At my work, one of our general neighbors is relocating. A jeans store is moving, and they're handing out notice cards like candy.

Eye candy.

They feature an image they got from Lee, I think -- it's a very shapely lady's posterior, utterly uncovered save for a single pocket "stitched" in magic marker on her right cheek. Quite fetching, I dare say.

It's been the source of great amusement.

Recently, someone commented that I certainly must be enjoying the card. I replied that I had seen too much of it -- I was starting to get bored with the image, and would appreciate some variety.

Well, not exactly. That was the sentiment I intended. That wasn't precisely the words I said.

"Eh, it's all right, but now I want to see the front pocket."

About half a second after I said that, I realized precisely what I had said -- and what the implication of it could be. I had inadvertently said something far, far dirtier than I intended.

At that point, I had two alternatives. I could stammer and blush and apologize profusely, explaining what I really meant, and I didn't mean anything that crass, and I was exceptionally sorry for any offense I risked.

Alternately, I could double down. I could continue the line of thought, pretend that I meant it all the time, and just run with that theme.

Of course, I was at work, and my employer (Very Big Company, comfortably in the top half of the Fortune 500) has a very, very strict sexual harassment policy. People have been fired for less.

The question was never in doubt.

Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

"Oh, so that's why they call it a 'button-fly!'"

(No, I'm not going to explain what that meant. In fact, I'm going to deny that I had any specific meaning in mind, and let your own dirty minds decide the meaning -- if it has any.)

Other men flirt with death. Me, I walk up, grab a bony butt-cheek in each hand, and yell "how's it going, Death?"

Somehow, I'm still somewhat gainfully employed...

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Personal

Having found it difficult to continue blaming former President George W. Bush for everything wrong with their lives, and being unwilling to attempt the growth necessary for personal accountability, the Aluminati have recently taken to imagining that the end of the world is near. Especially since President FairyTale now appears to be stunningly incompetent in his role, and therefore his re-election as Chief Executive appears to be as unlikely as the notion of AlGore living by the same draconian ecosystem he would impose on middle-class Americans; the Aluminati have concluded that a world without insipid Liberal con men in charge is a world that will simply implode. Vaguely aware that assigning the basis of their beliefs on the flimsy credentials of modern Liberalism alone is insane, the Aluminati maintain that The End is confirmed by a speculative and highly emotional interpretation of certain carved rocks left behind by the Aztecs and Mayans. One recalls that the Aztecs' prophetic ability led them to worship the invaders who eventually destroyed them, following several hundred years of a 'civilization' that included ritual human sacrifice, weather superstition, and the habit of ignoring the ecological effects of their cities and so moving from place to place as they used up resources in a manner to make the 20th Century's most industrial powers look positively eco-conscious. The Mayans are lost in history for the most part but for fanciful myths conjured up by hippies unwilling to consider that the Mayans abandoned their cities due to poor planning; the Mayans had a habit of building cities where food was insufficient and supporting resources unplanned; poverty, disease and peasant revolts were the most common attributes of their culture. Yet the Aluminati consider the Mayans and Aztecs the ideal template for human cultures to emulate, in much the same way that Obamarians stubbornly cling to their cult leader and his narcissistic fantasies. Just as the Aluminati cannot bring themselves to consider that the unsolved portion of the carvings on the tzolk'in at its end probably means something on the order of 'continued on next big rock', the 2012 election is likely to offer candidates more, hmm, mature and competent than the offerings of the last Presidential campaign.

It is too soon to say whether the Republicans have a decent shot at regaining the White House in 2012, since the GOP managed to nominate John McCain in 2008, which speaks loudly about the party's own competency issues. But 2012 could easily be a year of infighting in both parties, as the true identity of each party's most prominent members brings them to wrestle for control of their party's direction. Barack Obama has demonstrated the ability to win elections, but he did so on a foundation of false promises; he's not likely to win re-election that way. John McCain managed to claim the GOP nomination by playing on cross-over from Democrats and left-leaning indies in the primaries; that's not likely to happen again in 2012, either. The problem is, though, that strong opinions lose moderate support, but moderates are fickle except when they are angry. And while there are many ways to set off angry voters, continued support from moderates, the majority of voters that is, depends on demonstrating substance behind the façade. The ability to defend yourself when attacked by political opponents is also vital; not since Reagan have we seen a leader truly confident of his position and comfortable defending it. And as yet no new icon stands ready to assume that role. The Republicans are either clumsy, hypocrites, or both, while the Democrats are either hypocrites, traitors, ostracized by their party's leadership, or some two of the three. As for Independents, they lack the political leverage to gain major public support, and in any case they refuse to define themselves, and so their support fades soon after it begins.

If I had to pick the major contenders for the 2012 race, I'd consider that Barack Obama did set the stage; people still want hope and change. Ironically, President Obama represents neither in his actual job performance. Certainly President Obama will have his party's support for the most part through the first half of 2012; the incumbent generally gets his party's nomination even when he's Herbert Hoover in 1932, or Carter in 1980. But there could be a grassroots movement among Democrats to offer a real candidate, and if that happens we should see tremors of the approaching shift late this year, as happened to LBJ in 1966. If he should fail to claim his party's nomination for re-election, we may see Obama blame George W Bush one last time in public - one imagines an elderly Obama blaming W for his bad back and failing vision years from now, as well as the cancellation of his favorite TV shows and the changes in pop music. It's become so much his way, that one can scarcely imagine Obama growing up and taking up responsibility at this late date. But anyway, watch Hillary; if Obama continues to play chicken with the political iceberg in his way, his main in-party nemesis can be counted on to look again at the cards in her hand, which include strong cred in the party, fund-raising skills and a killer instinct in politics. This is important for a second reason, in that Clinton made sure that 2004 nominee John Kerry did not run in 2008, and so she will chase of a number of potential threats early on if she chooses to run in 2012. It's important to consider that while he was a late entry in the 1992 race, then-Governor Bill Clinton was seen as a rising start by 1990, just as Governor Carter was seen as a contender by 1974. Blocking out the new talent would not only help Hillary's run, but dilute the strength of the Democrats' field in the main, leaving a Bidenesque quality that would materially improve Republican chances.

As for the Republicans, I love her but sincerely hope that former Governor Sarah Palin does not run. In the same way that I love the humor of Michael Palin - the author and former member of Monty Python - I love the honesty and wit of Sarah Palin, but fear that most Americans would not take Governor Palin any more seriously as a Presidential candidate. Like Fred Thompson, who spoke brilliantly as an avatar of Conservatism but who lacked the stamina for a long campaign, Governor Palin strikes me as someone who has skills but not the whole package to be President of the United States. The Republicans need to nominate a person who has indisputable ability and relevant experience, but at the moment no one seems to quite rise to the level needed. We have good people, some good leaders, some inspirational speakers, but as yet no real contender. The stage is clear for the development of our nominee, which is to the good, but as of yet the spot is unclaimed. We dare not assume it will be filled of its own accord, or we shall end up with another poseur like McCain, or a nice-guy loser like Bob Dole. In years past we could hope for a contender from the Governorships of California or Texas, but Arnold is neither eligible nor a real conservative, and Rick Perry's best quality is his hair - his politics are more Austin-based than American-focused. Too many Republicans lack the skills, personality, or courage to stand long in that post. And so the field remains open, waiting for a real leader to emerge.

Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Elections

So yesterday I posted that representatives Boehner and Cantor responded in letter form to Obama's request for a public, televised health care summit. White House press secretary Gibbs has responded to that letter in a manner that is politics at its worst.

I can scarcely do a better job at illuminating the absurdity of his response than the one done by Ann Althouse. She took the Boehner and Cantor letter and broke out the key questions raised. She then looked at Gibbs response to see how he handled each of the questions. Check out what happened:

Gibbs responded:

...

That wasn't meant to be a joke. It just turned out that way. I edited the Boehner/Cantor letter down as I read it and saw that it was a series of questions, so I started reading Gibbs's letter with the idea of editing it down to the parts that responded to the questions. You see what happened.

The Obama administration has gotten caught by public opinion and it is interesting to see them wrestle with that new reality. A year ago the attitude was "We won" and they saw no reason to include those silly Republicans in any real governance. Now that they have lost the independents, they are beginning to realize that they need to be more inclusive in order to move forward. But so far their attempts at inclusion have been political mumbo-jumbo like the Gibbs response. Such responses are unlikely to sway independents that already have expressed their distaste for the current approach. I'm fascinated to see how they adjust as time progresses and poll numbers continue to fall.

Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Health Care

Note to self: never underestimate the power of Andrew Breitbart.

At last weekend's Tea Party Convention, the professional gadfly took on the "birther" movement (those people who deny President Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president). Breitbart didn't engage them on their chosen battleground -- legal minutiae and 18th century semantics and other forms of arcanery -- but instead on a strategic ground: what do they intend to achieve, and what will be the ancillary damage caused by their victory?

It got me thinking, and writing -- and in the comments to the posting I made about it, we all got throughly lectured on the fine points of the issue (in such excruciating detail that the term "anal-retentive" was left in the dust after three sentences by first-time commenter "Mick."

I'm not going to recap Mick's arguments, because 1) I find them exceedingly tedious and his tone pedantic; B) he would instantly leap in and "correct" me on the slightest flaw I made in condensing them, bringing up the "tedious" and "pedantic" points again, and III) the point I wish to make here is not about the details themselves, but the fundamental nature of the argument. Besides, his extended diatribes and paranoid rants (I especially enjoyed his uncovering and denouncing of "smrstrauss" as "a paid shill of the Usurper" -- got copies of the pay stubs, Mickey?) took up 28% of the comments on that piece already.

No, I'm going to skip entirely past the merits of the argument and the appeals to "reason" and summarize the essence of the whole thing -- and then make my case not to your minds, but your guts.

The theory Mick puts forth is that Obama, by virtue of his father's non-American citizenship at the time of his birth, is not Constitutionally eligible to serve as president. Obama is not, by the ancient definition, not a "natural-born" American, but merely a "natural" American.

Think about that one for a moment. By Mick's argument, there are three classes of American citizens. There are naturalized Americans, who are those who were born citizens of another nation but came to this country and pledged their loyalty. They get nearly all the rights of other Americans, but with two key restrictions: they cannot ever serve as President or Vice-President, and they can be stripped of their citizenship as part of a legal sanction.

Then there are "natural born Americans." This is where most of us fall, I believe -- born here, and fully entitled to every single right and privilege of being an American.

And then there are what Mick described as "natural Americans." These are "natural born Americans" in every respect but one -- there was some flaw governing their birth that imposes some legal limitations on their rights. They can not serve as president or vice president.

In Obama's case, the argument goes, his father's status as not an American citizen at the time of Obama's birth represents such a flaw. And therefore, he must be stripped of office.

OK, so he's out. What next? This is literally unprecedented in history. Mick says that Congress must then appoint a president. I'd thought about the possibilities, and that one escaped me.

My first thought was that the presidential succession kicks in, and Joe Biden becomes president.

Then I wondered if Obama's ineligibility would taint the entire election, disqualifying Obama, and Nancy Pelosi would become president. (That one would almost be worth it. We'd get rid of Biden, Pelosi would be out of Congress, and we'd have an open presidency in 2012.)

Or, if the election could be overturned, and we'd have President McCain and Vice-President Palin.

Or we could hold a "do-over" election, with the Democratic National Committee selecting new nominees.

But back to the point here: Mick's entire argument is based on a single concept: that "natural" Americans are divided into two classes. That there are "real" Americans -- "natural born" citizens -- and "second-class" Americans. And unless you're a "super-American," you can't be president.

This is different from the "born" vs. "naturalized" status. I'm not overly fond of that one -- I'd like to see it changed to grant Americans who's been upstanding citizens for a few decades the full rights of natural-born Americans -- but I understand it. I can live with it. There's a certain amount of personal investment that goes with "this is my homeland" that is something that must be respected and honored.

There's more than a whiff of "are you American ENOUGH?" attitude in Mick's position. There's a bit more of a hint of "I'm more American than you are" underlying his arguments.

Over at Brietbart's "Big Journalism," Kurt Schlichter (now there's an un-American name if I ever heard one -- who the hell are YOU to tell US about what it means to be an American, you lousy Kraut?) points out that the "birthers" like Mick aren't interested in "discussing" the matter. They use the phrase "just asking questions," but simply will not hear the answers. No, the whole point behind their "question-raising" is to get their "questions" out there, smearing through innuendo.

Now there is a certain appeal to the "birthers" arguments. Much of President Obama's career is built on a similar tactic -- getting his opponents off the ballot before the race. He got several of his would-be rivals disqualified from the ballots, and convenient allies in the media embarrassed a couple out of the race by obtaining and releasing sealed records containing unfounded allegations. To have Obama fall victim to the same tactic that he used so well has a certain elegance and poetic justice to it.

But I'm not willing to pay the price for that.

I argued against Obama's election. I did not vote for him. I do not like many of his policies or appointments or positions. I am extremely unlikely to vote for him next time. I fully expect to support his opponent.

But as of January 20, 2009, he became my president. And -- pending circumstances that I do not want to even consider -- he will remain my president at least until January 20, 2013.

The path to remove him by this tactic goes through me, Mick. And Mr. Schlichter. And a whole slew of other Americans who are rejecting your paranoid, obsessive ranting -- including, I'd wager, the vast majority of the United States military. Those fine men and women took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" -- to them, Obama is their legal commander in chief, and they're going to defer to their chain of command and not a bunch of obsessive assholes on what is or is not Constitutional. Their default position is that Obama has been recognized as the legal president by both of the other branches of government (that would be Congress, through certification of the Electoral College vote, and the Supreme Court, whose chief justice administered the oath of office) and as such any appeals to them to get involved in your cause is tantamount to soliciting treason.

As I said yesterday, Mick, the whole 'birther" argument (and before you get sand in your knickers of the term, I define it to mean "anyone who makes arguments about Obama's eligibility for office based on the circumstances of his birth") is a loser. And those who keep making loser arguments are, by definition, losers.

So keep painting that big "L" on your forehead, Mick. It makes it so much easier to identify you.

Permalink | Comments (89) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Attention Whores

... at its core would seem to be Islam's problem with women:

Do some of the answers to the puzzle of that woman-hatred lie in Koranic passages and sayings like these?

The Prophet said, "I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women."

O ye who believe! When ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands, Allah doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete his favour to you, that ye may be grateful.

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

The answer is yes.

And the answer is obvious for those willing to see.

Rachel Adams goes on to suggest that which might work toward a solution for men and women in the military serving in places like Afghanistan:

If through the good offices of our military--especially our women soldiers--we could help Afghani women unravel themselves from centuries of complicity in their own oppression and see themselves not as defiled, unclean, perpetually wanton creatures to be hidden away as if they were carriers of plague, but rather as noble members of the human race endowed with greatness and blessings: the giving of life, the tending to it mercifully and lovingly, and, most important, the imparting of lessons in real virtue--self-acceptance to their daughters and just plain acceptance to their sons--that would be gaining hearts and minds indeed.

You'd think that women's groups who claim to be for the advancement of women's rights would be all over this... but you'd be wrong.  

We've been reminded this week what it is that these groups seek to advance.

I'm of the opinion that the best way women might "unravel themselves from centuries of complicity in their own oppression and see themselves not as defiled, unclean, perpetually wanton creatures to be hidden away as if they were carriers of plague" is to expose them to the teachings and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.

How intolerant of me.

H/T W&W.

Crossposted(*).

Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Christianity, Islam

... and the International Planned Parenthood Federation believes they should be taught the pleasures of sex.

Now we perhaps know where Michael Jackson picked up his habits:

A new report by the International Planned Parenthood Federation is advocating that children as young as 10 be given extensive sex education, including an awareness of sex's pleasures.

The report, "Stand and Deliver," charges that religious groups, specifically Catholics and Muslims, deny their young access to comprehensive sexual programs and education.

"Young people's sexuality is still contentious for many religious institutions. Fundamentalist and other religious groups -- the Catholic Church and madrasas (Islamic Schools) for example -- have imposed tremendous barriers that prevent young people, particularly, from obtaining information and services related to sex and reproduction. Currently, many religious teachings deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex." the report states.

Click here to read the report.

The report demands that children 10 and older be given a "comprehensive sexuality education" by governments, aid organizations and other groups, and that young people should be seen as "sexual beings."

"Young people have the right to be informed about sexuality and to have access to contraceptives and other services," Bert Koenders, the Netherlands Minister for Development Cooperation, wrote in the foreword to the report. It was his organization that helped fund the report.

The report argues that sex education should be "recast" to show sexuality as a "positive force for change and development, as a source of pleasure, an embodiment of human rights and an expression of self."

So what have we learned this week folks?

That feminists today find an innocuous ad to be radically threatening... and that Planned Parenthood sees 10 year olds as sexual beings.

I'm convinced that both groups, who in large part are made up of the same people, are wicked. Evil even.

Convince me otherwise.

H/T The Deacon's Bench.

Crossposted(*).

Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Asshats, Dumbasses, Moonbats

I can't find any official source for this other than a quote on the Corner, but Boehner (R-OH) and Cantor (R-VA) have responded to President Obama's invitation to attend a public summit on health care. It begins as follows:

We welcome President Obama's announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground on health care, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats. Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses.

Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Breaking News, Health Care

There are a lot of annoying people on the planet. Almost everyone is annoying to some degree, and at some time or another. But there are some people who go well over the boundaries of acceptable annoyance, and provoke rebellion. Not to trivialize History, but look at the American Revolution. While events went out of control and led to armed insurrection, they started - well, for lack of a better word, as annoying. Taxes that applied only to the colonies. Rules from London that Parliament and the Crown never planned to discuss, let alone apply to themselves. Requirements that started out as minor, but more and more sent the signal that the Americans were considered not merely second-class citizens of the Empire, but were themselves all but property of the Crown. Insulting, and when you boil the Revolution down to its essentials, it comes down to the fact that the British Government just went too far. No one has ever claimed that the Parliament was as bad, say, as the Huns under Genghis Khan or the Romans under Nero, but for all that they went beyond the lines that the people would accept. The American people, anyway. Recent years seem to indicate that the modern Britons are, sadly, all too willing to be treated like property of their government. And in short order, this helps explain recent American politics on the national level. In 1994, the American people were fed up with the arrogance of Clinton and the Democrats, and handed Congress over to the GOP, since the Republicans at least had promised specific changes in accord with the public will. In 2006, however, the apparent failure of the GOP to stick to their word caused the people to give the Congress back to the Democrats, who had been promised ethics, accountability, and representative government. In 2008, that same spirit led many Americans to support Barack Obama, seeing as he promised to be open and accountable to the American people (just a suggestion, Mister President - if you'd kept all those promises you made, most of your support would still be there; lying to folks generally gets found out and is neither smart nor effective in the long term), and it's pretty clear to everyone not addicted to teleprompter-induced unicorn droppings that Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat went to a Republican because the good folks in Massachusetts decided firing a shot across the bow wasn't getting the message across, so they put one into the mizzenmast of Obamacare.

This is nothing new, really. Clinton got elected in 1992 mostly due to American annoyance at Bush I breaking a tax promise. Nixon got elected in 1968 due to Johnson getting caught out as a liar and a crook (ironic, considering Watergate). And FDR got a lot of political mileage blaming the Depression on the Republicans, something Obama tried to do but fumbled, not only because the present situation is no 'Depression', but also because his own party had more to do with its cause than they admitted, which the American people have begun to recall. As a result of all this, a lot of Conservatives have begun to anticipate big gains this fall, on the assumption that the voters will ahnd Congress back to them, the House for sure and maybe the Senate, too.

But will they, really?

Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts was important, but it remains to be seen if it will resonate nine months from now, especially on a national scale. Already, conservatives, moderates, independents and even liberals are claiming that his win demonstrates the strength of their own political views. But it's also important to understand the limits to playing on annoyance. Jimmy Carter, for example, convinced Americans that Democrats should be trusted more than Republicans. But by 1980, his performance had undone that conviction. A politician may gain an office through fear-mongering or playing on the public's annoyance with an incumbent, but earning the public's trust depends on something better. This is a hallmark of Reagan, and before him FDR and the other significant leaders. Leadership, when all I said and done, is something much different and greater than simply playing on anger and resentment.

But returning to annoyance. It must be said of horseflies that they are persistent, and the same is true of politicians who play on ire to their advantage. We must presume that all the politicians involved in this fall's contests will be energetic is their use of attacks and criticisms. Anyone dismayed by the tone of the last few elections had better stock up on movies and books, and shut off the TV between June and January. There is a firestorm coming, of great intensity and spite, wherein all manner of malice and false accusation will be raised against the evidence which otherwise would overwhelm the hypocrites, of whatever political color and symbol. For there are true and false Democrats and Republicans, just as there are traitors and fools in every country and culture. The difference is the integrity and courage to be found among those who carry their party's name in the public eye.

Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Politics

Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha (D) is dead.

Washington Post has more here.

As special election should be interesting:

Without Murtha in the 12th district, however, the special election will be seriously contested. Murtha's district is the only one in the country won by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004 and by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008, according to Republican sources, and that trend line coupled with the volatile national environment for Democrats ensures Republicans will heavily target the contest.

More later.

Whoops, Did not see Jay's post below. Or Kim's

Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Politicians

When Nancy Pelosi first became Speaker of the House after the 2006 elections, she promised us the most honest, most open House in history.

It's taken her a bit of time, and she had to get some help from the Almighty, but today a great step towards achieving that four-year-old promise was made:

Representative John Murtha won't be down for breakfast.

Murtha, a former Marine, will be honored in a very rare micturation ceremony performed by a select group of his former brethren.

In lieu of gifts or flowers, Murtha's family asks for donations. In plain brown bags. In small, unmarked bills.

In related news, former Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II -- who declined to run for his uncle Ted's Senate seat now held by Scott Brown -- announced that he is moving to Murtha's District and will be running for his seat.

In his announcement, Kennedy said "I look forward to serving the great people of Pennsylvania with pride." Then he was overheard asking an aide "Pennsylvania, that's in southern Jersey, right? On the shore? About three hours out of New York City?"

Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Satire

This is just breaking from Fox News:

Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha, the first veteran of the Vietnam war and one of the most powerful lawmakers in Congress, died Wednesday morning at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, VA, after complications from gallbladder surgery. Murtha was 77.

I'm very sorry for his family's loss. I'm sure they loved him and will miss him.

Jay Tea adds:Kim, thanks for taking the high road. It let me indulge my baser instincts. I'd like to see this article reserved for those who wish to speak well of Murtha. Anyone inclined to say less respectful things, please take it to my posting or keep it to yourself -- not here.

Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Breaking News

I'm actually working on a longer climategate related post but his news just broke so I thought I'd make a quick mention of it. A 2007 U.N. report attributed North African food shortages to global warming. One of the key authors of the report has now come forward to say he cannot find any scientific evidence to back this claim. Fox News reports:

The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again -- this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food shortage.

The statement comes from a key 2007 report to the U.N., and asserts that by 2020 yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% in some African countries thanks to climate change.

But this weekend, a key author of the team behind that report told The Sunday Times that he could find no evidence to support his own group's claim. The revelation follows the retraction by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035, dubbed 'Glaciergate' by commentators.

The newest controversial claim could become a very important error in the IPCC's reporting, because it comes not only from the IPCC's report on climate change impacts -- called Assessment Report 4, or AR4 -- but is also repeated in its "Synthesis Report." That report is the IPCC's most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers.

Its lead authors include IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri himself, who has quoted it in speeches, as has U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon.

Speaking at the 2008 global climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Pachauri said: "In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020." In a speech last July, Ban said: "Yields from rain-fed agriculture could fall by half in some African countries over the next 10 years."

Speaking this weekend, Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC's climate impacts team, said: "I was not an author on the 'Synthesis Report,' but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines."

This sort of claim should be based on hard evidence, said Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the U.K.'s department for environment food and rural affairs, who chaired the IPCC from 1997 to 2002.

"Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change. I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report," he said.

It would seem that the Times UK is once again leading reporting of this story. At least one U.S. media outlet at least has picked it up this time.

Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Global Warming

For eight years, we all had to suffer through the endless bleats of how the Bush administration (or, more commonly, the "Bush/Cheney/Haliburton administration") had eroded our rights, had pillaged the Bill of Rights, and had in general made poopy all over the Constitution.

Now, though, it's actually starting to happen, and the silence is deafening.

With the announcement that the 9/11 conspirators we've captured will be tried in civilian courts,a precedent that has huge ramifications.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not an enemy of the nation, he is a man accused of several thousand counts of felony murder. He is accused of heading up a conspiracy that cost thousands of lives and billions and billions of economic harm.

He did not wage war against the United States. He helped destroy four airplanes and two buildings, damaged a third, and killed about three thousand people in the process.

And now he will answer for those crimes, just like any other criminal. Nothing about his treatment is to be considered in any way extraordinary.

A jury has yet to be seated, but both the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States have already assured us that these twelve men and women will vote to convict him.

The trial has yet to begin, but those two worthies have already assured us that regardless of verdict, he will never walk free.

The venue has yet to be chosen, but those two worthies have already insisted that the undetermined site will come up with a death sentence.

And this is to be considered no different from any other criminal trial.

As things stand now, defense lawyers do handsprings when public officials make pronouncements of guilt on their clients before trial. That immediately brings up the issue of a fair trial, as defendants are assured an impartial jury -- and a juror who's been told, publicly, over and over, that the defendant is guilty might have a bit of trouble giving that defendant the presumption of innocence at the beginning of the trial. Toss in the weight of the offices saying that the defendants have no such presumption, and the defense lawyers can just phone it in.

"Mr. Jones, did you hear the president and the attorney general discuss this case?"

"And with all that in mind, do you believe you can render a fair verdict in this case?"

Now, I'm not doing this in defense of Mohammed and his brethren. I wish they'd been executed years ago, with only a quiet public notice that they had been put to death and their remains buried in caskets filled with pig waste at some undisclosed location. But they're getting their final vengeance here, striking one last violent blow against our justice system.

The Obama administration has repeatedly made it clear that these trials are to be treated as any other trial, with absolutely nothing special about them. Which means that they are establishing precedents that will carry over to other trials.

Including the abolition of the presumption of innocence, the abolition of an unbiased jury pool, the abolition of habeas corpus ("even if acquitted, they'll never walk free"), and a host of other rights that I'm not legal scholar enough to understand.

The problem here is one I've argued many times before: terrorists are not criminals.

Nor are they soldiers.

They combine elements of both, but procedures set up to deal with one or the other simply won't work.

Treating them as soldiers is problematic, as they have deliberately chosen to exclude themselves from the codes of conduct of the military. Further, they are the servants of no single state, meaning such standard wartime acts such as surrendering, retaliating, and negotiating ends to hostilities somewhat problematic. So we can't treat them as soldiers.

Now we are having demonstrated to us just how problematic is is to treat them simply as criminals.

The solution is a hybrid one, to take elements of both approaches and build a new structure to handle them. Such as, say, a military tribunal that convenes outside the jurisdiction of civilian law and administers its own justice.

The kind of thing that the Bush administration worked on setting up in Guantanamo. The kind of thing that the Obama administration called an atrocity and a crime, and promised to shut down within a year. (We're still waiting. This is one case where I'm glad Obama promises come with expiration dates.)

And don't hand me the garbage that these trials are a special case. A lot of us said that for years, and were shouted down (and voted down) by people who all said that no, this wasn't a special case. That our same system that handles jaywalkers and wife-beaters and bank robbers could handle just fine a case of a group of fanatics waging war against us.

It. Ain't. Gonna. Work.

And we're gonna be paying the price for this one for a long, long time.

Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Justice

Via GateWayPundit, this is just damned cool:

On Sunday the left went bonkers after they discovered that the TelePrompter-less former Governor Sarah Palin wrote notes on the palm of her left hand for her speech to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville. The far left absolutely freaked over this non-issue rather than focus on her brilliant speech knocking the Obama Administration's horrid record on economics and national defense.

Today Sarah fired back...

In case you can't tell, she wrote "Hi Mom" on her hand...

The gal's got chutzpah... and you know the haters are gonna be hatin' her all the more...

Heh...

Crossposted(*).

Permalink | Comments (60) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Sarah Palin

The man is a hall of fame ditherer:

The Obama administration has come under strong criticism from Republican lawmakers and some residents and business owners in lower Manhattan for a decision by the Justice Department to try confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspects in civilian court.

Asked on Sunday in an interview with CBS News whether the administration still planned to hold the trial in New York City, Obama said, "I have not ruled it out."

"But I think it's important for us to take into account the practical, logistical issues involved," he added.
 
Mayor Michael Bloomberg originally said he supported the plan, but when costs for security reached an estimated $1billion, he said holding the trials elsewhere -- like a military base -- would make more sense.  Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said he was never briefed by the Justice Department about its plans to stage the trials in lower Manhattan.

"If you've got a city that is saying 'no' and a police department that's saying 'no' and a mayor that's saying 'no,' that makes it difficult," President Obama said.

Oh... poor, poor Mr. President... governing is so hard... sigh... so hard...

And we have idiots saying that Palin is the incompetent one?

Good grief.

Crossposted(*).

Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Asshats, Barack Obama

Well, the learned solons of Massachusetts have discovered a truly novel approach to fighting violent crime. And it's one that doesn't involve criminalizing ordinary citizens, depriving all of rights because of the abuses of a few, or offering compassion and understanding and sympathy to the victimizers.

No, it's far, far more radical than that:

They're actually enforcing laws that are already on the books.

Way back in 1998, the Massachusetts legislature passed an "armed career criminal" law. This called for big sentences for those who have a lengthy criminal record and are caught in possession of a gun (already illegal, as felons can't legally possess guns).

And it's actually WORKING.

Unlike banning everyone from owning guns, or saying people can't defend themselves, or new rounds of "prison reform," or a host of other stupid notions designed to "fight" violent crime, finding those who have shown a tendency towards committing violent crimes in illegal posession of weapons and locking them up away from innocent victims seems to do a good job of protecting the general public.

How absolutely remarkable.

Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Justice

What I'm talking about

Round 2 Results

G Washington 11, H Truman 0
J Adams 6, C Coolidge 3
T Jefferson 10, W Taft 1
J Madison 7, GH Bush 4
J Monroe 10, R Nixon 0
JQ Adams 9, B Clinton 2
A Jackson 6, G Cleveland 5
M Van Buren 3, A Johnson 8
WH Harrison 0, A Lincoln 11
G Ford 3, GW Bush 8
F Pierce 2, JFK 9
R Reagan 11, Fluffy Roadkill 0
M Fillmore 4, W Wilson 7
FDR 9, B Obama 1
J Tyler 4, B Harrison 7
J Polk 9, C Arthur 2
U Grant 5, J Garfield 6
T Roosevelt 9, R Hayes 2
W Harding 11, J Carter 0
Z Taylor 3, W McKinley 8
LBJ 7, J Buchanan 4

Round 3 Match-Ups

G Washington (2-0) vs J Kennedy (2-0)
J Adams (2-0) vs GW Bush (2-0)
T Jefferson (2-0) vs A Lincoln (2-0)
J Madison (2-0) vs A Johnson (2-0)
J Monroe (2-0) vs A Jackson (2-0)
JQ Adams (2-0) vs L Johnson (1-1)
H Truman (1-1) vs W McKinley (1-1)
C Coolidge (1-1) vs W Harding (1-1)
W Taft (1-1) vs T Roosevelt (1-1)
GH Bush (1-1) vs J Garfield (1-1)
R Nixon (1-1) vs J Polk (1-1)
B Clinton (1-1) vs B Harrison (1-1)
G Cleveland (1-1) vs F Roosevelt (1-1)
M Van Buren (1-1) vs W Wilson (1-1)
WH Harrison (1-1) vs R Reagan (1-1)
G Ford (1-1) vs F Pierce (1-1)
Fluffy Roadkill (0-2) vs J Buchanan (0-2)
M Fillmore (0-2) vs Z Taylor (0-2)
B Obama (0-2) vs J Carter (0-2)
J Tyler (0-2) vs R Hayes (0-2)
C Arthur (0-2) vs U Grant (0-2)

Again, this is a triple-elimination tournament with pairings set up by initial random draws. This is not to be taken seriously, but to exercise perspectives of how different Presidents faced their duties, crises, and opportunities.

As before, no actual politicians were harmed in the creation of this post. The cat, while dead, is also no worse off.

Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Fun

As everyone knows, Michigan's economy is in ruins. There are several people already running for governor on the Republican side who say they have what it takes to get Michigan back on its feet. Many of them you've probably heard of: Mike Cox, the current Attorney General and Pete Hoekstra, the US Congressman from Michigan's Second Congressional District. But there's another guy you may not know who has thrown his hat into the ring. He ran an ad introducing himself during the Super Bowl that aired only in Michigan. I have been receiving email updates from his campaign simply because I'm impressed with his background. Take a look at the ad:

I love it. You can learn more about Rick or donate to his campaign here.

Hat tip: Jim Geraghty at the Campaign Spot.

Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Elections

I had a few favorites:

Put your favorite ad in the comments section.

Now, about the Green Police ad. When I first saw it last night, I immediately thought that it was a wacko environmentalist's dream for how their rules would be imposed. However, seeing it again, it's clear that it is mocking rabid environmentalists who go overboard at even the most minor eco-infraction and instead says common sense environmentalism is driving Audi's eco-car. Take a look: