December 2005 Archives

LB, TB, and the kids wish all of you a very merry Christmas.

The oil-for-food scandal is really getting to Kofi Annan as he vapor locks at a year-end news conference:

The usually unruffled U.N. chief castigated what he called unfair media coverage of his role and that of his son's in the now-defunct U.N. oil-for-food humanitarian program in Iraq.

He scolded James Bone of the Times of London for saying, "Your own version of events don't really make sense."

Annan responded: "I think you're being very cheeky. Listen James Bone, you've been behaving like an overgrown schoolboy in this room for many, many months and years. You are an embarrassment to your colleagues and to your profession. Please stop misbehaving and please let's move on to a serious subject."

Funny, most of us think the media didn't cover it enough.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein again grabbed center stage at his mass murder trial Wednesday with claims that Americans beat and "tortured" him and other defendants while in detention.

The deposed leader's lengthy complaint came after witnesses graphically described how their captors administered electric shocks and used molten plastic to rip the skin off prisoners in a crackdown following an assassination attempt against Saddam in 1982.

I wonder if the left is going to come to his defence over this?

After sitting quietly through several hours of testimony, Saddam launched into an extended monologue, saying he'd been beaten "everywhere on my body. The marks are still there." He did not display any marks.

"I want to say here, yes, we have been beaten by the Americans and we have been tortured," Saddam told the court before gesturing toward his seven co-defendants, "one by one."

Really (chuckle), folks, we should (snicker) launch (snort) an investigation (giggle). Right away (chortle).

Nancy issued this statement today:

"When I learned that the National Security Agency had been authorized to conduct the activities that President Bush referred to in his December 17 radio address, I expressed my strong concerns in a classified letter to the Administration and later verbally.

"Today, in an effort to shed light on my concerns, I requested that the director of National Intelligence quickly declassify my letter and the Administration's response to it and make them both available to the public.

"The president must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people. That intelligence, however, must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation to protect the American people and our freedoms."

Of course, terrorists need good intel, too. And if Nancy and Howie have their way, they'll get it.

Careful how closely you follow Howard, Nancy. If he stops suddenly...

The anti-Wal-Mart croud has had a mostly free ride in the press - along with a lot of help from liberal activists and politicians. Almost every time Wal-Mart is mentioned in the news, they are painted as the anti-christ of the corporate world. And Wal-Mart is hampered in their ability to respond, since it's a public relations issue for them - as a rule, businesses are understandably reluctant to take an aggressive stand on issues involving labor unions.

So it interested me when I saw this press release:

Community Leaders Form 'Working Families for Wal-Mart'

A diverse group of community leaders today formed the steering committee of Working Families for Wal-Mart -- an organization dedicated to talking about Wal-Mart's positive contributions and making sure working families benefit from the consumer savings and job opportunities that the company offers in communities all across America.

Their website is pretty new and has little more than bios of the steering committee and this mission statement:

Working Families for Wal-Mart is committed to fostering open and honest dialogue with elected officials, opinion makers and community leaders that conveys the positive contributions of Wal-Mart to working families.

We believe that Wal-Mart provides value to its customers, to its associates and to the communities it serves.

They give a phone number as well. Being the curious type, I called to ask about 40 or 50 questions, but got voice mail instead. Bummer.

It will be interesting to see how this new bunch fits into the debate. If they are effective, it will certainly tax the resources of the union. Considering that there are still no unionized stores after all the expense and effort thus far, this can't be good news for wakeupwalmart and their leftist supporters.

On the other hand, anything that keeps this guy busy and off the roads is probably a good thing.

after this illuminating op/ed by Joel Mowbray in the Washington Times. He's apparently received one of the union group's communications detailing plans for the Ft. Lauderdale protest:

Inside a South Florida Wal-Mart last Thursday, union-sponsored protesters handed out empty, gift-wrapped boxes to children and made them cry, according to multiple witnesses -- and it appears that the arrests of two of the protesters may have been part of a grand strategy designed by Big Labor-backed WakeUpWalMart.com.

Yet despite internal WakeUpWalMart.com communication -- obtained exclusively by this columnist -- indicating that the union-funded front instructed its protesters to test police patience, the organization is now playing the race card since the two protesters arrested (out of 15 total) are both black.

You'll recall that I mentioned the race accusations in a previous post. But Mr. Mowbray add a new element - instructions from above to push the envelope of police patience, in front of the cameras, for the purpose of provoking an incident:

In an internal WakeUpWalMart.com PowerPoint presentation that lays out a 10-part timeline for attacking the retailer from late October through the end of the year, the ninth step -- which is supposed to take place between Dec. 14 and Dec. 19 -- calls for activists to place "Santa Claus in front of WMT stores with children asking for health care and signs." Beneath that, though, it reads: "they can't arrest Santa -- and if they do, make sure the press is there."

Mr. Mowbray poses the theory that the protesters mistakenly went too far, and this seems to be a good read of the situation. But it appears that the rest was planned. Getting arrested is a favorite and time-honored protest ploy.

Here's the way it appears to have happened:

The four protesters entered the store and started distributing their union pamphlets and their vocal views to the employees and the customers (in other words, disrupting business), all planned and executed knowing that it was illegal to do so, in hopes of getting the police called out. This also included passing out the "presents", or rather, empty boxes, to employees (planned) and the customers (likely unplanned, probably straying from the script due to the excitement of the moment). When the police arrived they would incite the police into an embarrasing photo-op in true protest tradition.

Their plan went south when the manager refused to take the bait, instead hustling them out of the store with only his staff to assist instead of the headline generating police that they craved.

Perhaps they felt the push to the manager, in their desperation to salvage something from the day, was the only way to get the police called to the store. Regardless, it backfired. The cops interviewed a few bystanders and simply arrested the two protesters - not because they were black, but because they were the ones who did the pushing. And all the posturing by wakeupwalmart's Paul Blank is an obligatory attempt at butt-covering, and making lemonade from an event that obviously went sour.

After getting caught in this lie, wakeupwalmart should issue an apology to the store employees, the public, and the police for the false assertions in their statements.

One would hope that the press would view further statements from the union with a jaundiced eye in the future.

I knew Howie couldn't stay sidelined for long - and the NSA flap was just too tempting for him to ignore:

I got a spamogram from the DNC today (click to view). In it, Dean is asking for signatures to a FOIA request for - oh, I think I'll let him say it:

"According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.

"I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released..."

So parts of a secret program is illegally leaked to the press, and Dean thinks that more of it should be made available to our enemies?

What a maroon....

Of course I've been following the story - Michelle Malkin, as usual, has been an invaluable addition to the news feeds and television reporting. I've stayed out of posting on it, with the exception of this about the reason for the sudden urgency at the New York Times.

It's not that I'm disinterested. Far from it. But I'm not a lawyer, or a constitutional scholar. I'm just a humble teacher. And the conversation very quickly centered on the legal aspects of the issue, and little else. So I've held back.

Now, the talking heads are starting to repeat themselves, and the media is turning to the more emotional aspects of the story. Case in point, Barbara Boxer's inquiry of legal scholars about whether the President has committed an impeachable offense:

"On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today."

"...Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible."

I'm not going to fisk this, even though she deserves it. Others will no doubt do so. No, I only quoted Sen. Boxer to illustrate the tone that I expect to spead over the next few weeks as the Dems take up their limp, non-violent swords over this, the latest battle cry from the BDS afflicted. Maybe I'll dismantle it later. Right now, I'm writing this to express my view.

It's mentioned frequently by politicians and pundits that we live in a nation of laws. Although it's stupid of them to repeat this so much (most other nations have laws too), it's also true. Laws represent boundaries - much the same as the fence that many of you had to restrict your movements as a toddler, or the edge of your yard (along with your Mother's voice) if you had no fence.

It appears from the discussions on the talking head circuit that there are indeed some gray areas here. If the President exploits those gray areas to further the mission of national security, I'm for it.

As the President of the United States, I expect George Bush to respect and follow our laws. But as the man responsible for protecting our country (which includes my family), I expect him to be bold enough to test the absolute limits of those laws. Bush gets no award for being a shrinking violet in my view. I expect him to walk all the way to the edge of the yard, not slow down or stop when 5 or 10 feet away. If there are gray areas, I expect him to occasionally stick his toes over that gray area - if it saves American lives, it's worth the risk.

Actually, I don't expect it. I demand it. There's just too much at stake.

As for the gray areas - If the laws weren't sufficiently clear, the President doesn't deserve impeachment for testing them. Rather than arbitrarily draw a fresh line where politicians and scholars alike couldn't agree on before, then apply it to the President after the fact, Congress needs to take a look at the ambiguity of it's own product. And take corrective action.

And as for those who have known about this for months, took no action, and now express shock over the President's "illegal" actions (like Reid, Rockefeller, Pelosi, etc.)- I'm sure there's a legal term for someone who witnesses a "crime" and does nothing (which would have continued had their inaction not been exposed). If they want to press the issue, I hope someone makes room for them in the hearing schedule. At the low altitude table.

Once again, AP/Yahoo gives us a glimpse into their hearts:

Presidential Christmas Message

The article is fine. But look at the inappropriate and unflattering photo they companioned to the story:

No class at all.

Note: The photo (from AFP) was taken at yesterday's presser.

Photo by Miss Yasmina

Via Reuters/Yahoo:

Dark chocolate may cut heart disease risk: study

LONDON (Reuters) - A few squares of dark chocolate every day might cut the risk of serious heart disease by helping to stave off the hardening of arteries, according to a study published on Tuesday.

Researchers from University Hospital in Zurich studied 20 male smokers, who are at greater risk of hardening arteries characteristic of coronary heart disease, to see the effects of dark and white chocolate on arterial blood flow.

The group, who were asked to abstain from eating foods rich in antioxidants for 24 hours, were given 40 grams (2 ounces) of chocolate to eat.

After two hours, ultrasound scans revealed that dark chocolate -- made up of 74 percent cocoa solids -- significantly improved the smoothness of arterial flow, whilst white chocolate, with four percent cocoa, had no effect, the study published in Heart magazine said.

The researchers, who said further studies were needed, suggested that the possible benefits arose from the antioxidants in dark chocolate.

"Only a small daily treat of dark chocolate may substantially increase the amount of antioxidant intake and beneficially affect vascular health," they said.

Sheesh. Like I needed an excuse....

That's what the organizer of this crime spree involving drunks in Santa suits calls it:

WELLINGTON (Reuters) - Forty drunken Santas rampaged through central Auckland, stealing from stores and assaulting security guards, the New Zealand Herald reported on Sunday, in a protest against the commercialization of Christmas.

Police said some of the Santas threw beer bottles, one tried to climb the mooring rope of a cruise ship and a security guard was punched during the fracas.

"They came in, said 'Merry Christmas' and then helped themselves," convenience store staff member Changa Manakynda told the Herald, which reported the Santas also attacked a Christmas tree.

The ringleader apparently warned about this in advance:

The event organizer, Alex Dyer, had warned the antics would only stop when someone was arrested, said the Herald, which linked the incident to "Santarchy."

Santarchy (www.santarchy.com) and online encyclopedia wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) record protests going back around 10 years in the United States, with participants marking Christmas in anti-commercial manner involving street theater, pranks and public drunkenness.

Virtually everyone agrees that Christmas is too commercial. But most folks don't perform drunken crimes in Santa suits to protest it. I wonder how many kids saw them, and what effect did it have?

Also, they may not be able to punish all of them for their vandalism and theft, since the police line-up is going to be a joke:

Police said identification was a key issue as they tried to sort out which of the 40 men and women had done what.

"With a number of people dressed in the same outfit, it was difficult for any witnesses to confirm the identity of who was doing what," Senior Sergeant Matt Rogers told Reuters.

The sad thing is that this kind of behavior won't make Christmas any less commercial. Instead, it just puts negative images in the media about Santa at a time when children are paying close attention. Doesn't anyone think anymore?

Last night the President made yet another forceful speech. I especially liked the way he framed the choice as victory or defeat. This is the proper way to view it – there’s no gray area here.

What I didn’t like was the way Bush took responsibility for the war. Not that he shouldn’t – he is the President, and as such should take responsibility. But the way he framed it was entirely wrong, exposing a disturbing memory loss in the White House. Glenn Reynolds wrote:

Why did he do that? Because he thinks we're winning, and he wants credit. By November 2006, and especially November 2008, he thinks that'll be obvious, and he wants to lay down his marker now on what he believed -- and what the other side did. That's my guess, anyway.

That may very well be, but I still feel it was a grave error to frame the decision for the war around WMDs alone. This simply shores up the false accusations of the left. And it’s exactly why Sen. Reid is applauding the President’s candor, even though it's nothing of the sort.

Bush should have reminded the public that there were many more reasons for going to war in Iraq. And he should have done by using the text of the resolution that gave him the authority to do so.

The Democrats have framed WMDs as the sole reason for far too long. The administration should be getting more specific in answering the left’s increasingly disingenuous and shrill rhetoric, not pandering to it.

For other opinions, try here.

Via AP/Yahoo:

"This Congress has done very little oversight," Reid, D-Nev., said on "Fox News Sunday." "There should be an investigation and hearings."

Reid acknowledged that he was briefed by the administration about the surveillance program "a couple of months ago."

Of course, when he learned about this a couple of months ago, he asked for hearings then. Didn't he?

From AP/Yahoo comes this misleading gem:

Cheney Visits Iraq; Attacks Kill 19

Of course, the minority of surfers who actually read the story will realize that Cheney isn't behind the deaths.

From Al-Reuters/Yahoo:

You've got mail, and maybe gonorrhea

E-mail sent through Web sites launched in Los Angeles and San Francisco is providing people with a free, sometimes anonymous, way to tell their casual sex partners they might have picked up more than they bargained for.

The website is called inSPOT and is funded by the San Francisco Department of Public Health. There's another in Los Angeles as well.

Now I do recognize that folks need to be notified if they might have caught some dread disease. And as much as I feel that folks should take responsibility for their own actions, I can see that some folks simply won't. And this might have been a good idea, if the ecards weren't tasteless and easy to abuse (click to enlarge):

I predict these will start showing up as joke emails in so many inboxes that they'll have to pull the sites down.

And in case you're speculating, no - I didn't send one to Glenn Reynolds as a joke, or even as a cheap attempt to garner an instalanche. That would be - well, tasteless.

To go from this:

To this:

Shows that Cindy's acting skills are improving. I bet she's taken lessons. Maybe she'll get her own TV show next year.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

In the ongoing war between Wal-Mart and the Unions, things are heating up:

Deputies arrest two in Wal-Mart protest

The head of a South Florida labor-rights group was arrested on assault charges Thursday after about 20 protesters clashed with a Wal-Mart manager outside the retail giant's store in North Lauderdale.

Alyce E. Gowdy (pictured left), 30, who runs South Florida Jobs with Justice, and Jean A. Janvier (pictured right), 41, were arrested during a protest against Wal-Mart's labor practices. Some of the demonstrators were dressed as Santa and his elves.

Someone called 911 after one of the protesters pushed the store manager, according to the Broward Sheriff's Office. Deputies arrived at 3:24 p.m. at the store at 7300 W. McNab Rd. and took Gowdy and Janvier into custody.

Now the interesting thing about this incident isn't the scuffle. It's the diversity of the two sides' stories shilled to the press. Here's WakeUpWalMart's story:

Contrary to the myths put out by Bob McAdam, a former Tobacco spokesman, what actually occurred, based on over 10 witnesses in and out of the store, was that four of our supporters, one of whom was a 13 year-old child dressed in an elf costume, entered the Wal-Mart to make the manager aware of Wal-Mart's terrible health care record.

Note that they went inside the store - a union protesting no-no.

According to all who entered the Wal-Mart store, at no time did a single customer react negatively to our group, nor did any child cry. Wal-Mart statements to the contrary are false and manufactured lies. At all times, our supporters were respectful and polite to all. In fact, the truth is that many customers were shocked to learn about Wal-Mart's poor health care record.

"According to all who entered the Wal-Mart store..." it appears that they're referring only to the four protesters. Why no independant witnesses? And the reference to customers being "shocked". When you enter a business and start discouraging customers, you're inhibiting the operation of that business. A no-no for anyone. And I would have to say that "shocked" is indeed a negative reaction.

The manager then said he did not care about our health care concerns and asked the group to leave. The group said to the manager they would leave immediately - and did.

As the four supporters exited the Wal-Mart, the manager and his security personnel became hostile to the outside group and then pushed two of our supporters. In fact, contrary to misstatements by Wal-Mart's Bob McAdam, our supporters were peaceful and respectful inside and outside the store. In contrast, the Wal-Mart manager and security personnel not only unfairly targeted two of the group, but the manager became hostile, aggressive, and Wal-Mart personnel actually were the ones to push and shove the two African-American supporters.

Again, all who witnessed the event, including a Reverend and professor, state the event and actions by our supporters were peaceful - both inside and outside the store.

"including a Reverend and professor" - The Reverend is Reverend Dr. Lucy Hitchcock Seck of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Miami (pictured left). Here's a sample of her work:

"The whole Iraq mess is scary not only because we, the people, the Congress, the United Nations, the Brits, were duped into going to war unnecessarily, but because our elected officials will still not become transparent, but issue statements that are crazy-making. We live in a Halloween house of spooks and mirrors. What wraith will jump out at us next? And each wraith is re-imaged, and distorted and impossible to catch as it bounces from one teller or observer to the next. In the Nike case before the courts, it is being determined if false advertising can be legitimated as free speech. That is, which is the higher value before the law honesty or the free speech that allows false advertising? On NPR this week, I heard some earnest government spokeswoman's cover-up of our President's subterfuge regarding what he knew before going to war and wondered if she knew the truth herself or if she had just bought so much party line, had been fed so much propaganda, that the truth was lost forever."

Sounds more like BDS than religion. Here's another sample:

"I am thankful for Kurt Vonnegut whose real religious practice, as I see it, is to speak out against injustice and foma or lies. He helps us to overcome despair with a cat's cradle, “a pulling of the strings of our life back together” again and again. Perhaps there is “no damned cat, no damned cradle,” no God, no Heaven, but he reminds us there are “Houses of Hope and Mercy in the Jungle.” There are Albert Schweitzers. "

Somehow I don't picture her flock muttering "amen" and "praise the Lord" or even something in Latin or Arabic very much.

Anyway, her statement starts with "A group of us were taking part in WakeUpWalMart.com's 'All I Want for Christmas is Health Care for Mommy' campaign." Anyway, she's a player, and definitely has a dog in the fight. Not the first choice for a credible witness. Even the religious credentials are somewhat shaky - the Unitarian Universalist Association looks more like a magnet for left-wing political activism than a religion.

How about the professor? That would be Bruce Nissen (pictured left), whose statement starts with "We were peacefully handing out literature to customers." Oops. Another player. And the credentials don't help here, either. And a side note for anyone putting together professor bios on college web sites - Avoid using the word "scholarly" repeatedly, as in "He has published seven scholarly books", and "Dr. Nissen is also the author of 20 scholarly articles in books and in journals". It's redundant, and gives the appearance that you're trying to convince someone - and will likely have the opposite effect.

So if the witnesses are not credible, what do they have left? Well, there's the language of the "witness" statements. Each has two common themes - the first is best done by showing examples:

That they can't separate their political message from their statements about the alleged assault speaks volumes. Also, doesn't this kind of sound a little like Eddie Haskell from Leave It To Beaver and other characters from the 50's and 60s, answering charges of wrong-doing by starting out, "well, I was on my way to help out the sick and elderly when suddenly..."

The second theme is more odious. Here's a few quotes:

"target two African-Americans for arrest"

"unfairly targeted two African Americans"

"they targeted two African Americans"

And here's a sentence from Lucy Hitchcock Seck to tie it all together:

I can only hope Wal-Mart will acknowledge its profound mistake and explain why two citizens were apparently racially profiled by Wal-Mart.

I think the direction taken here is obvious. And to cap it off, the press release includes an ad hominem attack on a Wal-Mart employee:

"Contrary to the myths put out by Bob McAdam, a former Tobacco spokesman..."

"...instead of thinking about new ways to use a former Tobacco spokesman who only specializes in misleading the American people."

Okay - in one corner, we have the union bunch from United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (that's the WakeUpWalMart bunch above). In the other corner, we have Wal-Mart, with a statement on their web site:

“Unfortunately, this union leader campaign stunt went too far,” said Bob McAdam, vice president for corporate communications at Wal-Mart (pictured right). “Union demonstrators dressed as Santa and his elves entered a Wal-Mart and began presenting some of the children in the store with wrapped boxes. The children became excited and started saying things like, ‘Let me have the big one.’ But when the children opened the boxes, they found that the boxes were empty. Needless to say, the children were upset and some began crying.

“When asked to leave, the demonstrators became argumentative. They claimed that they had permission from the Wal-Mart home office to demonstrate, but, in fact, they did not. Soon the demonstrators began pushing and shoving Wal-Mart associates. The Broward County Sheriff’s office was alerted and deputies arrested two demonstrators for battery and gave fifteen other demonstrators trespassing warnings."

You probably think I'm gonna go easy on Bob, but I'm not. First, bringing the "children crying" meme adds nothing to the overall story, and is included just to elicit emotion.

"Pushing and shoving Wal-Mart associates" is somewhat of a stretch compared to the news account ("Someone called 911 after one of the protesters pushed the store manager").

And this last paragraph is noteworthy enough to quote in its entirety:

“The Washington, D.C.-union leader campaign is failing. With sales up 4.3% last month and 10 million people visiting our stores in just the first six hours of Black Friday, the union leadership is resorting to desperate and divisive attacks. The American people are becoming increasingly incensed by the nature of this campaign and are still wondering why the union leadership is obsessed with attacking a company that creates jobs and provides affordable health insurance to working families.”

If Bob really wants the protesters to go away, taunting them isn't going to help. And in a statement about an alleged assault, it's definitely out of place.

It's curious that Wal-Mart, famous for the number of video cameras in and around their stores, hasn't released any security video of the incident. Or perhaps the police took the tapes for evidence. Still, if I were that manager, I would be pressing to get the tape on the six o'clock news. Wouldn't you?

So who's telling the truth here? I think, even with the posturing by Mr. McAdam, Wal-Mart probably has the upper hand for believability. One would have to presume that the Broward County Sherriff's Deputies would ask a few uninterested bystanders what happened, and probably review any relevant security tapes.

In the end, we may never find out the truth. My prediction is that Wal-Mart will drop the charges to spare itself the accompanying publicity. But as the union's war against Wal-Mart gets increasingly emotional, I expect this won't be the last incident.

By the way, if you want more analysis of the politics of the union vs. Wal-Mart soap opera, Starling Hunter at The Business of America is Business has a number of very good posts. Try here, here, and here for a start, but check out the rest of his blog as well - some good stuff there.

Update 12/19/05 7:19 PM: Commenter Amy asks: "Did they, or did they not, hand out empty presents to children?" Well, you ask, we deliver. According to the Ft Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel:

Kali Zervos, membership director of South Florida Jobs with Justice and a Thursday afternoon protester, said four people went into the store and handed out the gift-wrapped boxes: Santa, an elf and two activists. The boxes were given to employees and the manager, not children, she said.

As I said before, why no uninterested witnesses? The two stories are sooo far apart.... And again, I still have to award higher believability to Wal-Mart overall. If these union stooges gave empty presents to my kids, I'd have a lawyer already.

If only they would put so much effort into illegal immigration and drug interdiction:

Mexican Park Rangers Protect Butterflies

SIERRA CHINCUA, Mexico - With assault rifles over their shoulders and body armor strapped to their chests, Roberto Paleo and his 17 officers are among the world's most heavily armed park rangers. Yet they guard one of nature's most delicate creatures — the monarch butterfly.

The rangers say they need the weapons to protect the winter nesting grounds of millions of orange and black winged butterflies from armed gangs of illegal loggers in the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve.

Loggers in this country have a reputation for being rough and rugged. But they pale in comparison to the loggeristas:

In 2003, a group of 100 loggers armed with shotguns and machetes held three park rangers hostage for six hours while they chopped down trees.

"These loggers are heavily armed, organized groups who are sometimes linked to drug traffickers," said environmentalist Homero Aridjis, a Michoacan native who has been campaigning to protect the monarchs for three decades.

TB and I lived in a northern Texas town for a few years that was on the Monarch migration path, the tree next to our house attracted thousands of butterflies every year. Very pretty, but they kept us up all night with their wild parties. Still, that's a minor inconvenience next to the prospect of a hundred armed loggers.

Sigh. Soooo glad to be an American.

about domestic spying has Drudge and others speculating that the 11 month delay (or rather, the ending of the delay) in publishing is timed to coincide with James Risen's book (Due out Jan 06). I think the reason is somewhat more ominous than a bunch of journalists trying to make a buck. No, the reason is nothing short of trying to influence the Senate - and it worked, too:

Senate Rejects Extension of Patriot Act

But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.

This makes much more sense to me - it the timing was to support the book, I think they would have waited until a few days prior to the release, when it could have had the most effect.

As far as the Patriot Act goes, I've always been kind of a fence rider. Although I recognise the need for such powers to fight terrorism, I'm not sure where to draw the line between homeland security and individual rights. Perhaps it's drawn where it should be, but I'd be a lot happier if there were severe penalties spelled out for any that abuse it. That said, I would still be on the fence even if there had been wide-spread abuse from law enforcement. There will always be the chance for abuse due to the inescapable fact that humans are involved.

Next week should be busy as the pros & cons in the Senate duke it out.

A reader emailed me asking how I knew the Schmidt photograph was photoshopped to add the black warts. Well, if you don't believe me, believe the Ohio DNC. Here's the billboard (click for larger view):

And here's the full-page ad using the very same photograph (click for larger view):

Here's a closeup of the black spots:

Now, does anyone think they photoshopped the full-page version to improve Jean's appearance? I didn't think so.

I had already mentioned in a previous post how it's probable that the original picture wasn't black and white - even if it was, it was crudely adjusted to make the photo unreal and harsh. And thanks to someone scewing up at the Ohio DNC (using a pre-black spot picture for the full-page ad), we now have proof that the original billboard had the black spots puposefully added.

You know, when your ideas have merit, you don't have to go to all this trouble. Which is why I expect the DNC to continue the use of this tactic.

And again, I'm not defending what Rep. Schmidt said and apologized for. But she doesn't deserve this. Photoshopping a person's image to elicit a negative reaction is dishonest and infantile.

Previous posts:
Dems continue attacks on Schmidt
Lamar offered compromise, DNC refused
An interesting twist
All that begging - Wasted!
Dean: "Brother, can you spare a dime?"

The Ohio DNC couldn't get their disgusting billboard past Lamar. But they're continuing with rolling billboards and full page ads:

On Thursday, Dec. 15, Ohio State Representative and Iraq War veteran John Boccieri, Cincinnati-area veterans, and Ohio Democrats will participate in a news conference unveiling new Democratic National Committee (DNC) advertisements aimed at holding Republican Congresswoman Jean Schmidt accountable for her attacks on veterans.

Amazing how they'll exploit servicemen to achieve their goals, when all they normally show them is contempt:

Boccieri, a major in the Air Force Reserve and a C-130 pilot who served four tours of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, will join Ohio Democratic Party Communications Director Brian Rothenberg, and local veterans in unveiling a new mobile billboard and ads in local newspapers and popular internet sites.

Disgusting and pathetic. Schmidt didn't attack veterans - she attacked the coward Murtha. And she apologized for it. But that doesn't stop Ohio DNC from showing a wraith-like photoshopped image of her, complete with black warts:

I'll try to get the full page ads as soon as they're available.

Two weeks ago, I posted about Sen. Dorgan's dirty hands in the Abramoff scandal and how it affects his role in the investigation. Here's the latest via AP

Sen. Dorgan Returns Tribes' Donations

WASHINGTON - The top Democrat on the Senate committee investigating Jack Abramoff's Indian lobbying is returning $67,000 in donations in response to Associated Press reports that he collected tribal money around the time he took actions favorable to those of Abramoff clients.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., said Tuesday that while he never met Abramoff and didn't take any actions at the lobbyist's behest, he nonetheless wants to return the money to avoid any appearance that tribal money was directed to him by the controversial lobbyist.

"Even though those contributions were legal and fully reported as required by law, I will not knowingly keep even one dollar in contributions if there is even a remote possibility that they could have been the result of any action Mr. Abramoff might have taken," the senator said.

A question for Sen. Dorgan - if all the other politicians give their donations back, does that give them a pass in your investigation? After all, what's good for the goose...

A bill passed the Senate last month for a new themed coin program:

WASHINGTON - New dollar coins featuring all 37 of the nation's dead presidents will begin rolling out of the U.S. Mint in 2007 under a bill Congress is sending to President Bush.

Lawmakers hope the coins — and an accompanying $10 gold piece for collectors featuring former first ladies — will be a big money raiser for the government like the 50-state quarter program. They also hope the dollar pieces will rev up interest in the Sacagawea dollars, which have been little-used.

But halfway into the article, this pops up:

The front of the coins would depict former presidents, but not those who are living or have been dead for less than two years, and the backs would show the Statue of Liberty.

Only one former President has died in the last two years - Ronald Reagan in June of 2004.

Why the slight, congress? What the hell were you thinking?

via AP/Yahoo:

Iran Leader Reiterates Holocaust Doubts

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reiterated his doubt about the Holocaust and called on Muslim nations to take a proactive stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, state media reported Tuesday.

The president's comments, published on Iranian state television's Web site, were the second time in a week he has expressed doubt about the Nazi genocide of Jews during World War II. In October, Ahmadinejad also said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

"If the killing of Jews in Europe is true," the Web site quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a speech at an Islamic conference in Tehran, "and the Zionists are being supported because of this excuse, why should the Palestinian nation pay the price?"

You really have to wonder what his game is. Of course, this kind of speech is popular among his citizens, but last time he said this stuff, the rest of his government had to backpedal like crazy to the international media after widespread criticism. And this certainly doesn't help those that support their desire to build a nuclear bomb nuclear power plant. This is going to be a further embarrassment for Russia.

It will be interesting indeed to monitor reaction from the rest of the world as this progresses.

Other coverage: Yahoo/AFP, Reuters, Al Jazeera

The Democrats feel they have found the proper "framing" of their message, hoping it will get them back into power:

Democrats Test Themes for `06 and `08

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. - To hear Democrats tell it, an anxious and isolated public craves a sense of national community and would galvanize behind a leader who asks people to sacrifice for the greater good. John Edwards says he's that leader.

Wait a minute, so does Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. Ditto for Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.

Edwards, Vilsack and Warner, all likely presidential candidates in 2008, are toying with the same lofty community-and-purpose message. And that says as much about the sour mood of the country as it does about the state of the Democratic Party.

Wonder if anyone will notice that this is the same Democratic Party that has obstructed and undermined every single step the current administration has taken? And done so not out of committment to "community-and-purpose", but instead for cheap partisan politics? Will anyone take stock of what the Democrats have sacrificed for "the greater good" in the last five years?

How rich. If this is the best they can come up with, I say bring it on.

is again on display in Iraq as voting begins:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Voting began Monday in hospitals, military camps and even prisons across Iraq, launching the process to choose a new parliament that the United States hopes can help quell the insurgency so U.S. forces can begin heading home.

The woman pictured at right voted today in a Baghdad hospital.

Although most of the 15 million eligible voters will cast ballots Thursday, soldiers, police, hospital patients and prisoners not yet convicted of crimes can vote Monday.

No amount of defeatist rhetoric from the left can mask the truth that Iraqis are indeed taking charge of their own future. Even as the media puts their darkest spin on the election, this woman shows us the truth - Iraqis are more determined to succeed than any on the left would care to admit.

And yet Howard Dean and other leaders on the left call for surrender and retreat - a cynical dishonesty of spirit that leaves one breathless when contrasted with the truth pictured here.

Can't win? By many measures, we've already won, Howard. The choice now is between maintaining that victory or shattering it.

In London, Euromoonbats continue to fawn over Cindy Sheehan. Now they're turning her into the Princess of Pathetic Plays:

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, who won wide attention with a vigil outside President George W. Bush's ranch in the name of her soldier son killed in Iraq, is the subject of a new play by Nobel laureate Dario Fo.

"Peace Mom" received its world premiere in London on Saturday night, starring British actress Frances de la Tour, with both Sheehan and Italian dramatist Fo in the audience.

The one-woman show is based on extracts from Sheehan's letters to Bush and other writings. De la Tour delivered the monologues beneath large pictures of Sheehan's son Casey and a tank in the Iraqi desert in front of a plume of fire.

"Frances did such an amazing job of conveying my feelings of anger and betrayal," a tearful Sheehan said after the play.

I'm assuming this was classified as a comedy. If the name Frances de la Tour (pictured to the right) sounds familiar, it is. She plays the giant headmistress Madame Maxime in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Additionally, the play is going on tour:

The play was rushed into production to conclude a day-long conference of activists opposed to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, with de la Tour reading some passages from a script.

Fo, the leftist playwright who won the 1997 Nobel Prize for Literature, said his wife and artistic partner Franca Rame would star in a longer final version of the play in Italy.

I guess he has a knack for fiction. By the way, one of Fo's websites is creepy.. And here's another website of his where apparently, he's running for mayor of Milano. And if you're curious what kind of it takes to win a Nobel prize for literature, here's a sample of his "work" from 2004:

Dario Fo’s new play has aroused not only ire but a lawsuit. The Nobel Prize winner’s latest, The Two-Headed Anomaly, pokes fun at Italian premiere Silvio Berlusconi, with Fo himself playing the prime minister and Fo’s wife, Franca Rame, playing Veronica Lario (Berlusconi’s wife).

In the play, Berlusconi is visited by Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who gets shot by Chechen rebels, and part of Putin’s brain is put into the Italian’s head. The result is a vodka-drinking, confused drunk worried about men trapped in a submarine.

What a good choice to write a play about a demented moonbat. And to top it off, here's an excerpt from his bio in Columbia Encyclopedia:

A long-time member of the Communist party (he was denied entry into the United States in the early 1980s), Fo has often been critical of the policies of the Roman Catholic church, which has termed some of his plays blasphemous. Forceful, wittily anarchic, and often disturbing, his work was impeded by Italian censorship before 1962. In 1968, Fo and his wife, actress Franca Rame, with whom he has frequently collaborated in writing and acting, began presenting plays on contemporary issues. The most famous of these is Accidental Death of an Anarchist (1970), a farce about the alleged suicide of an anarchist in police custody. Among his more than 70 other plays are Mistero Buffo (1969), Can't Pay, Won't Pay (1974), The Pope and the Witch (1989), and The Devil with Boobs (1997). Fo was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1997.

Say it isn't so! Cindy being canonized by a communist? I wonder where we've seen that before...

Shawn A. Cox, that is.

If you'll recall, He's the one who jumped the White House fence last Monday. Turns out he was not after President Bush:

Chelsea Clinton, not any current occupants of the White House, was the preoccupation of an Arkansas man arrested after he jumped over a fence onto the grounds of the executive mansion at Washington, according to a preliminary psychological assessment.

A court-ordered report from the District of Columbia Department of Mental Health said Shawn Cox, 29, of Mammoth Spring believed that Chelsea Clinton still lived at the White House, and that he was destined to marry her.

Clinton is the daughter of former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and lived at the White House during her father's two terms as president, 1993-2001.

Cox was arrested Sunday at the White House by the Secret Service, which provides protection for presidents and their families, after scaling the fence separating the mansion's north lawn from public sidewalks. A judge sent him to St. Elizabeth's Hospital, which provides mental-health services to D.C. residents, for a month of evaluation before a scheduled Jan. 6 court appearance.

Robert Benedetti, a licensed clinical psychologist, said in a report filed with the court that Cox appeared "grossly psychotic and manic." The report said Cox told Benedetti that he had been hospitalized in Arkansas several years ago.

Cox told Benedetti his head was a "cell phone implanted by Jesus," the report said.

"He insisted that Chelsea Clinton was in the White House as well as President Bush and described how former President Bill Clinton had told him that (Cox) was 'going to marry my daughter' when he had met him in Arkansas," Benedetti wrote.

Cox is a possible danger to himself and others, the report said, and should be closely monitored.

I'm guessing that he probably won't see the outside of a padded room for quite some time.

Cindy Sheehan on her soapbox son, Casey, from an interview in the Guardian:

"His recruiter told him that even if there was a war, he would never see combat because he had scored so high in the entrance exam - he'd only be in a support role," says Cindy.

Obviously she feels that all those in combat roles are dimwits. I guess she didn't see this.

Also, she needs a massage:

The non-stop campaigning has taken its toll, she says, and Cindy feels in need of a good massage: "I really feel I'm carrying the whole world on my shoulders," she says.

Any combat soldiers want to help her out? I didn't think so.

Hat tip Little Green Footballs

over at All Things Beautiful has served up one of her best posts ever. A must read.

For a political blog, All Things Beautiful is a rarety. The imagery, sometimes whimsical, sometimes dark and disturbing, are a treat for both eye and mind. The writing is direct and well organized, and clearly Alexandra's opinions never suffer from a lack of passion. Either would be an attraction alone, but her unique blending of the two is simply electric.

That's why we recommend that you rush right over to the Weblog Awards site and vote for All Things Beautiful in the "Best New Blog" category.

You still here? What are you waiting for? GO!

Thanks to reading about it at lots of blogs, I knew all about the new GOP ad featuring Howard Dean's committment to surrender and defeat. But I couldn't watch it at work, and had to wait until now.

I think Polipundit, as he often does, sums it up quite nicely.

Cell Phones Are Disrupting Family Life

In my last position, my employer gave me a cell phone. I got calls day and night, weekends and holidays. Now, it's much better.

But cell phones have been good for us as well. TB and I each have one, and we subscribe to a family plan. We communicate better than ever since we don't have to save everything up and try to blurt it all out to each other at once toward the end of the day. And if something is happening with the kids, I can be reached anywhere.

TB adds: While the convenience the cell phone has brought us is wonderful, the dark side of cell phones - loud people using them in theaters, restaurants, etc, drivers wandering all over the road while yakking - just goes to highlight the fact that we're becoming less considerate as a society. I'm not sure it's a good trade.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BEIJING - Armed with guns and shields, hundreds of riot police sealed off a southern Chinese village after fatally shooting demonstrators and searched for the protest organizers, villagers said Friday.

Reports say up to 10 dead and 20 wounded. This is going to bring up much of the same reaction as the Tiananmen Square shootings in '89, and more tension between the US and China can't be helpful to the situations in North Korea and Taiwan.

Update: Gateway Pundit has lots more. Apparently it was 20 that died.

Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan pens a very good piece on the importation of drugs from Canada.

She's written on this topic before, and is still right on the mark about why it won't work.

Please read.

for good cheer, and Iowahawk serves up a barrel full in "POLL: 61% BACK TORTURE OF HOWARD DEAN".

As a side note:

Isn't it interesting that during the Christmas season, the leader of the party who counts among it's membership the people who would do away with the holiday becomes a surrogate for the usual Christmas traditions, at once delivering presents and answering prayers for Republicans?

Just keeps raging on. Now they're having candlelight vigils:

"The candlelight vigil is part of the "Light A Candle for Change" campaign launched by WakeUpWalMart.com, America's leading campaign to change Wal-Mart."

Sheesh.

So far, I've only seen press releases for 8 stores to get this treatment. Maybe if they had done this during warmer weather?

Note to the hate Wal-Mart crowd: No sense wasting you're whole evening, folks. As long as you're there, why not drop a few bucks into the kettle? It would be a good move - think of how good it would feel to help someone who wants and needs your help, rather than pretend to help folks who don't want or need it in order to make your union bigger and more powerful.

Bill Clinton took some time out of his undoubtedly busy schedule today to give a surprise speech at the U.N. climate conference:

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton told a global audience of diplomats and environmentalists Friday that the Bush administration is "flat wrong" in claiming that reducing greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming would hurt the U.S. economy.

Naturally, he's just continuing the tradition start by Jimmy Carter of former Democratic presidents going to other countries to undermine and bash Republican presidents.

In the meantime, Canadian PM Paul Martin is under fire for inviting Clinton to help his campaign:

Prime Minister Paul Martin flatly denied Friday trying to boost his electoral fortunes by wooing the popular Bill Clinton and antagonizing the unpopular George W. Bush.

Martin also rejected suggestions he was trying to score political points when he criticized Bush's environmental policies earlier this week.

Of course not. Politicians never criticize other politicians for political gain, right?

yet again today. Sorry folks, but Real Life^TM has been keeping me busier than usual. Shame, too - Lots of stuff happening in the news.

I'll try to sneak some catch-up posts in this evening if possible. In the meantime, hope you all enjoy your Friday!

I have enabled TypeKey for commenting. The reason is an excess of ad hominem attacks in comments, and authentication allows me a little more control in moderating comments.

I want DGITL to be open for folks to discuss, argue, agree, disagree, whatever. But personal attacks I won't tolerate. Authentification allows me to ban those who won't be civil. I'm not trying to suppress anyone's views, just trying to keep an environment where views can be expressed without infantile mud-slinging and personal attacks.

I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

By the way - I'd like your comments on whether I should keep the offending posts or delete them. I lean toward delete, but I know what kind of accusations that brings. So give me your advice, please.

Via AP/Yahoo:

A passenger who claimed to have a bomb in a carry-on bag was shot and killed by a federal air marshal Wednesday on a jetway to an American Airlines plane that had arrived from Colombia, officials said. No bomb was found in the bag, a U.S. official said.

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Doyle said the dead man was a 44-year-old U.S. citizen. It was the first time since the Sept. 11 attacks that an air marshal had shot at anyone, he said.

The Air Marshall service doesn't have a reputation for being trigger-happy - quite the opposite. I hope the press gives 'em the benefit of the doubt until some facts start coming in from the investigation.

Via U.S. Newswire:

On December 8, 2005, members of the Japanese Parliament along with the Japanese based League of Citizen Organizations Opposed to the Deployment of a Nuclear-powered Aircraft Carrier at Yokosuka, will hold a Press Conference at the National Press Club, voicing joint opposition against the recent proposal to base nuclear-powered submarines at Yokosuka Port in Japan just 35 miles from Tokyo’s 30 million people. Peace Action will be hosting the Japanese mission while they are in Washington.

"As the only country to face the devastation of American nuclear weapons, Japan understands all too well the nuclear danger. The proposal to make Japan the only country in the world where the Pentagon home-ports a nuclear carrier outside the U.S. shows incredible insensitivity and callousness by the Pentagon towards the Japanese. We should not force a nuclear powered warship on a people that do not wish to host it. A home port should be welcoming, not hostile," said Kevin Martin, Executive Director of Peace Action.

Here's what they're all up in arms about, from a DOD press release dated 02 Dec 05:

The U.S. Navy announced today that the USS George Washington will replace the USS Kitty Hawk as the forward deployed aircraft carrier in the western Pacific and will arrive in Yokosuka, Japan, in 2008.

This rotation is part of the Navy’s long-range effort to routinely replace older ships assigned to the Navy’s forward deployed naval forces with newer or more capable platforms.

Note to Peace Action - a nuclear power plant isn't the same as a nuclear weapon. Also - Japan has nuclear power plants. It's nothing they haven't seen before, with the possible exception of Peace Action's rabid anti-Americanism.

By Peace Action's reasoning, Japan should be boycotting American made Xray machines since a) they're used on aircraft carriers and b) they're NUCLEAR! Oh horrors!

And I strongly suspect that they didn't wait 5 days to announce this protest because they're slow typists. Just in case you've forgotten, today is the 64th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. What motivated them to cynically pick today for their announcement is anybody's guess. But I can't accept that it was a coincidence.

Thanks for raining a little anti-Americanism down on our veterans, Peace Action. What an absolutely crass way to to soil a day of rememberance.

For a little more, here's a good article from Stars & Stripes.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The trial of Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants was adjourned Wednesday until Dec. 21 after a truncated session that the ousted president refused to attend.

After two prosecution witnesses described beatings and torture by the regime, Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin adjourned the proceedings and said the court would reconvene Dec. 21, six days after national elections.

In the meantime, Saddam will just have to suffer the terrorism of infrequent showers, incomplete wardrobes, and nicotine withdrawal.

Castro is channeling Richard Simmons:

Jeb Bush 'Honored' by Castro's Jab

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday that he was "honored" Cuban President Fidel Castro had referred to him as President Bush's "fat little brother in Florida."

Castro insists he only had Jeb's welfare at heart:

In his speech, Castro insisted his comment was intended as constructive criticism.

"Forgive me for using the term `fat little brother,'" the Cuban leader said, according to a transcript obtained by The Miami Herald. "It is not a criticism, rather a suggestion that he do some exercises and go on a diet, don't you think? I'm doing this for the gentleman's health."

You just can't make this stuff up.

From a press release by the Florida Democratic Party:

"With the President's latest PR campaign clearly failing, Republicans like Jeff Miller are now cherry-picking Governor Dean's words just like they cherry-picked the pre-war intelligence."

Hmm. Let's see what Jeff Miller said, shall we?

“Yesterday, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee said our troops can’t win in Iraq. Howard Dean effectively signaled to insurgents and terrorists everywhere that his party was ready to wave the white flag in the War on Terror.

For the sake of political gains, Dean’s Party has chosen to trivialize the sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made in Iraq. His Party has gone from attacking the liberation of Iraq, to attacking the Bush Administration, to attacking the Armed Services of this country and saying they cannot win.

Howard Dean’s comments were a direct attack on the morale of our military and border on treasonous.

Regardless of your opinions on Iraq, it is wrong to attack the capabilities of our military for the purposes of political gain. I call on Mr. Dean to resign as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.”

Just as a reminder, this is what Rep. Miller supposedly "cherry-picked":

"Iraq is a catastrophe for America and Americans will leave, it will only be a matter of time.

"I say to Bush: You entered Iraq with lies, you will lose Iraq and lie about it and you will leave with the pretext that you have completed your mission ... America only has to decide on the number of (troops) it wishes to lose before withdrawing."

Oops - I'm sorry. That was Al Zawahri. Maybe it was:

"...Iraq can not be won militarily."

Oops - Sorry again. That was Mothra. Here it is:

"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha"

Sorry again - that was Nancy Pelosi. Lets try again:

the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Maybe the Florida Dems are right - Rep. Miller did cherry-pick. But Miller wasn't incorrect, just incomplete. It was wrong for him to paint Dean's remarks as out of step with the rest of the party - increasingly, it's becoming the unified party message. A message of defeatism, surrender, and hopelessness.

Via Yahoo/Al-Reuters, Al Qaeda's number two guy is insisting that Osama Bin Ladin is still in charge:

"I bring a message of joy to all Muslims and mujahideen that al Qaeda is spreading, expanding and strengthening. Its prince Sheikh Osama bin Laden is still leading its jihad (holy war)," he said in a video interview aired on an Islamist Web site.

It's getting increasingly difficult to determine who is writing the talking points, and who is simply repeating them, as Al Zawahri appears to be channeling Howard Dean:

Zawahri said the United States had suffered a defeat in Iraq and it was only a matter of time before it pulled out its troops.

"Iraq is a catastrophe for America and Americans will leave, it will only be a matter of time.

"I say to Bush: You entered Iraq with lies, you will lose Iraq and lie about it and you will leave with the pretext that you have completed your mission ... America only has to decide on the number of (troops) it wishes to lose before withdrawing."

I hope Howard is proud of himself.

Updated: Klause corrects me - Al Zawahri's statement does indeed pre-date Howard's. Thanks, Klause - good catch!

The point is still valid, though. And it's been pointed out by others, many times, the uncanny similarity between the talking points of the left and the rhetoric of the terrorists. Howard really needs to pull his head out and ask himself if he really wants to throw in with a bunch of murderous thugs before he opens his mouth.

Yesterday Saddam Hussein vowed not to return to the trial. Today, he's apparently making good on that promise:

Trial Delayed As Saddam Refuses to Attend

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein's trial was delayed Wednesday after the ousted president refused to attend the session, court officials said. Defense lawyers huddled with the judges in hopes of resolving the latest test of wills in the often-unruly trial.

They can continue without him, of course, but are seemingly reluctant to do so:

Court officials on Wednesday said Saddam was sticking by his vow, and the judges were trying to decide whether to proceed without him.

If the differences cannot be resolved, an official said the court might hold a closed session to search for solutions.

I say continue, and stick a closed-circuit monitor in his cell. The added bonus being that the court can continue without all of his arrogant outbursts.

Update (8:00 AM EST) Looks like they're pressing on without him. Good.

Welcome Pajama People! Feel free to look around while you're here!

The Anchoress is seeking votes for the Weblog Awards, and she's pulling out all the stops:

"How about if I tell you a funny story about my birth parents, as it was relayed to me?"

Anchoress, as you once told me - "relax". I haven't voted yet today.

How 'bout the rest of you voting for the Anchoress for best conservative blog? Please?

Also, DIGTL recommends All Things Beautiful for Best New Blog.

Oops, almost forgot the disclaimer:
This ad was paid for by the DGITL Weblog Award PAC. DGITL Weblog Award PAC is not afilliated with any candidate.

No matter how you support the terrorists, it's still support.

Whether you support them directly by undermining our nation's mission in Iraq.

Or indirectly by supporting others who give aid and comfort to our enemies.

It's still support. And there's a special phrase just for the kind of anti-American sub-human Howard has proven himself to be. But I promised not to use it here.

H/T Michelle Malkin, who has a terrific roundup of opinion on this.

Update: Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert weighs in:

"We should all be grateful that Governor Dean is not General Dean. Rather than standing by our troops who are fighting the War on Terror, Howard Dean has made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender.

"This type of rhetoric for political gain is irresponsible. But even worse, it sends the wrong message to our troops who are fighting terrorism on the front lines and to the millions of Iraqis who are days away from another landmark accomplishment in their march towards freedom. We must take the fight to the terrorists in Iraq, rather than fight them here. I urge Governor Dean and the Democratic party to put away their negative and harmful political rhetoric."

Well said, Mr Speaker.

Update 2: RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman being interviewed on the same radio station that Howard Dean used as a urinal yesterday (emphasis mine):

"It's fairly extraordinary. I can't remember any time in history where the leader of a national party, one of our 2 national parties, predicted that America would lose a war we were engaged in. I think it sends the wrong message to our troops, the wrong message to the enemy, the wrong message to the Iraqi people just 10 days before the election."

"...You think about it, this isn't anything new. Just this past weekend on Sunday, John Kerry talked about American troops engaged in terroristic and other activity, terrorizing kids and children. He talked about we've already seen Nancy Pelosi embrace a retreat and defeat strategy...you have the Democratic nominee in '04, Democratic national chairman, lead Democrat in the House, have all now come out embrace a retreat and defeat strategy while our country is at war."

Host: "Well I actually asked him about that. I mean, I think that Murtha is the one that started it. Nancy Pelosi is now agreeing with it, that we should have these troops, and they're using the word redeployed within 6 months. Howard Dean won't go there. He says he wants it to happen within 2 years. So, if anything, the Democrats seem to be undecided about, you know, about agreeing on a time frame here. And do you think that it's wrong from its get-go to have any sort of a time frame at all or should there be?"

Ken Mehlman: "...here's why a time frame is a mistake.... If you tell the enemy when you're going to stop fighting, then the enemy knows when it needs to hold out (UI). If you want the Iraqi people to risk their lives, run for office (UI) vote in this election (UI) 10 days and do the things they're doing, if they know that after a given period, they're going to be abandoned to Zarqawi, they're much less likely to do it. You want the enemy to understand that there is no alternative but to air their grievances at the political process, then obviously, again, giving them a time frame is a mistake. Imagine if we had said to Hitler in 1942 that in 2 years we're going to pull out of Europe. Hitler would not have been, would not have ended his war. Hitler would not have surrendered. Germany would not have surrendered."

"It is always a mistake when you're fighting an implacable foe tell them the point at which you're going to stop fighting."

---

Ken Mehlman: "But think about it. Why would (UI) national party say America can't win a war while its troops are engaged in that war?"...

---

Host: "Well I think what's interesting also to add here, Ken, is that John Kerry also came out after the President's speech the other day and what he said was we don't want to redeploy; we don't want to get the troops; we just want to have a time frame for victory. So, again, in the Democratic party itself, there are varying answers. I want to throw this at you because Howard Dean brought this up yesterday, that 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out. And I asked him what is the source of that? Who exactly did the survey? Who did the poll and who exactly did they ask? And he didn't have an answer. Have you seen this poll that shows that 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out?"

Ken Mehlman: "No, not at all. I've seen polling that shows something very different, in fact, and that is that Iraqis increasingly understand and believe that they need (UI) their country is heading in the right, not the wrong, direction. They're optimistic about the future in a way they haven't been. ... Fundamentally it comes down to this. Do you believe this (UI) in the war on terror is victory versus defeat has a huge consequence for American security? Answer is unquestionably yes."

Or at least that's the take of Francisco Pinto Balsemao, head of the European Publishers Council:

European publishers warned Tuesday that they cannot keep allowing Internet search engines such as Google Inc. to make money from their content.

"The new models of Google and others reverse the traditional permission-based copyright model of content trading that we have built up over the years," said Francisco Pinto Balsemao, the head of the European Publishers Council, in prepared remarks for a speech at a Brussels conference.

His stance backs French news agency AFP which is suing Google for pulling together photos and story excerpts from thousands of news Web sites.

"It is fascinating to see how these companies 'help themselves' to copyright-protected material, build up their own business models around what they have collected, and parasitically, earn advertising revenue off the back of other people's content," he said.

Think about this very carefully. How many bloggers use the same stories and also advertise on their blogs? Yes, I know the numbers are different, and most bloggers don't make much. But it's somewhat chilling to consider what the major news organizations potentially have in their toolbox should they deem it necessary.

Oh, and by the way - I got this story from Yahoo/Associated Press.

What a bizarre twist from one of the biggest terrorist supporters of all time.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein shouted at the court Tuesday that he will not return "to an unjust court" when it convenes for the fifth session the following day. As the court deliberated whether to reconvene Wednesday, Saddam shouted: "Are you deliberately hauling defendants before the trial when they are exhausted?"

Saddam also complained he had no fresh clothes and had been deprived of shower and exercise facilities.

"This is terrorism," he said

When Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin said that the session would continue Wednesday, Saddam, shouted: "I will not return. I will not come to an unjust court! Go to Hell"

At that point, the audio was cut off to the media gallery and the curtain drawn so that reporters could not tell what transpired afterward.

Honestly, I don't who he thinks he's going to convince with that routine.

Excerpts from Nancy Pelosi's press release on the President's speech today:

"As he spoke before a group of working Americans, the President touted his tax cuts for the wealthy few..."

"Democrats stand united to build an America that works for everyone, not just the wealthy few."

Nearly every time the economy comes up, Nancy and her pals spout the same tired lines about "tax cuts for the wealthy. It's dishonest. I'll say it again. It's dishonest.

Nancy, lets talk about principles you and the Democrats claim to understand - fairness and equality. I'm going to put it graphically as well so that anyone can understand. It's not about the dollar amounts of the tax cut - it's the percentage of income that people pay. Any other measure is a gross distortion. And dishonest.

After taxes, this is what a dollar looks like to a couple making $12,000:

After taxes, this is what a dollar looks like to a couple making $40,000:

After taxes, this is what a dollar looks like to a couple making $100,000:

After taxes, this is what a dollar looks like to a couple making $200,000:

After taxes, this is what a dollar looks like to a couple making $350,000:

And don't forget about the Alternative Minimum Tax - 26% and 28%. Everybody plays.

Listen up, Nancy. You'll achieve fairness and equality when an earned dollar looks exactly the same to each and every singe American. And until you start caring about fairness and equality, take your class warfare crap elsewhere.

About a week ago, I posted about the scandalous Wikipedia post claiming the John Seigenthaler was a suspected assasin. John had written a blistering editorial in USA Today about it, and apparently it resonated - at least a little:

SAN FRANCISCO - Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows anyone to contribute articles, is tightening its rules for submitting entries following the disclosure that it ran a piece falsely implicating a man in the Kennedy assassinations.

Wikipedia will now require users to register before they can create articles, Jimmy Wales, founder of the St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Web site, said Monday.

The change comes less than a week after John Seigenthaler Sr., who was Robert Kennedy's administrative assistant in the early 1960s, wrote an op-ed article revealing that Wikipedia had run a biography claiming Seigenthaler had been suspected in the assassinations of the former Attorney General and his brother, President John F. Kennedy.

While this is a good start, it doesn't go far enough:

Wikipedia visitors will still be able to edit content already posted without registering. It takes 15 to 20 seconds to create an account on the Web site, and an e-mail address is not required.

So let me see if I got it straight. Only a registered user can create an article, but anyone can edit an existing entry without registration? And with no email address required, Wikipedia can't track down who did what in the event of libel? What a sweet deal for Wikipedia - but for no one else. Mr. Seigenthaler has doubts about this "fix" as well:

Seigenthaler said he wasn't convinced the new registration requirement would stop the practice of vandals posting content that is slanderous or knowingly incorrect. Wikipedia will either have to fix the problem or will lose whatever credibility it still has, he said.

"The marketplace of ideas ultimately will take care of the problem," Seigenthaler said. "In the meantime, what happens to people like me?"

Unfortunately, what started as a seemingly good idea is in need of major repair. Free articles on the Easter Island Heads or the Wright Brother's airplane is what made Wikipedia fun, but credibility requires accountability. And it appears they still have a little bit to go before they have it.

A man named Ahmed Hassan was the feature witness today at the Saddam Hussein trial. Here's some excerpts from his testimony via Al-Reuters:

"I swear by God I walked by a room and on my left I saw a grinder with blood coming out of it and human hair underneath," said 38-year-old Ahmed Hassan, who said he had been kept in room 63 at the Hakmiya intelligence headquarters in Baghdad.

He said Saddam, from the Sunni Arab minority, asked a 15-year-old boy if he knew who he was. "He said 'Saddam'. Then Saddam hit him in the head with an ash tray," Hassan said.

He said it was while he was climbing the stairs there that he saw the meat grinder. "No one escaped torture," he said.

"They would put a mask on my eyes and because I was young it would fall down. I saw women being tortured," he said.

"My brother was given electric shocks while my 77-year-old father watched," Hassan said. "They told us, 'why don't you confess, you will be executed anyway'," he said.

"One man was shot in the leg with two bullets... Some people were crippled because they had their arms and legs broken."

He said they were held in Hakmiya for 70 days. While they were there a woman told a guard that her infant baby needed milk or he would die.

"He died and the guard threw him from the window," Hassan told the court. "Pregnant women gave birth in the prison. Their babies died."

As more comes out in testimony, it's going to be difficult for the rabidly anti-war left to continue to spout the line that Iraq was better off before the war.

that the MoveOn ad showing American families having a miserable Thanksgiving because British troops are "stuck in Iraq" is still on their website. Still no apology, still no retraction, but lots of pride in their handiwork as the ad is still featured on their main page.

But remember, they support the troops.

Al Sharpton was a bright spot for me. Not because of his political views, which are uniformly opposite of mine, but because of his quick wit and good humor throughout the Democratic Primary. His delivery of one-liners was top notch both during the debates and during interviews. And despite my disagreement with his views, I have always felt that Al would probably be great fun to have a conversation with - even if it was a spirited debate.

I guess the folks at CBS noticed as well:

Sharpton, in an interview with Reuters on Friday, confirmed a report in Daily Variety that he would soon be filming a pilot for a family show called "Al in the Family" that would revolve around his larger-than-life personality.

"I don't know if I am a good actor or not but I will be playing myself and I have been practicing that for 51 years," the New York Democrat and civil rights leader said.

CBS has already commissioned a pilot:

A pilot episode for a series would be produced early next year by Paramount Network Television for CBS. Both are units of Viacom Inc.

I hope it's a success. TB and I will probably watch it, too - even though we'll be biting our lips at some of the moonbatty political overtones.

Al may have finally found his calling. Hmmm, wonder who they'll get to play his TV wife? Here's my suggestion:

Wow, this feels like a flashback:

Russia Confirms Sale of Missiles to Iran

Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov didn't give details. But Russian media have said that Moscow agreed in November to sell $1 billion worth of weapons to Iran, including up to 30 Tor-M1 missile systems over the next two years.

"A contract for the delivery of air defense Tor missiles to Iran has indeed been signed," Ivanov was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

Sigh. I guess we're back to fighting the Russians by proxy. Of course, it never really ended, did it?

The trial for Saddam has adjourned until Tuesday. Todays session was marked by repeated outbursts by defendants and the entire defense team walking out of the courtroom for a brief time. In one of Saddam's outbursts, he indicated how well he knows his future:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein told the judge at his trial Monday that "I am not afraid of execution" during an unruly court session in which the first witness took the stand and testified that the former president's agents carried out random arrests, torture and killings.

And he issued a threat to the judge:

At one point, Saddam appeared to threaten the judge, saying: "When the revolution of the heroic Iraq arrives, you will be held accountable."

Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin replied: "This is an insult to the court. We are searching for the truth."

As long as we're there, that revolution will never happen. However, if Pelosi and Mothra get their way...

Now that the defence has had a rant, the trial continues with an actual witness and an ugly exchange:

...the first witness to take the stand, Ahmed Hassan Mohammed, began his testimony. He said that after an assassination attempt on Saddam, security agencies took people of all ages from age 14 to over age 70.

"There were mass arrests. Women and men. Even if a child was 1-day-old they used to tell his parents, 'Bring him with you,"' Mohammed said. He said he was taken to a security center where "I saw bodies of people from Dujail."

"They were martyrs I knew," Mohammed said, giving the name of the nine whose bodies were there.

The first witness earlier exchanged insults with Saddam's half brother, telling him "you killed a 14-year-old boy."

"To hell," the half brother, Ibrahim, replied.

"You and your children go to hell," the witness replied.

The judge then asked them to avoid such exchanges.

"There was random arrests in the streets, all the forces of the (Baath) party, and Thursday became `Judgment Day' and Dujail has become a battle front," the witness said, sometime fighting back tears. "Shootings started and nobody could leave or enter Dujail. At night, intelligence agents arrived headed by Barazan" Ibrahim.

At this point Ibrahim interrupted him, saying that "I am a patriot and I was the head of the intelligence service of Iraq."

As you know, banks are the hot target for reparationists. Currently, there's a case pending in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, Ill. involving J.P. Morgan Chase. Apparently, the reparationists feel their going to lose, and are trying to exert pressure to get the bank to settle:

Students to Boycott Slavery Banks

NEW YORK, Dec. 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Outraged over JP Morgan Chase's refusal to settle a slavery restitution case pending in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, Ill., students, hip hop activists, church leadership, politicians, and reparations organizations are calling a boycott of the company's student loans -- a business worth over $9 billion.

Other targets for reparations have been Wachovia Bank, Fleet Bank, And Bank of America.

This is yet another shakedown in a never ending series of shakedowns. JP Morgan Chase's officers, employees, stockholders, and customers do not own slaves, and their parents and grandparents don't either. But the Restitution Study Group doesn't care about that - if shaking down corporations gets them a few bucks and helps pave the way toward going after the U.S. government (their real goal), punishing innocent people and damaging the economy are, in their twisted view of justice, fair paving stones along the way.

Ironic is that the student loan program they wish to boycott helps many minority students get an education they may not otherwise get. And the companies that Restitution Study Group targets have already made concessions:

Charlotte-based Wachovia Corp. committed an undisclosed sum to support black history education in June, a few days after announcing that two of its predecessor banks owned slaves. Also this year, New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. gave $5 million to support college scholarships for black students in Louisiana, where two of its predecessor banks received thousands of slaves as collateral.

And go here to see what Bank of America has done. Reparations groups, in their unabashed greed, would take away Bank of America's profits and assets, cynically ending the bank's ability to give to such worthy causes as United Negro College Fund, INROADS Inc., Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and many more.

Appeasement never gets the desired result, as illustrated by the current court case even after banks have given generously. It just breeds calls for more appeasement.

Really, folks - for the sake of everyone, it's time for the shakedowns to stop.

Via AP/Yahoo:

Arkansas Man Scales White House Fence

WASHINGTON - A man from Arkansas scaled the fence surrounding the White House Sunday while President Bush was inside and was immediately captured by Secret Service officers.

Secret Service spokesman Jonathan Cherry identified the jumper as Shawn A. Cox. Cherry said Cox was being charged with unlawful entry and was expected to appear Monday in U.S. District Court.

I'm sure we'll hear more as the day goes on. Seems Mr. Cox was already known to the Secret Service:

Cox has previously come to the attention of the Secret Service, Cherry said, but he would not provide details.

Cherry said he did not know where Cox was from in Arkansas or why he wanted to get on the White House grounds. He did not have a weapon, Cherry said.

I'm stumped, too. After all, he looks like such a happy, well-adjusted fellow:

Comb that hair for 30 or 40 minutes and he could pass for a North Carolinian.

Actually, the "moonbat" moniker in the title of this post is conditional, since we really don't know anything about Mr. Cox yet. After all, it could turn out that he's just a mentally ill man suffering from delusions about the legitimacy of the last two elections and the reasons we went to war in Iraq, exacerbated by extreme hatred for George Bush and everything America stands for.

What, you thought there was gonna be a punchline?

I think I may have lost the office pool on how quickly the defence would pull another stunt to delay Saddam Hussein's trial:

Saddam's Defense Team Walks Out of Court

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein's defense team walked out of the courtroom Monday shortly after the former leader's trial resumed because the judge refused to allow former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark to challenge the tribunal's legitimacy in an address to the court.

Yes, that's right - we have world renowned terrorist supporter Ramsey Clark to thank. Frankly, I wish the press would dump the "former U.S. Attorney General" handle. It gives the impression that he's acting as an American, and I think his actions are about as anti-American as it gets.

The trial is supposed to continue with appointed lawyers, though:

Clark said he needed only two minutes to present his argument. But Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin said the tribunal had been established under the law by an elected Iraqi government and that only Saddam's chief lawyer could address the hearing.

Amin said the defense should submit its motion in writing and warned that if the defense walked out then the court would appoint replacement lawyers.

We'll see. The way this has gone so far, I expect a full week's worth of testimony to be completed by June.

Update: From Al-Reuter's version of the story:

In theory, if Saddam's lawyers do not return, the court can appoint its own lawyers to defend him, a move that would likely anger the former president even more.

Well. We wouldn't want to make him mad now, would we? Additionally, it appears that Terrorist Supporter Ramsey Clarke was the architect of today's walk-out stunt:

"I just need two minutes," Clark stood up and told judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin sternly. "If I don't get two minutes we will walk out," the 77-year-old said in his southern drawl.

Moments later, as the court erupted into shouting, Clark looked at Saddam's chief lawyer, Iraqi Khalil al-Dulaimi, and said: "Let's walk out."

Update 2: The AP story linked above has completely changed to this:

Court Reverses Ruling in Saddam Trial

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The court in the Saddam Hussein trial allowed former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and another foreign defense lawyer to address the session Monday, reversing a ruling that had led the defense to walk out.

After a 90-minute recess, Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin allowed Clark and ex-Qatari Justice Minister Najib al-Nueimi to speak on the questions of the legitimacy of the tribunal and safety of the lawyers.

"Reconciliation is essential," Clark told the court. "This trial can divide or heal. Unless it is seen as absolutely fair, and fair in fact, it will divide rather than reconcile Iraq."

At that point the judge reminded Clark that he was to speak only about the security guarantees for the defense lawyers — two of whom have been assassinated since the trial began Oct. 19.

Clark then said all parties were entitled to protection and the measures offered to protect the defense and their families were "absurd." Clark said that without such protection, the judicial system would collapse.

Al-Nueimi then spoke about the legitimacy issue, arguing that court is not independent and was in fact set up under the U.S.-led occupation rather than by a legal Iraqi government. He said the language of the statute was unchanged from that promulgated by the former top U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, and was therefore "illegitimate."

If you don't like the way the trial is going, wait a few minutes...

Welcome, Balanced News Blog readers! Feel free to look around while you're here.

If you can stomache something truly frightening and disgusting, check this out at Bare Knuckle Politics:

Brainwashing 101

Be sure to check out the forum where there are more images and some terrific discussion.

Living in a hopelessly liberal state like Delaware, I hope that this doesn't start showing up in school libraries.

Via Wizbang.

Update (5:33 PM): And the fun starts.

The DNC lied.

For all the posturing of the DNC, turns out we weren't being told the whole story on the Lamar billboard flap. The Cincinnati Post has a tiny little detail that most versions of the AP story and the DNC's press releases left out:

Kilshaw said late Friday that Lamar offered to put up the billboard if the DNC increased the size of a disclaimer saying it had paid for the ad, but the DNC refused.

So Lamar didn't "arbitrarily reject the billboards", but tried to work with them, eh? Kinda takes a little steam out of the "evil Republican supporter" meme of the DNC, doesn't it? Is it possible the DNC chose to pick a fight with a business known to donate to conservatives rather than put up the billboards it solicited funds from members for? Could be. Or maybe the DNC wanted their name small and unreadable to the motorists zipping past the sign and feared the embarrassment from having larger text announcing to the world who's responsible for the smear. Here's the proposed billboard (from the DNC website), you be the judge:

Sorry for the small size, that's what I had to work with. If you put up this billboard, would you want your name associated with it? The picture alone (on an otherwise color billboard) is enough to make you cringe. Here's a larger version showing how the DNC wants folks to see her (note the black spots near nose):

And this is what she normally looks like when the smear merchants aren't giving her the "wicked witch" treatment:

Of course the Dems want to keep their hands clean. And that's why they chose not to cooperate with Lamar, who would have been all too happy to run the billboards with a minor modification. Hal Kilshaw, vice president of government relations for Lamar, says that Lamar is only trying to protect itself - "We do get complaints if billboards are offensive, so we take our responsibility seriously."

I haven't yet found a copy of the original image the DNC used in their ad. If anyone can help, I'd appreciate it. But I suspect the the original lacks the black artifacts around the nose (are those supposed to be warts?).

Out of curiousity, I checked some other news regurgitators to see if they included this apparently unimportant detail:

AP/Yahoo left it out.
Kansas City Star left it out.
Thibodaux Daily Comet left it out.
Cincinnati Channel 5 left it out.
DNC press release left it out.
Lancaster Eagle Gazette left it out.
Chillicothe Gazette left it in.
Canton Repository left it in.
Cleveland Plain Dealer left it out.
Akron Beacon-Journal left it out.
Washington Post left it out.
Seattle Post Intelligencer left it out.
Philadelphia Daily News left it out.

I'm not a statistician, but I can see a pattern here. Never mind the bias behind the curtain, folks.

By the way, the Cincinnati Enquirer deserves kudos - they did their own legwork, and their story is much more complete than the version from AP. Worth a look.

Again, I'm not defending the remarks Rep. Schmidt made (and apologized for) on the house floor. This is more to illustrate some of the left's latest smear tactics - no matter what she said on the house floor, she doesn't deserve a smear campaign full of lies, half truths, and photoshopped pictures. Completely lacking in substantive programs and ideas, this is what the Democrats are left with to get votes. Disgusting.

Had some minor server issues this morning. The good folks at Hosting Matters have it fixed now. Thanks guys!

No real message here - just a picture of a two-headed turtle:

Because you can't have too many multi-headed animals when discussing politics.

Photo by Carlos Drews/WWF via U.S. Newswire Photography.

Linked with:

Don Surber
Conservative Cat
Wizbang
Stop The ACLU
Basil's Blog
Jo's Cafe

that the MoveOn ad showing American families having a miserable Thanksgiving because British troops are "stuck in Iraq" is still on their website. Still no apology, still no retraction, but lots of pride in their handiwork as the ad is still featured on their main page.

But remember, they support the troops.

I posted yesterday on Lamar's refusal to give the Dems billboards that it felt were a "personal attack". Here's the Dems somewhat unusual twist on the situation:

While Lamar's form contract reserves to the company the right to refuse to run a billboard advertisement, Lamar's conduct in this instance raises serious questions about whether the company is unlawfully or improperly using corporate resources to favor or benefit the Republican Party or Rep. Schmidt.

So by refusing to display a personal attack on a political opponent, Lamar is "unlawfully" benefitting Republicans? Neat twist, eh? By the way, I'm not defending Rep. Schmidt's comments on the house floor, but she did apologize and had her unfortunate remaks striken. Yet the Democrat's billboard won't say this. The entire text for the ad:

"Shame on You, Jean Schmidt: Stop Attacking Veterans. Keep Your Eye on the Ball -- We Need a Real Plan for Iraq"

"Stop Attacking" suggests that it has happend more than once, and is still occuring. We know this to be untrue - it was once, and she apologized. So what we have is a classic personal attack - misleading or dishonest verbage combined with the omission of her apology and the striking of her remarks (also known as lying by omission). Yet the Dems would have you believe that they want the public to be informed:

Rep. Schmidt's constituents are entitled to know what she is saying on the floor of the U.S. House and the DNC has a right to tell them.

If that's what they really believe, then they should tell the whole story. Failure to do so is dishonest, and yet again displays why the Democrats don't deserve to regain power ever again.

Via AP/Yahoo:

DETROIT - A former associate in trial attorney Geoffrey Fieger's firm said Friday that he and his wife each gave $2,000 to Democrat John Edwards' 2004 presidential campaign on the promise that they would be reimbursed by the firm.

Fieger is a regular on Fox News - mostly on Greta's On The Record. He's famous for something else, though:

Fieger, best known for defending assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, is running for Michigan attorney general. On Wednesday, FBI and IRS agents raided his offices in suburban Detroit, taking payroll and other financial documents, as well as ticket stubs for an Edwards fund-raiser and other campaign materials.

Now do keep in mind that this is still in the investigative stage - but it doesn't look good for Fieger so far:

Fourteen people listing Fieger's firm as their employer gave money to candidates in the 2004 presidential election. All of them gave to Edwards, according to a search of Political Money Line, a nonpartisan campaign finance tracking system. All of them — including a building manager and a courier supervisor — gave $2,000, the maximum individual contribution allowed in that campaign under federal law.

That's a whole office full of coincidence, isn't it? Probably what attracted them all was Edwards stance on campaign finance reform. Oh, and as a bonus, here's a quote from Geoffrey's statement announcing his current run for attorney general (all caps his idea, not mine):

THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE DESERVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO CAN’T BE BOUGHT AND WHO IS NOT FOR SALE TO CORPORATE MONEY OR CRONYISM.

But being bought or sold by other Democrats - that's different, right?

You remember the fundraising drive the Democrats were having to put up billboards smearing Rep. Jean Schmidt?

At least for now, stopped dead in their tracks:

Company Blocks Ads Critical of Ohio Rep.

Lamar Advertising Co. of Baton Rouge, La., refused to put up two billboards in Portsmouth, Ohio, and another in Cincinnati with a picture of Schmidt and the following message: "Shame on you, Jean Schmidt: Stop attacking veterans. Keep your eye on the ball — we need a real plan for Iraq."

Turns out the folks at Lamar have a conscience:

Lamar's Huntington, W.Va., regional manager, Mark Watts, rejected the billboards criticizing Scmidt as a personal attack, said Hal Kinshaw, Lamar's vice president of governmental affairs.

And the reason they have a conscience? They're not moonbats:

In 2004 elections, it gave Republicans 70 percent of its U.S. House race donations and 60 percent of its U.S. Senate race contributions.

Thank God the folks at Lamar aren't those greedy heartless Republicans the left is always telling us about. They might have placed profits above morals and common sense.

Yahoo's Guide to Giving - a very nice collection of resources about charity. They even have a list (from Business Week) of the top givers:

1. Gordon and Betty Moore ($7.046 billion)
2. Bill and Melinda Gates ($5.458 billion)
3. Warren Buffett ($2.622 billion)
4. George Soros ($2.367 billion)
5. Eli and Edythe Broad ($1.475 billion)
6. James and Virginia Stowers ($1.205 billion)
7. The Walton Family ($1.1 billion)
8. Alfred Mann ($993 million)
9. Michael and Susan Dell ($933 million)

Normally, articles like this have a "top ten" list, I guess whoever number ten is must fall embarrassingly short of the Dells.

I was also surprised Bill Gates was not at the top, probably because the media has covered Bill's Philanthropy so much that I expected it.

What surprised you about the list? Was there someone you would have guessed was on it, but surprised when they didn't make it?

Comments welcome.

that the MoveOn ad depicting British troops and passing them off as American is still on their website.

Had any of you still harbored even the smallest belief that MoveOn's membership really cared about our American troops, the fact that they haven't removed the ad from their site should remove all doubt.

That said, if they were they to remove the ad today, it would be folly to take it as a sign that their hearts have suddenly changed. After all, this was a Thanksgiving ad campaign, and would eventually would be removed anyway. That they've had more than enough time to do the right thing and chose not to do so speaks volumes.

Considering the depth of the hatred and contempt for America and its military seemingly held by the people at MoveOn, I expect we'll see another smear on the troops around Christmas. Let's hope that the general public looks past the lugubrious images of joyless and tearful family gatherings to see how black the heart of the far left really is.

*** Originally posted 2005-12-01 14:44:20, Updated and Bumped 2005-12-02 08:32:00 - see the bottom of the post for details. ***

Sorry about the bloggic vacuum today. My cable modem went down.

Hopefully I'll back up tonight.

In the meantime, why not pay a visit to one of the following fine, non-affiliated blogs? They're each full of bloggy goodness in their own way and well worth a visit - besides, by kissing up to them, maybe they'll occasionally link a post of mine!

Anchoress
Don Surber
Release the Hounds
All Things Beautiful
Below The Beltway

Naturally, anything from the blogrolls on the right would be terrific as well.

Cheers!

Update (02 Dec 05, 8:32 A.M.): My modem problem is fixed - Yay!

Also, the above remark about links was intended as levity, and not a fishing expedition for links. I would like to humbly apologize for my poor choice of words.

The above blogs were recommended because I enjoy visiting them, and I sincerely wished to share that sentiment with you. Any other message caused by my keyboardal diarrheicism was as regrettable as it was unintentional. I will try to do better in the future.