Some blogs, such as Michelle Malkin’s, once allowed comments and subsequently stopped, after moonbats began degrading the quality of public discourse. Some blogs, such as the Kos kooks, actually thrive off of moonbat guano and wouldn’t exist without their droppings.
This one that is currently occupying your time, though, has always strived to dissuade moonbats and other nutbars from commenting. As the title bar states, “Thoughtful lefties welcome, moonbats are encouraged to drink Clinton Kool-Aid and flutter away.” I’d like to think my regular “thoughtful” liberal visitors know that their contributions are welcome here, even if there is intense political disagreement on the positions. The ‘bats, on the other hand, are not welcome.
Well, clearly the education system in this country just isn’t what it used to be, because evidently reading is no longer being taught. Some people just can’t seem to read the “flutter away” part. I suppose I should be somewhat thankful that this blog has become a “moonbat magnet” of sorts. After all, it’s a sign that (a) I am getting under their skin, enough to make them get out of the welfare line long enough to hunt-and-peck profanity- (and insantity-) laced screeds; and (b) I must have finally “arrived” in the blogosphere.
I suppose that’s to be expected, if you think about it. I mean, while I’m clearly nowhere near the levels of Little Green Footballs, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, or scores of other mega-popular blogs, I’ve come a long way since mid-2004 when I first started this thing: three-time mention on Slate, mention on CBS News’ Blogophile, honorable mention on Open Media Group, and even a recipient of The Wide Awakes Radio Network host (and parody master) The Nose On Your Face’s “Fake Quote of the Day” Award. Baby steps, my friends, baby steps.
Anywho, my point…my point? Oh, yeah…my point! As a result of the growing popularity of this blog (and I am thankful to all of you non-moonbats who have contributed, either by comments or just simply reading my drivel), I must strive to improve the product here to keep it moving in the right direction (no pun intended). Part of that endeavor means that I have to be more thorough about “taking out the trash”…specifically, the useless comments and commenters. I want my readers to be able to enjoy the dialog here, and it’s hard for them to do that if they are subjected to a barrage of moonbat droppings.
Therefore, for now and the foreseeable future, comments will be moderated. Quite simply, that means that you will leave comments as you always do, but they will not immediately appear. They will not appear until I approve them. I will try my best to approve them as quickly as possible, keeping my comments administration tool (Haloscan) open all the time, and checking in periodically to approve/reject comments. With the exception of overnight hours, possibly holidays and weekends, and the always irritating ISP outage, there shouldn’t be too many times that your comments will be pending for hours at a time. So please…unless you are a moonbat, do NOT stop commenting!
I’m a big boy. Rude and useless nutbar comments don’t bother me. However, I know that they bother you, as many of you have told me. Me, I can delete them after only reading a couple of words or seeing who the sender is. If comment moderation is enabled, their pap will never see your eyes. This blog will be all the better for it.
That is all. Proceed as usual!
Ignoring the fact that this was taken at the aforementioned “Death to Israel” moonbat rally in Salt Lake City, and thus horribly out of place, one has to wonder what they taught in this poor sap’s high school biology class:
Yeah…hands off of this man’s uterus, Bushitler McCheneyburton! Go get your own, you neocon scum!
“Protesters iz dumm!”
A “Death to Israel” moonbat rally in Salt Lake City was apparently going to be a little short of, shall we say, “photo-op” agitators…er, “protestors”. Rather than import some out-of-staters, why not turn to the local “urban outdoorsmen”? From the Salt Lake Tribune:
One thing is undeniable today, Utahns are following these protests and rallies very closely. At the noon hour, a group of dusty construction workers are buying lunch at the 7-Eleven on Third West.
“I wonder what happened at that Death to Israel rally,” says one. “What was that all about?”
When the hardhats learn that the organizer of the Death to Israel rally is offering $10 an hour to the homeless to be “surrogate protesters,” they shake their heads.
“Better than minimum wage to sell your soul,” says one.
Better than the packs of smokes that Gore handed out to the homeless in Wisconsin in 2000 to buy votes, too! These days, being a “domicile-challenged American” has its advantages at times, doesn’t it?
If you haven’t heard, the CBS show Survivor is planning a season where the castaways are separated by their ethnicities. Many people are outraged. The New York Post shines a light on one such group:
Yesterday, members of the council’s Black, Latino, and Asian Caucus (BLAC) met with the press to complain about – of all things – classifying individuals by race and/or ethnic origins.
The issue is an upcoming TV-reality series that will divide up contestants based on ethnicity.
Yeah, that’s a pretty obnoxious notion. But if the council members feel that it’s repugnant for TV producers to classify people by race – and, again, we agree that it is – then why have they formed a race-driven cliques like BLAC?
The council is hardly unique in this respect. But that doesn’t make it right.
Ironic indeed. However, here’s guessing that the irony is completely lost on BLAC and other such racially-identified groups.
No, this isn’t an article about Barney Frank’s fashion tastes. It’s about a personnel move from Radio Shack that is, to say the least, pretty damned dehumanizing. From Breitbart/AP:
RadioShack Corp. notified about 400 workers by e-mail that they were being dismissed immediately as part of planned job cuts.
Employees at the Fort Worth headquarters got messages Tuesday morning saying: “The work force reduction notification is currently in progress. Unfortunately, your position is one that has been eliminated.”
Company officials had told employees in a series of meetings that layoff notices would be delivered electronically, spokeswoman Kay Jackson said. She said employees were invited to ask questions before Tuesday’s notification on a company intranet site.
Derrick D’Souza, a management professor at the University of North Texas, said he had never heard of such a large number of terminated employees being notified electronically. He said it could be seen as dehumanizing to employees.
“If I put myself in their shoes, I’d say, ‘Didn’t they have a few minutes to tell me?’” D’Souza said.
While I do not dispute the legality of this move by Radio Shack, I guess I’m still from a different era when it comes to human resources. I think that if you’re going to lay people off (or just flat out fire them), bring them in and let them know face-to-face. If you fear some kind of confrontation, then have security in there. A little decency in such a sensitive situation doesn’t seem to be too much to expect…does it?
Kofi Annan “renewed his demands Wednesday that Israel immediately lift its sea and air blockade of Lebanon.”
Israel said “Kiss my tuchus!“
Notice how Kofi seems more concerned with Israel abiding by the “cease-fire agreement” than he is with the Lezbos abiding by the same deal? If Israel doesn’t watch it, she may find out the hard way that the UN will enforce its resolutions with the same famous iron-fist approach to which we’re accustomed from them! For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.
From the moonbatosphere:
Americans still remember vividly the scenes from a year ago when Hurricane Katrina swept away entire communities, sent thousands of families for shelter in the Super Dome, and left hundreds of thousands more homeless and jobless. Americans throughout the land were moved to help in any way they could – sending donations and aid and volunteering to meet the needs of our fellow citizens. We responded because that’s what Americans do. We care for our country, help our neighbors, and lend a hand to those in need.
However, as we all painfully know, the Administration did not live up to those values in our government’s response to the crisis. Our fellow citizens were facing the worst devastation imaginable, and FEMA was nowhere to be found. The President stayed on his Texas ranch for days after the storm. Instead of joining local leaders in responding to the tragedy, he chose to fly over New Orleans for a brief look from Air Force One, well above the suffering below.
Are my eyes deceiving me, or is Uncle Teddy accusing Bush of…pulling a Chappaquiddick?
Kennedy is lamenting the suffering of people “below” while Bush did nothing, pondering his options, walking along the streets (or, in this case, flying the skies) while impervious to the plight of the submerged? This Chivas-induced chutzpah is quite a sight to behold!
The damage from the Plamegate non-affair has been done, thanks to the willing accomplices of the left…aka the MSM. As the Godfather notes:
Real damage to real people, to a real country, during time of war, and it was done on purpose, and I cannot stress this enough. The whole thing is scandalous to me. It reeks of a purposeful fraud because these people that are reporting all of this about Bush and Cheney and Rove and Scooter Libby had to know that it was Armitage, they had to know.
They couldn’t possibly not know, not during the whole two-year period. They might not have known during the first four months, but at some point during this they had to know that it was Armitage and yet it didn’t matter, didn’t fit the template. So cast it aside. Armitage isn’t talking so what do we got to lose by reporting that it’s Rove or that Fitzgerald thinks it’s Rove or that Fitzgerald is going to indict Rove?
But there is an interesting story here by our old buddy Nedra Pickler in the Associated Press. This is the last little bit here on the Plamegate story. “Karl Rove was not ‘frog-marched’ out of the White House in handcuffs as his detractors had hoped, but the past year was certainly a low point for President Bush’s close friend and chief political strategist.” Why? Why was it a low point? Nothing Rove did made it a low point. Not one darn thing that Rove did made it a low point, Nedra. You had a bona fide media scandal here that targeted people who had nothing to do with it, and most of you in the Drive-By Media knew it all along.
“A criminal investigation put Rove under scrutiny for months, then he was forced to surrender a key policy role in a move that raised questions about his authority in the White House. Rove fell under a legal cloud after a grand jury began investigating the leak.” That just infuriates me. The investigation was pointless as well! The investigation — you know what? There would not have been a crime were it not for the investigation! The only crime in this whole thing, unless you want to say Armitage committed one. (laughing) The only crime occurred as a result of the investigation which should not have happened in the first place once the justice department found out it was Armitage. What’s the point? Why go any further with it?
The whole thing was who leaked her name to Novak. Answer: Richard Armitage and his buddy, Colin Powell. I would love to know his involvement in this, too. I really would. You know, Armitage is the kind of guy that would take a bullet. But I, ladies and gentlemen, am not going to speculate about things I don’t know. I’m sharing my curiosity with you, but I am making no claims. This whole thing is ridiculous. It is worse than an example of how the media can poison the minds of the population. Staking out Karl Rove at his home, following him home from the White House, seeing if he stopped off at a phone booth, you know, change into the Superman suit and go destroy somebody else at the CIA or what have you, all the while the people doing the investigation knew it was Armitage!
How soon until the MSM and the left (pardon the redundancy) demand that Armitage be “frog-marched” out in handcuffs, hmm?
Ray Robison illustrates how the damage had been done:
But what was the real damage and is it calculable? Interestingly enough, there are numbers that show what the damage was to the President’s credibility. Polling Report has a page devoted to the Plame leak case. Let’s review:
ABC/Washington Post asked in September of 2003:
“The U.S. Justice Department has opened an investigation into whether someone in the White House broke the law by identifying a former diplomat’s wife as an undercover CIA agent. The former diplomat claims this was done to punish him for criticizing U.S. policy on Iraq. Have you heard or read anything about this situation, or not?”
09/03 Yes- 68% No – 32%
So over two-thirds of American’s had heard the allegation. Now compare that to the recent survey that indicated how few people could name two SCOTUS justices at only 24%. I bet Ford and Coca-Cola would love that kind of market exposure.
So how effective was the marketing of this lie? The same poll asked:
“Just your best guess, how likely or unlikely do you think it is that someone in the White House leaked this classified information: very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely or very unlikely?”
Very Likely – 34%
Somewhat Likely – 38%
Somewhat Unlikely – 13%
Very Unlikely – 10%
No Opinion – 5%
That’s right, the reporting was so damning that 72% of American’s indicated they believed the White House did it. Close to three-quarters of the United States populace were duped by the media reporting that the Bush Administration had done it in retaliation.
So 78% of Americans heard that George Bush personally leaked documents to undermine war critics. Of course, the fact that it is not a leak since the President has de-classification authority was not included in the question. The really interesting part is now that we know for sure that the administration didn’t go after Plame, how did people determine that these documents indicated the President did it? In other words, they were all just going off media reports that were wrong.
A phenomenal 63% of the public believed the President acted at least unethically based on mainstream media reporting.
…Another CNN poll reported that only a staggering 10% of the public believed the Bush administration was innocent on this matter.
Now contrast this to coverage of the Lewinski scandel in which President Clinton actually admitted to committing wrongdoing (eventually). Polling report
“As a result of his actions in the Monica Lewinsky investigation, do you think Bill Clinton should lose his license to practice law, or should he keep his license to practice law?”
58% of respondents indicated in May of 2000 that a lawyer should keep his law license even after committing perjury.
This is a phenomenal indicator of the power of the media to create a news story, form the reporting template, and hammer it in until it becomes ingrained as fact. Of course, it goes without saying the media owes some balanced coverage to offset the political damage the Plame affair created. Riiiiggghhhtttt.
Not holding my breath for that kind of balance, Ray.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
From Indepundit, talking with a Code Pinko:
Next, I ask Carrie how she’s coping on her “Troops Home Fast” hunger strike. (audio)
“So, the last time I ate was on the Third of July…”
“…No, not really. I’m occasionally a little bored with fruit juice and water. And I also allow myself, occasionally, wine or some beer. A couple of nights ago, it was Amelia’s birthday, and we were down on the Eastern Shore, and they were eating lobster and soft-shell crab. I had beer… (laughs) and water.”
I never realized one could drink beer during a hunger strike.
I might have to try that sometime.
Commenter Skul (who leaves great comments here, too) made the following humorous comment:
“Dang!! I’m starting my hunger strike just as soon as I get home from work. Oh boy!”
Happy Hour = Fasting…cool!
Now that John Mark Karr appears to be nothing more than a wannabe killer who wanted his 15 minutes of fame in the sickest of ways, he is no longer facing charges for murdering JonBenet Ramsey. Talk about another black eye for the Boulder D.A.! Neal Boortz has an interesting theory about why Karr really wanted to be charged:
The strange slender pasty man will not be charged with the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. It’s back to square one. The vindication claimed for the family of JonBenet is gone. John Mark Karr will not be prosecuted for the murder. In a few days he’ll be off to Sonoma County, California to face some misdemeanor child pornography charges.
This still looks like an elaborate jailbreak to me.
Here’s Mark Karr in Thailand. He’s just been fired from a teaching job. Perhaps he feared that he was facing charges in Thailand involving his sexual obsession with children. How hard is it to figure out that you would much rather face misdemeanor charges in California than who-knows-how-many years in a Thai jail? So …. confess to JonBenet’s murder, get a taxpayer-funded ride back to the U.S. while sipping on champagne and gobbling prawns, then give up the DNA sample, watch the case fall apart, and head to California to face your misdemeanor charge. Plus .. he gets all the publicity and fame he so badly wanted! He was even talking about Johnny Depp playing him in a movie!
Do you want a ridiculous quote? Well try this one from Seth Temin, identified by some as Karr’s defense attorney: “We’re deeply distressed by the fact that they took this man and dragged him here from Bangkok, Thailand, with no forensic evidence confirming the allegations against him and no independent factors leading to a presumption he did anything wrong.” Yeah, right. I’ll tell you what Temin is deeply distressed about. He’s not going to have a high-profile case to try, that’s what. Karr wanted to be dragged here from Bangkok. All part of the plan.
I think that Colorado Gov. Bill Owens got it about right when he slammed the prosecutors for wasting thousands of taxpayer dollars to bring this creep back to Colorado with so little evidence. The very day Karr’s name surfaced it seemed clear that what we had was a publicity seeking sicko with no real connection to the case. Owens thinks that Mary Lacy, the district attorney “should be held accountable for the most extravagant and expensive DNA test in Colorado history.”
Yeah … like that’s going to happen.
My hope is that we’ve now heard the last from the strange slender pasty man.
I may have officially just seen it all. From MSNBC:
A call about a possible weapon at a middle school prompted police to put armed officers on rooftops, close nearby streets and lock down the school. All over a giant burrito.
Someone called authorities Thursday after seeing a boy carrying something long and wrapped into Marshall Junior High. (Don’t even go there, you pervs! – Ed.)
The drama ended two hours later when the suspicious item was identified as a 30-inch burrito filled with steak, guacamole, lettuce, salsa and jalapeños and wrapped inside tin foil and a white T-shirt.
In the meantime, more than 30 parents, alerted by a radio report, descended on the school. Visibly shaken, they gathered around in a semicircle, straining their necks, awaiting news.
“There needs to be security before the kids walk through the door,” said Heather Black, whose son attends the school.
What, a “burrito bomb squad”? Don’t these people know that a burrito is a weapon only after it has been eaten?
Today’s “this woman must lose” post isn’t about Shrillary or Pe-loser, but about a Republican. Specifically, about Katherine Harris. From Newsmax:
U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is “a lie” and God and the nation’s founding fathers did not intend the country be “a nation of secular laws.”
The Florida Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will “legislate sin,” including abortion and gay marriage.
News flash, Rep. Hairbrained: abortion is already legal. Gay marriage has been written into several states’ constitutions. Settle down with the melodrama, OK?
I agree with one thing: there is no “separation of church and state”, my friends. It’s not in the Constitution, nor is it in the Declaration of Independence. I’ve read the First Amendment a million times, and it’s not in there. I may be nitpicking here, but I cringe whenever I read “the constitution’s wall separating church and state”! There is no such thing.
Having said that, I think it’s safe to say that we are in a theocracy-free country where each of us are allowed to send our souls to Hell, if we see fit. “Sin” is already legal: we are free (i.e. legally allowed) to engage in fornication, adultery, swearing, cohabitating (i.e. shacking up), viewing of p0rn, drinking to excess, eating to excess, etc. Is Harris suggesting that each of those freedoms be legislatively revoked?
While we’re at it, I’d like to know if she thinks that Jewish legislators plan on writing “sin” into law, or if they are incapable of proper governance? I’m obviously not the only one who wonders that:
Her comments drew criticism, including some from fellow Republicans who called them offensive and not representative of the party.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., who is Jewish, told the Orlando Sentinel that she was “disgusted” by the comments.
While Congresswoman Schultz may or may not have been merely posturing politically, I must concur with her expressed sentiments.
Republicans have been avoiding Harris like Hillary avoids Arkansas. We Floridians have to pray that Harris is defeated in the primary, because she absolutely cannot beat Bill Nelson in the Senate race this November. The good news is that Harris has primary opponents. The bad news is that they are unknowns who may splinter the votes enough to hand Harris the party’s nomination. The somewhat unpopular and very vulnerable Nelson is thanking his lucky stars that Harris is in this race.
In case you can’t really think of a decent reason to vote for a candidate or his/her particular party, at least have some ammo on why you’d vote against a party, right? Well, that’s the sentiment from Neal Boortz:
Why you shouldn’t vote Republican
They have absolutely no fiscal discipline whatsoever. No congress has ever blown money on vote-buying programs quite like the current Republican congress has. There are far too many Republicans who want to take their personal religious blueprints for behavior and make them law. The seem unwilling to press the advantage when it is theirs to press. They’re prudes. Stem cell research. Donald Wildmon The McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act. Democrats think that it’s odd that the jails are so full while our crime rate is going down. The Medicare Prescription Drug benefit for the Gimme Generation. If they had their way, Terri Schiavo’s soul would still not be at rest. They pay more attention to K Street than they do to the American workers and businessmen carrying the load. They can’t even protect America’s borders. Do you want your kids to come home from a government school and tell you that the Earth is only 6000 years old?
Why you shouldn’t vote Democrat
They clearly will not defend America from Islamic Fascism … not now … not until the price of that defense is catastrophic. They think terrorism is a law enforcement problem. Their war against individualism. They think America is great because of its government. They seem to think that income is distributed, not earned. They promote class warfare. They have almost single-handedly destroyed black culture in America. Hillary Clinton. They’re joined at the hip with teacher’s unions. Taxes can never be too high for Democrats. They fully intend to destroy talk radio. Their love of mob rule. The fully intend to turn illegal aliens into Democrat voters. Like the Republicans; they refuse to protect America’s borders
Why your shouldn’t vote Libertarian
With over 50% of the American people harboring strong libertarian feelings, they can’t manage to mount a viable third-party campaign. How would they manage to govern? Not only will they not defend America’s borders, they don’t really think the borders need defending. Though philosophically they’re right, they fail to see that their “legalize drugs” agenda isn’t exactly a winner with the American people. They never jumped on eminent domain abuse as the party agenda. People will react when they think their property rights are being threatened …. and the Libertarians couldn’t take advantage of this. Have you seen the way some of the people at their convention dress?
I don’t necessarily agree with 100% of these things, but overall, I concur. I actually prefer to vote for a candidate or a party rather than against them, but as I’ve noted before, it’s awfully tough to do that these days. If campaign slogans were required to adhere to “truth in advertising” laws, a reasonable slogan would be “Vote for us, because while we really do suck…we suck much less than they do!”
The kidnapped Fox News reporter and photographer have been released, and they are alive. How did they secure their release? Observe:
“We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint,” Centanni told Fox. “Don’t get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn’t know what the hell was going on.”
By Allah, that’s it! All we infidels have to do is abandon our own religions (or lack of religions) and convert to Islam! Hell, bring the troops home right now from everywhere! No sense fighting with our new brothers, right?
Think about the benefits, my friends. I mean, aside from the obvious bennies, like the virgins (or plateful of grapes, depending on your interpretation). If we all become Muslims, then Al Qaeda isn’t going to want us dead anymore! Hey, Israel, that goes for you, too. To heck with your religion…I mean, it’s only served to paint a big target on your collective backs. Just by converting to Islam, the entire Middle East that has wanted you dead for six decades will immediately become your best buds! Ditch the yarmulkes, don the turbans, put your servile wenches in burqas…instant peace!
Our newly found Muslim brothers can help us with goons like Castro and Chavez, too. Piss us off too much, and we’ll be sending our scimitar-toting decapitating Muslim mafia goons over to Cuba and Venezuela to take care of business, supreme Islam style! Are you listening, Kim Jong-Il?
Now if you folks will excuse me, I need to go procure a non-flushed Koran and get better acquainted with my new religion. I guess I won’t be needing that Bible thingee. Sorry, Jesus, but Allah has my back (and my head) on this one. For my kind readers, feel free to comment…but if you tick me off, then you’d better convert, too, before I put your dome in a knapsack!
For those of you on the left, this entire post was sarcasm.
From Time’s puff-piece on Nancy Pe-loser:
When Frost, who is now out of Congress, unsuccessfully ran for chair of the Democratic National Committee last year, Pelosi repeatedly rebuffed his attempts to get her support. While she declines to discuss those conflicts, Pelosi told Time, “Anybody who’s ever dealt with me knows not to mess with me.“
That warning implicitly extends to the American electorate, too.
By the way, for any person who insists that Nancy is not a liberal (and yes, I’ve heard a couple of talking heads try to peddle that hogwash), just take her own word for it:
The 66-year-old San Francisco lawmaker is an aggressive, hyperpartisan liberal pol who is the Democrats’ version of Tom DeLay, minus the ethical and legal problems of the former Republican House leader (yeah, she’s squeaky clean! – Ed.) .
Once in Congress, she was embraced especially by liberal Democrats. She opposed the Gulf War and in a 1996 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle said, “I pride myself in being called a liberal” and “I don’t consider myself a moderate.” In 2001, on the strength of the votes of party progressives, Pelosi won an intense battle with Maryland’s Steny Hoyer, who is more centrist, to be the No. 2 Democrat in the House.
Remember this when Democrats try to pooh-pooh attempts to (accurately) portray their party and their leadership as being coastal leftist elites.
Also, ideas? Aw, ideas-schmideas!
So the Democrats would thunderously attack Bush and argue there was no Social Security crisis and therefore no need for them to put out their own proposal. (Funny how they were singing a different tune under Bubba just a few years ago. Maybe that Kerry flip-flopping thing is endemic to the whole party? – Ed.) Some members were leery, concerned that Pelosi would make the Democrats look like the Party of No. As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. “Never. Is never good enough for you?” Pelosi defiantly said to one member.
Personally, I think “never” is a great time for Democrats to impose their solutions on America, but I’m going to hazard a guess that Americans actually want to know what Dems stand for other than “Bush sucks.”
I’m furious at how the so-called “conservative” politicians are running the country right now, but “Speaker Pelosi” almost single-handedly guarantees that I will do my part to…as much as I hate to do it…keep the “drunken sailor” (for those of you on the left, that is not a reference to Ted Kennedy) party in charge of things.
I swear, these guys are just way to easy to ridicule. Caption from al-Reuters:
A French United Nations vehicle drives past a poster of Hizbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in Tyre, in southern Lebanon, August 26, 2006.
The photo attached to the caption?
Do my eyes deceive me, or is that a white flag that the Frenchies are toting? I know, al-Reuters has been guilty of rampant staging and photoshopping lately, but for some reason, I’m thinking that this pic’s legit.
The French…aw, to heck with it! Why beat a dead horse?
Our leaders can be downright stupid sometimes. From the NYT:
The State Department is investigating whether Israel’s use of American-made cluster bombs in southern Lebanon violated secret agreements with the United States that restrict when it can employ such weapons, two officials said.
The investigation by the department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls began this week, after reports that three types of American cluster munitions, anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area, have been found in many areas of southern Lebanon and were responsible for civilian casualties.
Gonzalo Gallegos, a State Department spokesman, said, “We have heard the allegations that these munitions were used, and we are seeking more information.” He declined to comment further.
Why even bother giving Israel bombs, then? I mean, if it’s going to piss off leaders of countries who already hate us, it sure would suck for them to hate us even more, huh?
It’s OK for America to use American bombs to strike terrorists. But by
God (insert preferred deity here), let Israel use our bombs to strike at terrorists, and those Jew bastards must PAY! Also, America gives Israel arms for self-defense in a part of the world where they’re surrounded by camel-humping jihadists who want them dead…and such arming is bad! But Syria and Iran can ship arms to terrorist groups hell bent on the destruction of Israel and the West…and the “international community” is quieter than a Dixie Chicks concert in Memphis!
The inquiry is likely to focus on whether Israel properly informed the United States about its use of the weapons and whether targets were strictly military. So far, the State Department is relying on reports from United Nations personnel and nongovernmental organizations (such as Hezbollah and Hamas? – Ed.) in southern Lebanon, the officials said.
We…are relying on reports from…the United Freakin’ Nations?? Yeah, now there is an objective source!
Finally, we see the NYT being…well, the NYT:
Officials were granted anonymity to discuss the investigation because it involves sensitive diplomatic issues and agreements that have been kept secret for years.
Sorry to beat that dead horse, but it bears emphasizing.
Though technically a “joke”, the following parable could easily apply in trying to appease Islamofascism:
A man was out hunting for bears one day, and soon came across a large, trophy sized bear. He raised his rifle and took careful aim. Just as he was about to pull the trigger, the bear turned and began to speak to him!
“Isn’t it better to talk than to shoot? What do you want? Let’s negotiate the matter,” said the bear.
Lowering his rifle in shock, the hunter thought a second, and then replied, “I want a fur coat.”
“Good,” said the bear, “that is a negotiable item. I only want a full stomach, so let us sit down and negotiate a compromise.”
They sat down to negotiate and after a time the bear walked away, alone. The negotiations had been successful.
The bear had a full stomach, and the hunter had his fur coat!
Maybe the hunter didn’t “concede” enough? LOL!
I believe this headline is completely misleading. I’ll elaborate in a second. Anyway, the article:
Women may buy the morning-after pill without a prescription — but only with proof they’re 18 or older, federal health officials ruled Thursday, capping a contentious 3-year effort to ease access to the emergency contraceptive.
Girls 17 and younger still will need a doctor’s note to buy the pills, called Plan B, the Food and Drug Administration told manufacturer Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.
The compromise decision is a partial victory for women’s advocacy and medical groups that say eliminating sales restrictions could cut in half the nation’s 3 million annual unplanned pregnancies.
The pills are a concentrated dose of the same drug found in many regular birth-control pills. When a woman takes the pills within 72 hours of unprotected sex, they can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. If she already is pregnant, the pills have no effect.
“If she already is pregnant” and “the pills have no effect”, then she can’t be aborting the baby by taking the “ineffective” pills, now can she?
Look, whether one likes it or not, abortion is legal. A woman who is legally an adult can choose to have an abortion, right? If she can have an abortion, then she can have a pill that keeps her from getting pregnant in the first place (and thus avoiding the “need” for an abortion in the future). Given the choice of an after-the-fact contraception or an after-the-fact abortion, which would seemingly be the preferable approach?
Here’s where I have a problem:
Plan B’s maker was disappointed that the FDA imposed the age restriction and pledged to continue trying to get the agency to try to eliminate it.
“While we still feel that Plan B should be available to a broader age group without a prescription, we are pleased that the agency has determined that Plan B is safe and effective for use by those 18 years of age and older as an over-the-counter product,” said Bruce L. Downey, Barr’s chairman.
As a condition of approval, Barr agreed to track whether pharmacists are enforcing the age restriction, by, among other things, sending anonymous shoppers to buy Plan B. The FDA said that Barr is to conduct that formal tracking at least twice in the first year of sales and annually thereafter, and report stores that break the rules to their state pharmacy licensing boards.
Let’s get this straight, people: underage girls should not be having abortions or taking medications without parental consent! I find it appalling that the drug manufacturer is going to press ahead with letting teenie boppers make that kind of decision without their parents’ input. Barr should shut the hell up and be thankful he got the approval that he did, savor the victory, and leave 16-year-olds the hell alone.
Sidebar: this is great news for perverts like Scott Ritter, who can now purchase Plan B for any 16-year-olds he may fear having impregnated!
From San Jose:
The city of San Jose agreed to pay nearly $800,000 to the Hells Angels motorcycle club to settle claims police needlessly killed three dogs during raids on club members’ homes.
Ninety officers participated in the raids on the club’s San Jose headquarters and nine members’ homes following a 1997 killing at a strip club.
Steve Tausan, a bouncer and Hells Angels member, was later acquitted of murder and none of the bikers whose homes were targeted was ever charged.
In a lawsuit, the club claimed the dogs were killed after police refused to give owners and caretakers a chance to secure the animals.
“We sincerely hope the city will engage in changes to its policy and training to make sure that this doesn’t happen again,” said Karen Snell, one of the club’s lawyers, after the settlement was announced Tuesday.
San Jose City Attorney Rick Doyle said the city was forced to settle because an appeals court ruled shooting the dogs violated constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
“Given the totality of the circumstances and the court’s decision, it’s a decision we can live with,” Doyle said.
I mean, I understand how people can get attached to their dogs. But $800,000 for three dogs? That’s $266,666.67 per dog! I knew b#tches could be expensive, but I had no idea!
Not political, but entertaining, this should be filed under “stuff I couldn’t make up if I tried”, OK? From FNC:
“Congratulations, you’re 30,” she can handle.
“Congratulations, you’re 30 and you’re still not getting any action,” was more than she could stand.
An impending birthday has caused many a rational person to do something a little out of the ordinary. Some people buy a sports car. Others get themselves a significantly younger significant other. Sarah DiMuro decided she needs to get it on — for the first time ever.
DiMuro, a self-proclaimed 29-year-old virgin, says she wants to lose her virginity before her 30th birthday on Nov. 7, and she’s enlisted Jane magazine to aid her in her quest to get busy, the New York Daily News reports.
“I’m a little bit anxious about all of this,” DiMuro said. “I guess this is why my stomach hurts so much. I never went all the way before because I didn’t feel right — I just didn’t.”
Has she been stuck in a time warp? I mean, “went all the way”? I don’t think I’ve heard it put that way since The Breakfast Club…21 years ago! Anywho, continuing:
Once DiMuro, who says she didn’t have her first kiss until she was 23, decided what needed to be … uh … done, she arranged to have her blog detailing her blind dating quest to snag Mr. Right Now published in Jane.
But her mission to do the deed attracted the attention of more than just the magazine and its readers.
“The Insider” had arranged to have a camera crew at her first blind date, and rumor has it that “Today” expressed interest in her spicy story.
“Me, I haven’t done so much with my life in terms of social stuff. So this is my adventure — with a kind of scientific method,” DiMuro said.
I’ve seen her picture, though I don’t feel like linking to it, so if you’re that curious, Google her name and you’ll find it. She’s not bad looking at all.
For fear of alienating the Harem, I shall keep my juvenile observations and comments to myself…but just this once! LOL!
Of course, suggestions for new/edited terms are welcome and will be duly considered.
From Rudy Giuliani:
Rudy Giuliani took a swipe at a potential rival for the White House in 2008, Sen. Hillary Clinton, saying a Clinton candidacy would energize Republican voters and campaign contributors.
“Hillary probably has the distinction of being the best fund-raiser for the Democratic Party – and the best fund-raiser for the Republican Party,” the former New York City mayor declared.
Your humble host’s blog has been mentioned (along with some heavy hitters) on CBS News’ Blogophile segment. I am honored that Ms. McNamara was kind enough to link to my post about Mikie the Hutt’s propaganda video being used by bloodlusting camel jockeys (affectionately known by al-Reuters as “militants” and “insurgents”) in Iraq.
Thanks again to CBS News for the link…much appreciated!
From the Beeb:
A previously unknown militant (sic) group has released a video of two Western journalists who were kidnapped in the Gaza Strip nine days ago.
Olaf Wiig, 36, and Steve Centanni, 60, of US channel Fox News, were shown telling their families they were in “fairly good health”.
A fax from the “Holy Jihad Brigades” to news agencies demanded the US release “Muslim prisoners” within 72 hours.
The video was sent to the Qatar-based TV news channel al-Jazeera TV. (Boy, the jihadists sure feel comfy enough to send correspondence to their contacts at the “independent” and “unbiased” al-Jazeera Terrorvision Network, don’t they? – Ed.)
The two men were kidnapped in Gaza City on 14 August. The footage shows the two men seated on the ground side-by-side and cross-legged, in an apparently darkened room, dressed in tracksuits.
Call for pressure
“We’re in fairly good condition, we’re alive and well,” Mr Centanni, a US citizen and a Fox News reporter, says in the video.
“Just want to let you know I’m here and alive and give my love to my family and friends and ask you to do anything you can to try to help us get out of here.”
He adds that the two men have been given access to clean water, showers, toilets, food and clothing.
Mr Wiig, a cameraman from New Zealand, asks his family and supporters to apply pressure for their release on the Palestinian government in Gaza and the West Bank.
“To my family, I love you all. Please don’t worry, I’ll do all the worrying for us,” Mr Wiig says.
The group also issued pictures of the journalists’ identity cards, and, in a separate statement faxed to news agencies, called for a prisoner release within three days.
“We will give you one chance that will not be repeated – the liberation of Muslims detained in American prisons in exchange for the detainees in our hands,” the statement read.
“We give you a deadline of 72 hours starting from today at noon to decide.”
The group did not say what would happen to the two journalists if the US did not meet their demand.
“If you implement our conditions we will implement our promise, otherwise you will have to wait,” the statement said.
“The group did not say what would happen to the two journalists if the US did not meet their demand”? If history is any indicator, they will be decapitated on video, and the tape will wind up in the hands of…you guessed it…al-Jazeera.
For some recent leftist commenters here: these are the savages you think we should be negotiating with, gentlemen!
From the New York Slimes:
The federal judge who ruled last week that President Bush’s eavesdropping program was unconstitutional is a trustee and an officer of a group that has given at least $125,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan, a watchdog group said Tuesday.
The group, Judicial Watch, a conservative organization here that found the connection, said the link posed a possible conflict for the judge, Anna Taylor Diggs, and called for further investigation.
“The system relies on judges to exercise good judgment, and we need more information and more explanation about what the court’s involvement was in support of the A.C.L.U.,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which gained attention in the 1990’s for ethics accusations against President Bill Clinton.
Two observations here:
1. If this isn’t a gross conflict of interest by Judge Taylor, then I’m a ham sandwich; and
2. Notice how the Slimes calls Judicial Watch a “conservative organization”? Whenever Judicial Watch sues or goes after a Republican target, the MSM suddenly extends them credibility by referring to them as a nonpartisan “watchdog group.” Yet let the target of JW be a leftist, and they magically morph back into a partisan “conservative organization.” Proof here. Nope, no liberal media bias! Or, in the case of the Detroit Free Press, just pull a John Kerry and characterize JW as both conservative AND nonpartisan.
Questions about a possible conflict of interest appear likely to raise new concerns. The Web site for the group that supported the A.C.L.U., the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan in Detroit, lists Judge Taylor as its secretary and a trustee. It indicates that trustees make all financing decisions for the organization, whose assets exceed $350 million and which gives grants for a variety of community projects.
Judge Taylor declined to comment on the matter on Tuesday, and the foundation did not respond to a message for comment on what role if any she had in awarding the civil liberties grants.
Federal law requires judges to disqualify themselves from hearing a case if their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” based on factors like a financial or personal relationship with a party in the case.
“Reasonably” be questioned? Well, to paraphrase the master of word parsing Bill Clinton, I suppose it depends on what the meaning of the word “reasonably” is. Observe:
Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal ethics at New York University, said he did not think there were grounds for Judge Taylor to remove herself from the case.
“The question is whether her impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’’ Professor Gillers said, “and the fact that she sits on the board of a group that gives money to the plaintiff for an otherwise unrelated endeavor would not in my mind raise reasonable questions about her partiality on the issue of warrantless wiretapping.”
But he said it would have been wise for Judge Taylor to disclose the issue to the participants in the case. “If there’s any doubt,” Professor Gillers said, “disclose, because it avoids suspicion later.”
Wow…just, wow! “The fact that she sits on the board of a group that gives money to the plaintiff” means that questioning her partiality is unreasonable?? Amazing. But if it is “unreasonable” to think she may be partial to a plaintiff that she raises money for, then why does this pinhead professor think she should have disclosed anything? I mean, she didn’t do anything wrong or “unreasonable”, right?
All this means is that Judge Taylor’s activist ruling will be overturned sooner rather than later, and now there are multiple grounds on which the overturning can be based. Given this woman’s track record of conflicts of interest and unethical behavior, one has to wonder why she hasn’t been removed from the bench yet.
By the way, if you want to read the whole NYT story (you sadistic bastards! LOL!) but don’t want to register with the Slimes just to read it, remember to use BugMeNot.
Judge Taylor showing her handiwork…
Some people have no freakin’ lives. From Newsmax:
Pornographic movies now seem nearly as pervasive in America’s hotel rooms as tiny shampoo bottles, and the lodging industry shows little concern as conservative activists rev up a protest campaign aimed at triggering a federal crackdown.
A coalition of 13 conservative groups — including the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America — took out full-page ads in some editions of USA Today earlier this month urging the Justice Department and FBI to investigate whether some of the pay-per-view movies widely available in hotels violate federal and state obscenity laws.
“These are places that you take your family — these are respectable institutions,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “Anything that brings porn into the mainstream is a concern. It just desensitizes people.”
Precise statistics on in-room adult entertainment are hard to come by. By some estimates, adult movies are available in roughly 40 percent of the nation’s hotels, representing more than 1.5 million rooms. Industry analysts suggest that these adult offerings generate 60 to 80 percent of total in-room entertainment revenue — several hundred million dollars a year.
Both Kathy Shepard of Hilton and Roger Conner of Marriott said the bulk of their hotels are operated by franchise-holders who make their own decisions about in-room programming. They made clear, however, that their companies consider adult movies to be an acceptable option because they can be ignored or blocked out by guests not wishing to view them.
“Really ultraconservative groups try to target the hotels in their zest to eliminate porn,” Shepard said. “In their zest to have their personal morals prevail, they’re eliminating choice for others.”
Conner said none of the programing offered by Marriott is illegal, and he depicted adult movies as a standard part of today’s hotel business.
“In-room movies are a revenue stream,” he said. “This is a business matter.”
Geez, what is it about the ultra-conservatives that make them obsess about people’s sexual proclivities? To me, this has nothing to do with whether or not adult movies have any redeeming value. This is much simpler than that: porn is, for better or worse, a legal product (provided consenting adults are involved, of course) that hotel patrons (as well as the general public) can watch or ignore at their own choosing, and that hotel owners can choose to carry or not carry. When I go to hotels, I choose not to watch any PPV movies, especially adult movies. If the couple in the room next to me wants to watch it, it’s no skin off my back.
Is adult entertainment a scourge of society, lacking in values and morals? Sure. However, like abortion, it is legal whether anyone likes it or not. Can porn be addictive? Absolutely! But so can cigarettes and alcohol, and I don’t see huge efforts to outright ban those legal activities.
While I have no problem with family values groups letting people know what hotels do not carry adult movies, I have a huge problem with them trying to force all hotels to adhere to their narrow views. As I’ve stated before, we live in a country where people are free to damn their souls to Hell, if they wish.
One year after Hurricane Katrina, the United States remains unprepared for a major natural disaster, and the Bush administration has failed to learn the lessons of that catastrophe, former Federal Emergency Management Agency director Michael Brown said on Tuesday.
Brown led FEMA’s response to Katrina when the storm devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast after making landfall on August 29. It killed 1,339 people and caused $80 billion in damage, making it the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history.
But Brown was forced to resign from the Department of Homeland Security agency amid the disastrously slow government response, just days after President George W. Bush’s infamous accolade, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.”
“Rather than address the systemic problems that existed within the Department of Homeland Security, we’re now addressing superficial things,” Brown told Reuters in a telephone interview from his Boulder, Colorado, office.
“As long as you have those inequities in terms of budget and response and everything else, FEMA will always be the stepchild,” said Brown, who is now a private consultant specializing in disaster management.
Last year Brown was ridiculed as a symbol of government incompetence. But his reputation was enhanced by the release in March of videotapes of Katrina-planning meetings that showed him, engaged and informed, warning Bush about the storm.
So there you have it! The MSM and most in the punditry accused Brown of being a bumbling idiot and supremely underqualified to be the top dawg at FEMA. Yet now, because he has come out swinging against the Bush administration, he is magically transformed into a “disaster management consultant” expert?
Considering that “Brownie” has gotten the MSM and the left (pardon the redundancy) on his side and thus transformed himself from incompetent boob to media darling, and considering that he has suckered clients into paying top dollar for his now-famous “disaster management” skills, it is safe to say that “Brownie” is indeed doing a “heckuva job” these days!
Liberals love to fancy themselves as being “pro-choice”, so long as the choice isn’t related to where your kids go to school, how to spend your own money, how to spend your tax dollars, etc. Well, now in CT, they want to impede your choice of political candidates. From the Washington comPost:
Critics of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman’s independent run to keep his job attacked on two fronts Monday, with one group asking an elections official to throw him out of the Democratic Party and a former rival calling on state officials to keep his name off the November ballot.
Staffers for the senator from Connecticut, who lost the Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, called both efforts dirty politics. The senator filed as an independent candidate a day after the loss, running under the new Connecticut for Lieberman Party.
A group whose members describe themselves as peace activists asked Sharon Ferrucci, Democratic registrar of voters in New Haven, to remove Lieberman from the party, arguing that he cannot be a Democrat while running under another party’s banner.
I don’t have a problem with Joe being removed from the Democratic Party, since he isn’t running as a Democrat anymore. If he’s running in a new party, whether an established third party or a new one, the fact is that while he may be philosophically a Democrat, he’s not a technical Democrat anymore.
But getting him removed from the ballot? What could possibly be the reasoning behind that maneuver?
Lieberman, popular among Republicans and unaffiliated voters, led Lamont by 12 percentage points in a recent statewide poll, with Republican Alan Schlesinger far behind.
I see. So the rationale behind preventing ALL voters in CT to have another electoral choice isn’t based in principle, but on a profound fear of losing! Thanks for the clarification.
John Orman, a Democrat who gave up a challenge to Lieberman last year, argued in complaints filed with the state Monday that the senator should be kept off the Nov. 7 ballot.
Orman, a Fairfield University professor of political science, accused Lieberman of creating “a fake political party” and added: “He’s doing anything he can to get his name on the ballot.”
As opposed to the more scrupulous Orman, who’s doing anything he can to keep Joe’s name off the ballot? I’m not familiar with CT state law, so I don’t know what possible grounds Orman could argue that a candidate who has collected the required signatures by the required deadline for appearing on the ballot should be excluded…the comPost doesn’t tell us. I am, however, familiar with Dems’ contempt for the electoral process when it’s politically advantageous for them to be so contemptuous.
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett