a beneficiary of injustice -- even if that were possible -- but to combat injustice.

How about that? By marrying, one is benefitting from an injustice. I don't even know where to begin.

Let's review the week in the New York Times: It is "controversial" to call Alger Hiss a spy, despite that minor fact of his conviction and the indisputable facts, an erroneous front-page story that said Bush was told "Lower Manhattan" was a target in the August 6th PDB, identified a Republican, Pete Coors, "accidentally" as a KKK member, and ran photos of the Shuttle astronauts' caskets and said they were Iraq war casualties. Gee, other than that, it was a perfect week. And, while all of this embarrassing journalism is taking place in the alleged "newspaper of record," what is the Public Editor writing about? Some nonsensical diatribe about some of the history of the paper, and distancing the paper from the "paper of record" description. (Or at least I think he was. If I worte something like that in English 301, I would have flunked)

Every year, I sit in front of the TV for 10 hours or so and watch the NFL Draft. Only in America can this tomfoolery take place, where there will be millions upon millions like me who are sitting on their lazy ass, worried about what team is going to take a guy you never heard of before. Face it, NFL is king. (I have no idea why baseball doesn't do this too.)

- Paul Tagliabue opened with a nice tribute to Pat Tillman. A moment of silence, then a half a minute of U-S-A! U-S-A! Excellent.

- What the hell is wrong with Eli Manning? Who doesn't want to live in San Diego? Watching his father Archie talk on TV reminded me of Carl Lindros. Eli disappointed me, and I think tainted himself a little bit here. Perhaps this is just a negotiating tactic to get a record signing bonus.

- Larry Fitzgerald is my favorite player in this draft. The Cardinals will not pass him up at #3. No way, no how.

- Michael Irvin is annoying as hell.

My friends, today we have learned just how shallow the liberal blogs are, and their true mindset.

Indymedia Portland has called Tillman a dumb jock.

Oliver Willis posted the story without comment. (Frankly, all of the liberals, I expected somethng from Oliver. Maybe he is no different after all, and my perception of him was wrong)

Kos could not come up with anything other than this nonsense. I cannot believe they found a way to bash Bush in all of this.

Atrios had nothing much to say either. (This comment in the thread was one of a pure dope: I think this was mostly an AZ story when Tillman quit the Cardinals a couple of years ago. Perhaps this dope needs to read something other than Atrios.

Get this brilliance from Pandagon:

One of the voices in my head just asked if Tim Graham realizes the tragic and headline-grabbing death of Pat Tillman is the exception that proves the rule that mostly lower-class people are dying for our country. The other voice remarked that having just read him argue the complete opposite, no, he probably doesn't.

Yes, my friends. This is liberal thought: incoherent and silly. Read it again. Tillman proves that is only the lower-class dying in war. I just cannot decipher that logic. Must be some brilliant nuance.

Matthew Yglesias says nothing.

Ditto for Joshua Micha Marshall.

The comment threads on some of the blogs are a disgrace. They call Tillman a murderer, no hero, you name it.

Basically, the liberal reaction has been this: Tillman died. So what? Bush sucks. (if they say anything at all.) Take a look at the conservative blogs, and you will find a huge difference in reaction. I cannot believe I am surprised over this. The next time a liberal tells you that he/she/it supports the troops, tell them to go fuck themselves.

Lee from Right Thinking would like this idea too:

Travelers Save Items by Mailing Them Home

WASHINGTON - Travelers who realize they're carrying a treasured pocketknife or grandma's scissors after arriving at the airport may now have a more convenient way to save the items.

Newsstands in several airports are now carrying special envelopes — including postage — designed to allow people to mail their scissors, pocket knife, multi-tool or other item to themselves.

Called MailBack, the envelopes are sold at several Hudson News stands and the manufacturer is planning to expand sales through several news chains in airports.

This idea is a winner. When the market speaks, it is always heard.

First get this laughable headline:

For Japanese Hostages, Release Only Adds to Stress

I don't even have to comment. Just take a second to think about that.

And more importantly. Did you see those pictures the New York Times ran the other day, of the flag-draped caskets side by side, which were identified as our soldiers killed in Iraq. Well, whoops.

How can anyone possibly think that John Kerry will have the guts to stand up for America in the world, no matter the criticism, when he does not even have the courage to say that he owns an SUV? He is so afraid of those environmental groups, he says the Chevy Suburban belongs to the family, not to him.

Kerry Says His 'Family' Owns SUV, Not He

Contrast Kerry's gutlessness with Gov. Schwarzenegger, who proudly boasts about his several Hummers. No one cares. But Kerry, so afraid of offending some leftist wackos, he gets caught in a blantant lie, and tries to "nuance" his way out of it.

Do you think he would defend America if the French or Kofi Annan complained? You already know the answer.

A man's man. That is the highest compliment I could pay to Pat Tillman, who we lost in Afghanistan yesterday. Here in Arizona, where Tillman was from, there is a ton of sadness. I feel awful, because Tillman was a fellow Arizona State alum, and I was proud of his sacrifice for all of us. Take a look at what this man did:

- Tillman played four seasons with the Arizona Cardinals before enlisting in the Army in May 2002. The safety turned down a three-year, $3.6 million deal from Arizona.

- The 5-foot-11, 200-pound Tillman was distinguished by his intelligence and appetite for rugged play. As an undersized linebacker at Arizona State, he was the Pac-10's defensive player of the year in 1997.

- Tillman carried a 3.84 grade point average through college and graduated with high honors in 3 1/2 academic years with a degree in marketing.

A man's man. Because we have people like Pat Tillman, and the rest of the world doesn't, I am convinced we will never lose a war unless the politicians have no desire to win it.

We are all in debt to the Tillman family for his sacrifice. Really, just think about what he gave up to protect us. A life of luxury and ultimately, his life itself.

Litigation as a military tactic.

A great point I never considered.

I just read this and cannot believe that CBS is sinking even lower than I ever thought possible:

(CBS) 48 Hours Investigates has obtained a copy of the confidential French investigation on the fatal accident that killed Princess Diana.

The report, used by French authorities to conclude that the crash was an accident, contains thousands of pages of confidential documents, including the forensic analysis of the driver, Henri Paul, analysis of the car and never-before-seen images of the princess at the scene.

What purpose does showing pictures of her dead or dying? I cannot believe that CBS would desecrate this fine woman's memory for a few ratings points. (Then again, I really could imagine it) I wonder if that senile old bastard Andy Rooney will be outraged at CBS' capitalizing on Princess Diana's death? Yeah, right after he criticizes John Kerry for being a hypocrite.

Frankly, I don't give one damn about those royal teabags. I don't care if Wills goes to play polo or his brother Charlie (or whatever his name is) takes a leak on Stonehenge. Prince Charles ranks right up there with Michael Moore and Al Gore as the biggest waste of press attention. However, I always did like Diana. It always seemed to me that she was in a life that she wanted no part of, but had no choice. She was the only redeeming member of the world's highest-paid welfare collectors. I am beyind upset that they are doing this to her memory.

A few bonus items about Princess Diana:

- She married that horse face on my 10th Birthday, July 29, 1981.

- I was in the Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut when the word got out that Diana was killed. I remember that no one (in the world's largets casino!) was gambling, all were crowded around every TV in the bar area. The managers must have not liked that, because CNN was changed. You should have heard the place, it was going nuts!! They put it back on less than a minute later.

- The one year anniversary of her death, I happened to be in London. Outside Kensington Palace, there was the longest and highest piles of flowers that I have ever seen in my life. I actually wasted a few pounds on some flowers and added this note with it: "Rest in Peace M'Lady. May my image of you never change."

Nowhere to be found, since it isn't the evil White Christians doing anything:

Mich. City OKs Islamic Calls to Prayer

HAMTRAMCK, Mich. - The City Council gave preliminary approval Tuesday night to a mosque's plans to send out a call to prayer to Muslims on a loudspeaker.

The Bangladeshi al-Islah mosque wants to air the Arabic call to prayer via loudspeakers five times a day, but agreed Tuesday not to air the calls before 6 a.m. or after 10 p.m.

The council indicated it would give the plan final approval next week.

Some Muslims say the call is the equivalent of church bells. Opponents argued that church bells have no religious significance and that allowing the Arabic call, which lasts less than two minutes, unfairly elevates Islam above other religions.

The next time the ACLU complains about something that Muslims are doing, it will be the first time.

Not because of her beauty, but because of writing like this:

After the Yee case came to light last fall, I wrote that the military's dangerous deference to radical Islam was a menace to our national security. The outcome of the Yee case does not change my position on this. (And by the way, to those readers who have demanded that I apologize to Captain Yee, I'll send him a condolence card when you apologize for your "Free Mike Hawash" campaign on behalf of the Portland software engineer who pleaded guilty to aiding terrorists and confessed that he and other associates were "prepared to take up arms, and die as martyrs if necessary, to defend the Taliban.")

Let's see: A few days ago, The Washington Post allowed Jamie Gorelick of the 9/11 Commission, who should be a witness instead of a member of that commission, to run an op-ed in order to try to spin herself cleaner than Caesar's wife. Now, their editorial board has continued their quest to remove the taint from her by, you guessed it, blaming the favorite boogeyman of the left, John Ashcroft, titled:

Mr. Ashcroft's Smear

(Hey, it is the right title. Only the WRONG CONTEXT, since it is the WaPo smearing Ashcroft)

IN HIS TESTIMONY last week before the Sept. 11 commission, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft loosed a remarkable attack on Jamie S. Gorelick, a commission member who served as deputy attorney general during part of the Clinton administration. The "single greatest structural cause for the September 11th problem," Ashcroft said, "was the wall that segregated or separated criminal investigators and intelligence agents," and the "basic architecture for the wall . . . was contained in a classified memorandum" from 1995 -- which Mr. Ashcroft had conveniently declassified for the hearing. "Full disclosure," he said, "compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum is a member of the commission" -- that is, Ms. Gorelick. Mr. Ashcroft's allegations, which triggered criticism and demands for her resignation from prominent Republicans, are grossly unfair.

Nice try.

Tonight, thanks to the wonderful network that is C-SPAN2, I listened to the oral arguments that took place today at the Supreme Court in the cases Rasul v. Bush, and al-Odah v. United States, which concerned the powers of the Bush administration in respect to the detainees in Guanatanamo Bay. First, if you wonder who the press thinks is in the right, this misleading headline from the Associated Press has the answer:

Court Hears Test of How Detainees Handled

Granted, there is a reasonable case to be made for this headline, but I have read enough AP headlines to know that their intention here is to make the average person think that the detainees are being mistreated.

And, Linda Outhouse, er, Greenhouse of the New York Times obviously didn't hear the same arguments I did with her lead:

WASHINGTON, April 20 — The Supreme Court appeared distinctly unreceptive Tuesday to the Bush administration's argument that the federal courthouse doors must remain closed to the foreign detainees at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba.

She should have said, "The judges I love and always agree with, especially that ACLU tool Ruth Ginsburg, were not receptive to the Government's arguments..."

Peter Jennings, on World News Tonight, was the textbook example of media bias when he opened his newscast with this story, showing us the protestors reading the Constitution, waxing about Korematsu, etc. Pathetic journalism, to say the least. (By the way, I would love to stand outside the Court and protest, but they only operate on weekends. Where do these people get the time?)

The argument today was about both prisoner's rights and governmental powers (depending on how you look at it). Most of the argument consisted of a case from 1950, Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, which held that:

- A nonresident enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime

- [N]onresident enemy aliens, captured and imprisoned abroad, have no right to a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States

- The Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States.

Seems open and shut, doesn't it, that the Bush administration will prevail? Well, not exactly. From listening to the argument, it is obvious that Scalia and Rehnquist (and Thomas, who rarely speaks but is quite predictable anyway) will rule in favor of the government, and that Breyer (who pissed me off when he brought up British law, as he should be interpreting the Constitution, not the Magna Carta, English admirality law, the common law, or court decisions from Zimbabwe), Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter (shockingly!!) will rule in favor of the detainees, which once again brings us back to the usual wildcards Kennedy and O'Connor. Kennedy seemed to favor the detainees, but that is not always indicative which way he will go. I'd bet that he will side with the government. Once again, that leaves O'Connor in the catbird seat, who like Kennedy, is not always predictable from her actions at oral argument.

My prediction: O'Connor and Kennedy will ultimately side with the Bush administration on Guantanamo, BUT, in the cases that will be argued next week, concerning a detained American citizen, (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) will side with the citizen, a kind of "split the baby" approach similar to the one they took in the U of Michigan cases.

As a bonus prediction, I expect that one of these justices will find a way, in dicta, to repudiate Korematsu v. United States, the case where the Court affirmed executive authority in detaining Japanese citizend suring WWII. Korematsu filed a brief in this case, siding with the detainees. There is simply no parallel. (I wrote about this 2 months ago) Since Korematsu has never been explicity overruled, I can't help but think that one of these sages will position themselves to receive the lavish praise of the liberal intelligensia.

Since I am still a few years away from graduating law school, I can afford to be flip and look at it like this: These "poor" detainees in Cuba could have been killed on the battlefield, instead of being arrested. They are lucky to be alive. No matter what those worthless "human rights" groups are whining about, we all know they are being treated humanely and with respect. Frankly, I am not one bit concerned with their "rights." We are at war, and every prisoner in Guanatanamo is one less threat to our fine soldiers. Besides, being off the battlefield ensures they will stay alive too. They don't deserve one second of access to our courts.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has endorsed Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter. Brilliant money quote:

"From matters constitutional to those fiscal, Specter is a twisting, porking, Scottish law-invoking wild-card sophist whom Republicans serious about reforming government can no longer afford or trust. Specter as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee? Horrors!"

I will never forgive Specter for shafting Robert Bork in 1987. Never. Not even President Bush's support for him would make me vote for him if I were still back home in Philly.

An interesting list is coming out, naming the worst song ever.

'We Built This City' ranks as the worst record ever

We Built This City is the single worst single ever constructed, according to Blender's ranking of reeking tunes.

The magazine's list of "The 50 Worst Songs Ever," which hits newsstands Tuesday in New York and Los Angeles and April 27 nationwide, distills the lamest popular rock-era records into one sonic landfill.

Granted, this is hard to argue with. The song does seriously suck. If it were my list, my top 5 worst would be, with #1 being the worst: (I was a club, wedding, and radio DJ from the time I was 16 until I was 30, so I know them all)

5 - The End of The World - R.E.M.
4 - In Your Eyes - Peter Gabriel
3 - All I Wanna Do - Sheryl Crow
2 - Hands Up - Ottawan
1 - Paradise By The Dashboard Light - Meatloaf

You got some to add? Use the comments. This could be a real laugh for all of us.

NEW YORK -- Ending months of speculation, Tom Brokaw has finally selected his own personal D-Day, informing NBC News that he will step down as anchor of "Nightly News" on Dec. 1.

Brokaw is a dope. The last time I watched him was when he interviewed President Bush. Now, if only Jennings and Rather would follow him out he door.

Lee at Right Thinking has a great post on this. So does Mark Kilmer. Take a look. I'd like to add this: (My fisking in bold)

MR. RUSSERT: If you were elected one year from now, will there be 100,000 American troops in Iraq?

SEN. KERRY: It depends on what the situation is you find on the ground on January 20th of 2005. I will tell you this, Tim. I will immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration. Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world, which will do a number of things. (Meaning he will bow to the United Nations and let them ruin everything like they always do. This way, Kerry can do what he does best: Shift blame elsewhere.) Number one, change how we're approaching North Korea. (Bribe them like Clinton did, while they become even more dangerous.) Number two, change how we're dealing with AIDS globally. (How is that? Spend even more money than Bush has? This is pandering to gays) Number three, change how we're doing with proliferation with Russia and other countries. (Now who is stuck in the Cold War? Is he saying that he is once agin going to bind us to a treaty with Russia that isn't worth the paper it is printed on, and that Russia never upheld anyway?) Number four, change our approach to global warming and the effort of 160 nations. (That sounds like Kyoto. Kerry voted for a Senate resolution that declared that the Senate would never ratify Kyoto. Kerry is pandering to environmentalists and lying through his teeth. Shameless nonsense.) And that will take some of the poison out of the well that this administration has put there. (Sure, as long as we let those weak, insignificant countries like France and Germany dictate our policy, they'll love us.)

Hey Democrats, this is the best you could do? No way Kerry beats Bush in November.

I only work Wednesday through Friday (sometimes I add a Saturday or a Tuesday), so I have a lot of time on my hands. (I do work 13 hour days those 3 days though, doing 2 jobs). The downside of this schedule is that I do not see Emily for a few days, since the job is in Phoenix and we live in Albuquerque. Thanks to Southwest Airlines' $29 fares, it is well worth the travel. The upside is that I spend 4 full days in a row with her. Right now, with Stephanie and the baby are in bed, and no hockey game on, I am reduced to flipping channels. Let's see what is on:

- The Hollywood Squares - What a dumb show, full of second-rate "stars." I haven't seen this many second-raters in one place since the Democratic Unity Dinner. We get to hear the "comedy" of Gilbert Gottfried, Martin Mull (what has he ever done besides the Doritos commercials?) and the guy who was Jim Carrey's buddy in The Mask. No wonder this crap is on at midnight.

- Pyramid - I never thought I would ever miss Dick Clarke. This show is now hosted by Donny Osmond!! I haven't seen him do anything since my mother took me to see him in the movie Goin' Coconuts back in 1978 or so.

- The Pelican Brief - Look at that. A Supreme Court Justice going to a porn movie incognito. Thanks to the miracle of the VCR and the internet, no man has to suffer the indignity of going to a public theatre to see a skin flick.

- Brother Gerard and his "Anointed Prayer Handkerchiefs" - I am going to dial 1-888-530-9444? Uh, no. The sound quality reminds me of that goofy dude who is on every TV in the movie "They Live." Praise the Lord and pass the remote.

- Look at this: It looks like a young Martin Sheen on some low rent black and white show on the Sci-Fi Channel called Outer Limits. The character just dies, so I am not exactly sure it was him. What do you know, it is him:

playing "Pvt. Arthur Dix" in episode: "Nightmare" (episode # 1.10) 2 December 1963

I think it is safe to say that his career vastly improved since this debacle.

- There's that windbag Keyfraud Johnson of the Dallas Cowboys, talking shit to Michael Irvin on ESPN. Really, who cares? I think I'll just "change the damn channel."

- Donald Trump on CNN talking to that old geezer with the suspenders. Aren't Trump's casinos a billion in debt?

- There's Ron Jeremy's infomercial again. I used to work at a club a few years back in Philly, and one of the other DJs took some time off to go out to Vegas for a porn convention. He told me about how there was an autograph session/meet and greet with the porn stars. He said for a lot of the women, even the hot ones, there was no line. But, for Ron Jeremy, the lines was like 2 blocks long. Amazing. Only in America.

- Roger Ebert must have the week off. Either that or he just didn't want to see Kill Bill 2. Neither do I.

- Harry and the Henderson is on AMC? Since when is this crap a classic?

No wonder I read at least one book a week. TV really sucks.

"Was there a Presidential conspiracy to go to war with Iraq?"

That was how the CNN Headline News reader started a report about Bob Woodward's new book. I just love the accusatory tone. Bob Woodward, still trying to recapture his Watergate glory, has yet another in the line of Bush-bashing books. And, like Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, and John Dean, he'll be old news within a week.

Let's assume that Woodward is 100% accurate, and after 9/11 Bush ordered Rumsfeld to make an Iraq war plan. SO WHAT? Iraq was a known supporter of terrorism, and, most importantly, REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ HAS BEEN OFFICAL UNITED STATES POLICY SINCE 1998!! How come CNN and their ilk at the New York Times and every other anti-Bush liberal media outlet seem to forget this, and act as if regime chane in Iraq is something that Bush dreamed up and imposed on a whim?

The Senate voted for this unanimously. Yes, that Senate, the one that includes John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Robert Byrd, etc. (This must be another case of Bush deceiving Kerry for actually enforcing something that Kerry voted for)

The Bush-haters, between the "peace" rallies, Iraq=Vietnam, the reappearance of Watergate heroes, and John Kerry out on the anti-war stump, seem to want it to be the 1970's again. And they call themselves "progressives." More like "regressives."

The new Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero decided that Spain was leaving the coalition of the willing immediately, just hours after his government was sworn in. Brilliant move by this guy. Expect Italy, Poland, and pretty much anyone else (even France and Germany) who have supported us to find themselves the victims of an attack sooner ot later.

Spanish Leader Pulling Troops From Iraq

Think about this: Vietnam was an unpopular war, yes? Would you say more unpopular than Iraq? I'd say about 10-25 times more unpopular. In the Presidential election, an anti-war, I hate Nixon like you do Democrat ran against the incumbent Republican. This is what happened:

Nixon - 49 states, 520 electoral votes
McGovern - 1 state and D.C., 17 electoral votes

Hmmmmmmm

Sure, why not? Just look at the wonderful job they are doing in Kosovo:

UN 'Doesn't Know' Reason for Police Clash in Kosovo

Perhaps, if the press wants to find a quagmire, they should go to Kosovo. I'd like to hear what John Kerry has to say about it. He thinks the U.N. is the be-all end-all to peace. Too bad he doesn't see the reality:

WASHINGTON — John Kerry aimed a new volley of criticism at President Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq on Saturday, saying Bush's failure to "internationalize" the conflict has made America less safe and cost it credibility and momentum.

Really? The problem with Kerry's stance is that it fails to accept that the people who are not involved do not want tog et involved, because they are weak and gutless.

Kerry called for removing the "Made in America" label from the Iraqi operation by creating an international mission authorized by the United Nations to help set up elections, restore government services and rebuild the economy.

Only a Democrat can be ashamed of the "Made in America" label. After all, if FDR had this attitude, Europe would have been overrun by both the Nazis and Commies, and they would be opporessed to this day. Perhaps the words of Teddy Roosevelt are appropriate here:

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who have never known neither victory nor defeat.

Digest that for a moment:

[hat tip: Blogs For Bush]

We all lost a fine young Marine in Iraq last week. I wanted to honor him here especially because, while I did not know him, I believe he was a member of my church. I am not completely sure of that, but I do know that his services were held at my church here in Albuquerque. Mr. Ramos was on his 2nd deployment to Iraq.

Please take a moment to look at his picture by clicking here.

Lance Cpl. Christopher Ramos, killed in action in Iraq last week, was buried today by God and country.

As the sweet smells of incense and the words of "How Great Thou Art" filled the air, a Marine color guard unfolded the American flag and draped it over Ramos' casket in the vestibule of St. Jude Thaddeus Catholic Church in Paradise Hills.

"In peace, let us bring our brother home to his gentle rest," the Rev. John Conway said, following a Mass attended by about 300 people who occupied every pew in the church.

Ramos, 26, was killed last week when he was wounded by shrapnel wounds in the al-Anbar province near Fallujah, west of Baghdad.

The 1995 West Mesa graduate was an infantryman with the 1st Marine Division and was serving his second stint in Iraq. Survivors include his wife, Diane, an 18-month-old daughter and a 4-year-old stepson.

I would like to thank the Ramos family for their sacrifice.

When I heard about Mike Danton of the St. Louis Blus was charged in a murder-for-hire plot, I actually wasn't that surprised. Danton has been a problem child for years, especially when he was with the New Jersey Devils. He even changed his name from Mike Jefferson. I heard that he wanted to have someone whacked because they threatened to go to Blues GM Larry Pleau and ruin his career. I assumed it was drug use. Well, I was doing my hockey reading (The Toronto Globe and Mail is a top place to read about it) and decided to click on an article about it, and now I think there is an entirely different issue here. Get this:

Danton and Wolfmeyer face federal charges of conspiring and using a telephone across state lines to set up a murder. According to the criminal complaint, Danton told Wolfmeyer that a hitman from Canada was coming to kill him and asked her if she knew someone who would kill the person for $10,000.

The complaint alleges that Danton was trying to kill a male acquaintance whom he had fought with Tuesday over Danton's "promiscuity and use of alcohol."

The complaint said Danton feared the acquaintance, who is not named, would talk to St. Louis Blues management and ruin Danton's career.

I had to read that twice. There is no other conclusion other than that Danton is gay. This part convinced me:

"Let's preface it by saying who knows what the situation is," [Blues teammate Doug] Weight said. "There's rumours of what went on and who exactly was involved with this so-called thing.

"Let's not jump to conclusions, but you know what, hypothetically I think it would be fine. I'd like to think people are bigger than that and look into the person as a person and as a teammate."

I feel sorry for Danton. Is he that afraid of being revealed a homosexual that he was willing to have someone killed to hide his secret? I think he is. And he can't hide it anymore.

We always knew that someday, an active player in a major sport would come out, whether by choice or circumstance. This could be it. Frankly, the day an active player comes out cannot come soon enough. I always thought that the response would be mostly positive. If fans will accept a criminal on their team because he can help them, they will just as quickly accept a homosexual.

Bottom line: If it is revealed that his fear of being exposed as a homosexual is what caused him to want someone to get killed, I will be very sympathetic, and I would hope that the justice system finds similar sympathy.

The NBA sucks. I mean, who really gives a damn? The game sucks, the players can't so anything but dunk, and defense is only something they once heard of back in sixth grade. On the other hand, is there anything tat can compare to the drama of the NHL playoffs? Tight-checking, one goal games, sudden death overtimes, you name it, it's all there.

For example, the Calgary Flames tonight fell behind 4-0 on a quick 4 goal Vancouver Canuck barrage in the second period. Now, if a team fell behind like that in an NBA playoff game, the players would have already quit, half the arena would have emptied, and there would have been no point to watching on TV. (And that's why the ratings suck and are expected to continue sucking. Yeah, I know the NHL has even more pathetic ratings, and that is a damn shame.)

The Flames fight back, tied it up, and now they are going into overtime. Unlike the NBA, this is where the real excitement begins. The game could at any second. A bad pass, deflected shot off someone's melon, whatever. Or, the game could go on a long time. I will never forget the Flyers-Penguins 5-OT game in 2000. My sister (that's right, my sister. The Flyers run through my family's blood) and I drove the 300 or so miles to Pittsburgh, sat through all 5 OTs, and drove back home. The game started at 7:30, and ended at 2:45 am. A memory I will never forget. Can the NBA offer that type of drama? Please!! How many times can you watch Shaq dunk the ball, when he is not "bricking" free throws, without falling into a stupor? Booooooorrrrrring!!!

It is a shame more people are not watching the NHL playoffs. They have no idea what they are missing.

Tonight, since I have no life and I am not going back to Albuquerque until tomorrow, I decided to spend President Bush's tax cut for the rich at the Casino Arizona. I figured since John Kerry has told us time after time that the American economy is in the crapper, the casino would be near empty and I'd have the joint to myself. Well, after parking about a half mile from the entrance, I realized that the French guy might have been less than forthcoming.

Anyway, after walking into the Indian cash cow that just doesn't seem to alleviate the abject poverty on the reservation, I proceeded to the poker room and placed myself at a 3 to 6 Hold 'em table. I sat down, and started my usual scheme, acting as if I am a beginner and asking the dealer all kinds of dumb questions, betting at the wrong time, etc. (I can't believe how many dopes fall for that trick every time)

As is wont to happen, there is always one asshole at the table. This time, it was some old geezer, about 65 or so, who is the type who should not be at the casino to begin with, because it is plainly obvious that he can't afford to lose. During one hand, when I wasn't sure whether to check the bet or fold, he got impatient with me and mouthed off something under his breath. I knew right then and there that I was going to stick it to him at some point. An hour or so went by, and the time came. I was dealt 2 aces.

I lapped along the other guys and I had the full house when the turn card came up. It was down to me, that old geezer, and some guy at the other end of the table. I played possum, and the old geezer raised the max.

You may not realize it from reading this blog, but I have an attitude problem. I did not even bother looking at the 3rd guy in, and I looked at the old geezer and said, "I think you are bluffing me." I acted like I was going to fold, but then looked again at him and said, "You know what, I'm going to give you a gift, and pay to see you cards." He responded, "Do it so when can get on with it." I throw in my chips, and that old bastard could not wait to show me his full house. He said, "Full house, kings high. That's what you get for being a cocky son of a bitch." I replied, "Gee, Grandpa, sorry, but full house, aces high."

Put it to you this way. If we were in the wild west, he would have shot me on the spot. To rub it in more, I counted every chip right in front of him. It came out to $86. He was fuming. About 6 hands later, it came down to me and him again. I raised him and matched his re-raised. He laid down his hand and was not happy. I then did something I never do when I am bluffing, I showed him my worthless hand. I said, "Take that. I didn't have [phallic reference]."

Right after that, more than half the table picked up their chips. He cursed me a few times, and left. It was a great moment.

It would have been a great night if I didn't take a bath at the next table. I ended up down a yard and a half. But so be it. Sticking it to that geezer was worth it all. Chris Moneymaker I ain't, but let's just say I made enough from poker in my lifetime to cover my law school tuition.

In the comments, Gerlad informs us that Dennis Kucinich told Hannity and Colmes that the draft will be reinstated next year. Yeah, Kucinich is a reliable source. I believe everything that blame-America Socialist says.

It seems that the scare tactic has some believers. Read this letter to the editor in the rag of the place I will always call home, no matter where I live, the Philadelphia Daily News:

I AM SURPRISED that the media have not mentioned the pending bills in Congress,
S 89 and HR 163, to reconstitute the military draft just after the election.

It appears the administration plans to quietly pass these bills while attention is on the upcoming presidential election.

Yeah, as if no one would notice, like it was some pork project buried in an appropriations bill. I may be wrong, but this letter sounds suspisiciously professionally done, like a form letter:

I understand that $28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System budget to prepare for a draft, and the Pentagon has begun to fill all draft-board slots nationwide.

All persons, including women, 18 through 26, will be called in the draft. Since Canada and the U.S. signed a declaration in 2001, Canada will no longer be a draft-escape route. The reforms also eliminate higher education as a deferment. Upperclassman would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

The sole sponsor of S 89 is Sen. Ernest Hollings, Senate Armed Services Committee, Russell Bldg. SR-228, Washington, D.C. 20510. You may wish to express an opinion to him.

Wow, 1 whole sponsor? And:

According to his office, S 89 is expected to be called to the Senate floor for a vote in May or June. There are 13 co-sponsors for HR 163 in the House.

Why hasn't the press said anything about this, nor have our representatives in Congress mentioned it in the frequent newsletters they send us.

13/535 = .002 percent. Wow, there's a lot of support there too. And, notice, the "accidental" omission of who is sponsoring the House bill? While, that would be that Harlem scumbag Democrat Charles Rangel!! (Here are the 13 co-sponsors. You will find the usual expected dopes like Jim McDermott, Sheila Jackson Lee, Elijah Cummings, and Eleanor Holmes Norton) Gee, two Democrats sponsoring bills to reinstate the draft, while other Democrats are telling us the draft is coming back. Talk about manufacturing an election year issue.

If you see a similiar letter in your local bird-cage liner, please let me know in the comments.

Take a look at this headline from (stunningly) Reuters:

No Draft Planned, But Selective Service Endures

Since when does no news become news? This is nothing more than a seed-planting headline. If you study your history, you'll find that once the draft was abolished, a lot of the Vietnam protestors disappeared. This headline is designed to make you fear that Bush will reinstate the draft when he is re-elected. The only person I have ever heard talking about reinstating the draft is Charles Rangel, that Harlem scumbag Congressman, who is trying to do the same exact thing.

Reuters is beyond shameless. Read the article. There is absolutely nothing new or revealing in it, and there ia zero reason for it top be considered a top story.