The Bleeding Hasn't Stopped And The 'New Tone' Isn't Helping: It seems like every week brings a new accounting scandal and it's causing the market to free fall...

"The Dow Jones industrials shattered their post-terrorist attack lows Friday in a dramatic 390-point sell-off that began with news of a government investigation at Johnson & Johnson and quickly turned into a full retreat by bruised investors. It was the average's seventh biggest point drop ever, and its lowest close in nearly four years."

Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything Bush has done but the Democrats are desperate for an issue to use in November so they're trying to pin it on him. Yet, because of this new tone garbage, the Republicans haven't mounted any sort of effective counter-attack. Why isn't the party running commercials blaming the Democrats for talking down the stock market? Most of these scandal ridden companies have ties to Democrats that are almost as extensive as their ties to Republicans. So why aren't nailing Christopher Dodd for pushing the legislation that made most of this shifty accounting possible? Why not push the fact that most of these scandals started under the Clinton administration and were shut down under the Bush admin? Then we could play this off damage off as a result of ethical lapses when the Democrats were in charge. There are so many angles we could hit this from but it's ridiculous that we're JUST NOW starting a coordinate a real offensive.

A Little Payback: Since RWN switched over to a blogging format a few months ago, we've had countless pages link us. As a little thank you to some of those websites, I wanted to pay our top referrers of all time back in kind.

Here's the list in descending order...

10) Little Green Footballs
9) Matt Welch
8) C-Log
7) Tim Blair
6) Blog Wars (Has Some Objectionable Content)
5) Vodka Pundit
4) Zfilter
3) Brass Knuckles Webzine
2) Instapundit
1) Fark

Let's Put The Blame Where It Belongs: Israel has a controversial new policy (that I agree with by the way)...

"Opening the door to a tough new policy, Israel's attorney general determined Friday that relatives of West Bank suicide bombers can be expelled to the Gaza Strip if they encouraged or were linked to terror attacks, officials said.

...Deportations could occur "for example, if they encouraged the bomber to join the terrorist organization or even to volunteer for the suicide attack, or were involved in his recruitment," he said.

Palestinian officials and human rights groups denounced the decision and turned to the Israeli Supreme Court to block any expulsions, saying transfer would violate international law forbidding collective punishment and forced deportations."

Now you probably think that it's "mean", "unfair", etc, etc, that Israelis may do this (the entire article for example was loaded with attacks on the policy). But what people ignore is that the Palestinians made the families of terrorists part of the war FIRST. If the Palestinians are going to use huge cash payments to the families of terrorists in order to motivate people to blow themselves up, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with Israelis deporting the families of terrorists to discourage terrorism. The "rules of war" only apply when both sides are willing to abide by them. If the Palestinians make it clear that anything goes and every Israeli from a toddler in a crib to Ariel Sharon is a legit target, then to expect the Israelis to doom more of their people by playing by rules that don't apply is a stunning hypocrisy.

Go Gorebot Go!: This may be good news for George Bush in 2004...

"In a field that included Gore and Joseph I. Lieberman, the former vice president was the choice of 46 percent of all self-described Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.

Lieberman, however, has said he will not run if Gore does. Without Lieberman in the field, Gore's share of the vote increases to 50 percent, with the remaining votes scattered among the rest of the field or undecided."

If Gore couldn't win in 2000 after he'd been the VP for eight years, had a strong economy to run on, and wasn't facing a particularly tough opponent, why does anyone think he'll be able to win 2004? Bush will be MUCH STRONGER in 2004 than he was in 2000. He already has a tax cut, an education bill, and his war accomplishments to run on and he'll have more things to add to his resume by then. Furthermore, he's gone after (with some success) constituency groups that Democrats tend to dominate like Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Unions. Last but not least, the economy is already ratcheting back up and by 2004 it should be roaring again. Unless Bush makes a series of disastrous mistakes in the next couple of years I don't see Gore beating him in 2004.

The Telegraph Chats With Ann Coulter: The Telegraph did a nifty little interview with Ann Coulter for an article and it was a great read. It has some killer Coulter quotes as well as a DEAD SEXY pic in it....

- "Normally, when I write columns I am specifically baiting liberals and I know exactly which line they are going to scream blue murder about."

- "At the moment, she is without a boyfriend; curiously, her last beau happened to be a Muslim. "The relationship was complicated by his interest in committing jihad," she jokes. "I took away his box cutters. At first, I thought he was a terrorist. I just kept on running into this handsome Muslim on the street. He was a fan of mine."

So was he stalking her? "He was, but he was a good-looking stalker. I'd been so looking for one of those."

- "I have the most perfect life imaginable. I sleep till noon. I work in my underwear. I've got no bosses. No one can fire me. I write about whatever I want to write about. I'm happy all the time. Americans like me - real Americans."

She's single, Conservative, incredibly hot, and she works in her underwear all day. She's 'THE' Conservative dream girl...

Lying About The War: Here are just some of the lies the anti-war left has been telling about the war and what the real story is...

This entire war is about oil: Just because the Gulf War was about oil doesn't mean EVERY war is about oil. WW1 and WW2 certainly weren't about oil. Neither was Korea, Vietnam, or the Cold War. Furthermore, it's actually insulting to the almost 3000 people who were killed in the worst terrorist attack in the history of the planet to say that the fact they were murdered isn't a worthwhile reason to go to war. Quite frankly, if 3000 Americans being slaughtered isn't worth going to war over, then nothing is.

This goal of this war keeps changing. First off, it was Osama Bin Laden, then it was the Axis of Evil, and now it's all terrorist supporting nations: I'm quoting GWB from his speech nine days after Sept 20th,

"The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them....And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism...Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Al-Queda is in more than 60 nations! So I guess that means the US is going to go to war with all of them?: If you can't tell the difference between a nation like Singapore that doesn't support terrorism and makes every effort to apprehend terrorists and a nation like Iran or Syria that actively supports, funds, aids, and protects terrorists you are at best ignorant as a fence post and at worst you're intellectually dishonest.

Using the military to fight the war on terrorism is pointless because 'violence will only breed more violence' and an 'eye for the eye makes the whole world blind': I am tempted not even to bother replying to this because anyone with even a passing knowledge of history knows this is obviously not true and example after example throughout history can be given to show that war and the threat of violence has solved more serious disputes between nations than anything else. Here's a Robert Heinlein quote that sums it up, "Naked force has resolved more issues throughout history than any other factor. The popular opinion which says 'violence never solves anything' is wishful thinking at its worst. People who forget that always pay."

The 'War on Terrorism' has been a failure: On the contrary, the 'War on Terrorism" has been a stunning success so far. The Taliban are out of power in Afghanistan and al-Queda is desperately trying to reorganize itself after it's defeat in Afghanistan and it's quite possible that Bin Laden himself is dead. We've also had unprecedented cooperation from previously terrorist friendly nations like Yemen, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, & Pakistan. Furthermore, because so many al-Queda operatives have been captured around the world we've gained massive amounts of intelligence about the al-Queda network. Although we've got a lot of work left to do, things are going very well so far.

The 'Axis of Evil' and terrorist supporting nations aren't a threat to the United States. When you combine the resources of a state with a terrorist organization with global reach, there is a real and present danger to the United States as 9/11 proved. Imagine if al-Queda would have had access to nukes back then. Unless we prosecute this war, we won't have to 'imagine' what that will be like within a few years (if it takes that long) because it'll be reality.

In The Interest Of Fairness: I don't like the fanatical & backwards thugs who run Iran. They're brutally oppressing their own people, supporting terrorism, and need to be replaced by any means necessary. But in the interest of fairness, I do have to say that I approve of this...

"An Iranian man, convicted for raping and killing his 16-year-old nephew, will be executed by being thrown off a cliff in a sack, a newspaper reported on Thursday."

Unfortunately, the Constitution prevents "cruel and unusual punishment" or I'd be totally in favor of giving Moussaoui "the sack" as well.

The Hypocrisy and Ineffectiveness Of The CEO Price Cap: I was reading a Howard Kurtz column about how newspapers don't practice what they preach in regard to accounting practices and one snippet from the article reminded me of a subject I wanted to explore more fully on the page...

"The Chicago Tribune said in a March editorial: "Put stock options on the books. The use of stock options as part of compensation packages has exploded, partly because of the 1993 rule that limited tax deductibility of executive salaries once they exceeded $1 million."

But the Tribune Co. did not count as expenses substantial stock options to its top executives, including Chairman and CEO John Madigan, who received $5.3 million worth of options last year."

This exemplifies what's wrong with so much of what passes for legislation these days. Back in 1993, the Democrats in an effort to exploit the class envy they're always promoting, capped CEO salaries at 1 million dollars. Notice that this only applied to CEOs, not entertainers or trial lawyers who tend to contribute to and promote the Democratic party. Moreover, Bill Clinton, the President who pushed this change, has no problem with accepting millions of dollars per year for giving speeches. Clinton even took 10 million dollars plus as as an advance for writing a book. How's that for hypocrisy?

Furthermore, this change didn't REALLY do what it was advertised to do. Since many CEOs are worth more than a million dollars and companies can't simply pay them what they're worth, corporations started paying them in stock options. Now 9 years later stock options are contributing to the accounting scandals that are part of the reason that the stock market is plunging. So just as they did with Campaign Finance Reform, health care, the public school system, the Farm Bill, Social Security, and many, many, other pieces of legislation, our government is going to create new legislation that will screw things up even worse than before in order to fix the damage done by their previous legislative screw-up. When government tries to thwart the market, much as California did with price controls in their energy market, there will always be an economic price to pay down the road. In California's case they ended up with an extreme power shortage and in this case, these stock options gave many CEOs strong economic incentives to allow aggressive/shady accounting practices to be used. Limiting corporate CEOs to a million dollars a year appeals to all the practitioners of class warfare out there but it's lousy policy and someone other than Right Wing News should be saying so.

Whatever Happened To Personal Responsibility?: A woman is threatening to sue a zoo because they failed to "properly secure and police the zoo after hours." What brought this on?

"But about 6:30 p.m. April 12, two hours after the zoo closed, River (the woman's 11 year old son) and three of his friends scaled an 8-foot-tall chain-link fence where barbed wire protecting the top was missing. They encountered a second 8-foot fence, found a gap and squeezed through, one of the boys told a reporter last spring.

His friends said River bent down to pet the leopard, found a piece of meat and tossed it in the cage. Oggan stuck his paw through the gap, catching River by the neck and shirt."

So this kid climbed three fences and then was stupid enough to walk right up to snow leopard's cage and the mother blames the zoo for his breathtaking stupidity? Today in the US, no matter what sort of misfortune you bring upon yourself and others, there are sure to be ludicrous explanations offered up to explain why someone else is responsible...

- Did you drown five of your kids in a bathtub? It's not your fault, because you were depressed.

- Did you fight against your own country in Afghanistan? It's not your fault, you were too young to know what you were doing.

- Are you overweight? It's not your fault, it's the companies that actually made the food you ate who are responsible.

- Are you black and having a lousy life? It's not your fault, it's the fault of companies who enslaved blacks more than 130 years ago.

- Did someone get shot? It's those gun manufacturers who are responsible, not the people who pulled the trigger.

And on & on it goes. But as Herbert Spencer said, "the ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools."

(Update: The Eleven Day Empire linked this post and chimed in with, "But, of course, it's not his fault. The fact that the zoo was closed, that there were signs, that he had to climb three fences, or even that leopards are very dangerous animals with big claws and sharp teeth who shouldn't be petted like housepets did not register with the boy or his friends."

French Army to Market 'Ultimate Surrender' Video Game: I don't know why I didn't think of this. Could there be any game out there that says "FRANCE" like "Ultimate Surrender?"

Globalization Does Not Equal Exploitation: Thomas Sowell explains some things that the anti-globalism protestors out there need to understand...

"Whenever there is a World Trade Organization meeting, you can depend on affluent young people to engage in riots over such things as "sweatshop labor" in the Third World...The sad irony is that it is the self-righteous activists who are exploiting Third World people -- politically -- and the much demonized employers who hire them who are providing the poor with much-needed income."

A study by an international consulting firm found that the average labor productivity in the modern sectors in India is 15 percent of that in the United States. In other words, if you hired an average Indian worker and paid him one-fifth of what you paid an average American worker, it would cost you more to get a given amount of work done in India than in the United States."

Those WTO meeting protestors might as well be holding signs that say "Keep the poor in poverty" and "No jobs for Third Wrlders" because whether they know it or not, that's actually what they're demanding.

You Are Now Wise In The Ways Of The Blogosphere: I am continually amazed at how writers in the blogosphere are rewarded for well..how shall I put this..being complete tools. Do you want shoot up the Daypop Top 40 like a meteor? Then insult the blogosphere. Someone does it about once a week or so and immediately more people than you ever knew existed link their article just for the purpose of criticizing it. Don't feel like you have to be a great writer to pull this off because the bigger the gaps in your logic, the more people who will feel compelled to link your writing in order to point out the flaws in what you're saying.

The latest person to figure this out is Brendan O'Neill who must have been linked by every 2nd or 3rd blog that I read today. He wrote an irritating post that was full of the most ridiculous tripe you've ever seen. Here are some of highlights of Brendan's piece...

"- I am shocked by the blogosphere's often poor quality of writing and its celebration of pithy opinion over considered judgement."
"- But much of the blogging world is taken up by unreadable second-rate writing and petty prejudice masquerading as journalistic opinion."
"- The other grating thing about the blogosphere is the lack of quality writing"
"- But most of the blogosphere consists of bad, bad writing - not just clumsy sentences and never-ending paragraphs, but also spelling mistakes."
"- And if you're a British blogger, do not use American spellings just to please American audiences...."

Now after pumping out all of this pretentious and snide offal, what happens? The whole blogosphere rewards O'Neill by linking him. So I've decided to take a page out of O'Neill's book by insulting the entire blogosphere, especially all the bloggers I want links from. Let's get started shall we? (John Hawkins <---- Puts his best self-important, snooty, British journalist expression on his face)

The blogosphere fills me with contempt because it is full of puerile American spellings and simplistic thought. Personally, I favor a blog tax to keep the common riff-raff away from writing for websites anyway. Journalism is serious business and people with names like Asparagirl and Pejman have no business sharing the internet with literary giants like Robert Fisk and Paul Krugman. Of course, I don't want to give you the idea that the entire blogosphere is full of nothing but infantile squalling. Certain bloggers like Andrew Sullivan, Tim Blair, & Steven Den Beste would be almost readable if their writing styles were totally different and if they were from more acceptable nations like Belgium or France.

Furthermore, how can a biased "blog" (**shudder of contempt**) like Little Green Footballs compare to the journalistic integrity of newspapers like the Guardian? How can that dreadful Vodka Pundit possibly measure up to the wondrous magic of a real journalist like Eleanor Clift? Worst of all, in what sort of Luciferian nightmare can a "blog" (**my skin is crawling**) like Beers Across America exist? Not only does this web page have the word "America" in it which all real journalists know is a faux pas equal to wearing white after Labor Day, but it has the word "beer" in the title as well. Have you ever heard of a newspaper with the word "beer" as part of it's name? I rest my case as I sneer in contempt at the so called "blogosphere." Harrumph, harrumph!!!

The Perils Of Prosperity: I saw an amazing little commercial the other day. The ad was for a service that delivered your pet´s drugs directly to your door. Now you may wonder, “what´s so amazing about that?” Well consider how incredible this service is when viewed through the lens of how much of the world lives. First off, many people around the globe can´t even afford to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves, much less a pet. Moreover, even if they do have a pet, they couldn´t possibly afford to have it treated if it got hurt or became sick. That´s assuming that they could even find a veterinarian when many countries don´t have enough doctors to take care of their people. So when you look at it in that light, that business probably couldn´t even exist in 80% of the world. (cont)

A Few Things: I've tried a lot of several different comment programs so far but none have gotten the job done. Every one I've tried is either too slow, has no administrative control at all, or I can't get it to work. I am toying with the idea of switching to Movable type since it has comments built in, since I'm also having problems with Blogger's archive system, and because I like the "Trackback feature." I'll try to keep you informed about what's happening with that.

Also I'm always looking for new pages to exchange links with and the amount of traffic your page does is largely irrelevant to me. As long as your page is politically oriented and I like it, I'm willing to trade permanent links with you.

Operation Tips?: People are going absolutely nuts over this program...

"THE JUSTICE Department is not saying much about the Terrorism Information and Prevention System -- otherwise known as Operation TIPS -- which is due to begin as a pilot program later this summer. Apparently the only public information about the program, in fact, is on a government Web site, which describes it as "a nationwide program giving millions of American truckers, letter carriers, train conductors, ship captains, utility employees, and others a formal way to report suspicious terrorist activity." Operation TIPS will, in the pilot stage, involve a million workers, who, "in the daily course of their work, are in a unique position to serve as extra eyes and ears for law enforcement." It will offer them "training . . . in how to look out for suspicious and potentially terrorist-related activity." It will also provide "a formal way to report" that activity "through a single and coordinated toll-free number."

Allusions to the KGB, Secret Police, 1984, etc. are being about this made about this program especially since some jumpy Aussie papers are claiming that soon 1 out of every 24 members of the US population will be made into "spies." But this is a huge overreaction when you consider that even the Washington Post admits that there isn't enough information out there to really make a judgement about this program.

My guess (and all you can really do at this point is guess) is that the Justice Department is simply going to have one centralized number for people to call into if they see something highly suspicious. So if you work at UPS and you someone sends a drum of anthrax through or if you are with a trucking company and you see a bunch of guys taking rocket launchers out of their truck and walking towards a nuclear power plant, you have one place to call where they can handle the situation and catalog the info. Yes, I would be concerned if this program was encouraging people to report things they see inside of people's homes or to make calls every time someone in the program sees someone walking around with a Koran. But so far, there is no indication that is what the program is going to do. Furthermore, when you consider how much press this program has already received, I sincerely doubt that the Bush administration would risk large amounts of negative attention for doing anything too much beyond what I've already described. I'm sure most the fringe left has already thrown on their "I went to a police state and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" outfits to go with their tin hats but I'm reserving judgement until we know a little more what this program will actually do.

It's Almost Iraqi Time: There are a lot of different opinions floating around about when and even if we're going to hit Iraq. Conventional wisdom says we're going to go after them in early 2003 although some of the more cynical people believe we will wait unitl early 2004 so Bush can hopefully give himself a little war boost during an election year. However, many people thought we were planning to hit Iraq in late summer/early fall. I still believe that this time frame is correct. Of course, I could be 100% off with this but I'm guessing that some time in either August, September, or October we're going to hit Hussein and company like a ton of bricks.

Now there were several stories that came out a few months ago saying the US military wasn't ready, that we weren't sure if we were going to hit Iraq at all, and if we went at all, we were going in 2003. In my opinion, that's pure disinformation designed to throw Saddam off track. Why do I think that? Obviously Saddam has absolutely no hope of dealing with us using conventional weapons. That means Saddam is essentially powerless...except for his scuds armed with WMD. It is also thought that if US forces start to build up in the area, Hussein will launch chemical or biological tipped weapons at our forces. This means we really can't afford to let him know we're coming.

That's why I think we'll see the first showing of Bush's "preemptive strike" policy with Iraq. I think you'll see us hit Iraq from multiple directions and I think we'll catch Hussein largely by surprise. I think we'll take his oil fields, obliterate a lot of key targets, and we'll turn some of his own people against him. Hopefully, using spy planes and a fast aggressive attack, we can stop Hussein being able to get off his WMD tipped scuds or at least minimize the number he's able to fire.

I think a lot of things are happening right now that give credence to this theory. Bush introduced his new "preemptive strike" doctrine, steps have been taken to calm things down between the Israelis and the Palestinians, British forces have left Afghanistan and we're down to almost nothing but special forces there, the word is that Jordan is going to let us use bases in their nation, and we've heard various leaks about different battle plans. Furthermore, the last real action in Afghanistan was in December of 2001. How much momentum would be lost if went an entire year without any real military action in the war on terrorism? When you add all of these things up, I see an invasion coming...soon.

Dahmer's Ukrainian Cousins: This is one of the more bizarre stories I've seen lately...

"Ukraine's police have arrested three men and a woman on suspicion of murdering five people and then eating their flesh.

She said the four suspected cannibals were a husband and wife, her brother and a friend."

It's so hard to believe that a "husband and wife, her brother and a friend" all just agreed one day to go out and eat someone. I can just imagine the first conversation they must have had about the subject....

Husband: Hey, have any of you ever fancied eating someone?
Wife: (Slaps husband on the shoulder) Naughty boy!
Husband: No, no, I mean actually eating someone...you know like grilled or fried?
Friend: That is so gross!
Brother: I bet they'd taste like chicken! Everything does you know...
Wife: I don't know that I'd like to eat someone, but if I were going to eat someone it would be that horrible Tammy Jones!
Friend: Eating someone would be the ultimate experience wouldn't it?

Add two cases of beer and about another hour of conversation and you can figure out about what happened from there....

Media Bias On Display: Here's an outstanding example of media bias. First off, let's look at the deceptive headline and first paragraph that Yahoo! News had as one of it's leading stories earlier today...

"Bush Harken Deal Faces New Scrutiny
Tue Jul 16, 2:31 AM ET - (AP)

George W. Bush signed a letter in 1990 saying he wouldn't sell any stock for at least six months in the struggling Texas oil company where he was a director. But 2 months later, with Harken Energy Corp. hit by a sudden financial crisis, Bush cashed out his shares for $848,560."

What you're supposed to infer from this is that Bush had no intention of selling his shares until he got some inside information that convinced him to sell. If you were familiar with the case and all you read was what Yahoo! News led with, this is the impression that you'd get. But let's dig into the story...

14 paragraphs into the article we get this...

"White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said that the lockout letter was "made irrelevant and obsolete" by the time Bush sold his shares because the public stock offering never went through."

So now we see that Yahoo! News pulled a bait and switch on us. The letter Bush signed was irrelevant because the stock offering it applied to NEVER HAPPENED. Here's another little detail that hasn't been reported as it should...

"...He (Bush) divested himself of more than $1.5 million in stocks in Harken and other companies to cover debts of about $931,000 — $600,000 for the Rangers loan and $331,000 for taxes, according to McCleskey"

So Bush didn't JUST sell Harken stock, he sold other stocks AT THE SAME TIME as well. That in and of itself should help undercut the idea that Bush sold Harken because of inside information. Unless Bush is supposed to have gotten inside information on those other stocks at the time.

Here's one more little think Yahoo tosses in near the end...

"One expert said even though Bush signed the lockup letter, it didn't represent a serious obstacle to selling.

It is fairly common for company insiders to sign such letters and then obtain permission to sell the stock anyway before the lockout period is up, said Carr Bettis, an associate research professor of finance at Arizona State University"

So 4 paragraphs from the bottom, Yahoo! News basically tosses in a bit of information that totally undercuts THE ENTIRE POINT OF THEIR OWN STORY. If selling after signing "lockup letters" is a "common" thing, then why is that whole thing even worthy of a story in the first place?!?! I'll tell you why, it's just another opportunity for the mainstream media to smear Republicans...

Coming To The Obvious Conclusion About Homelessness: Who is surprised by this?

"Derrick Clark, 24, and Scotty Weeks, 25, left their middle-class Seattle apartments a week ago to pose as homeless people. The Web page designers took time off from work to live on downtown streets.

Yesterday they returned home, weak, blistered and stuttering -- and ready for showers."

So they spent a week of their lives living outside and basically came to the conclusion that being homeless sucks? Wow, like that's a startling conclusion. What other idea could they have come up with? "Wow, homelessness is great, we're getting rid of our websites and we're going to live in the alley behind the Safeway from now on?!?"

Speaking of homelessness, we as a society are not willing to do what it takes to eliminate the problem. Most statistics I've seen point to somewhere between 65% - 85% of the homeless either being alcoholics, junkies, or having mental problems. Unless you deal with those underlying problems, you are not going to be able to get these people off the streets long term. So shelters, soup kitchens, temporary housing, etc., all may be nice things to do, but long-term they probably aren't going to really get the job done.

What we need to do is make homelessness illegal. Then you round the homeless up and force them to dry out, get clean, or go to counseling/take drugs to get their mental illness under control. You do that for a period of time, say 3-6 months, and then you allow them to go to halfway houses for another 3-6 months while they make the transition back to supporting themselves. The people without mental problems or substance abuse problems can go straight to the halfway house or may even get a short term loan to help them get back on their feet depending on the situation.

You may think this doesn't seem like a "Conservative" solution because it requires the creation of a government program that will require extensive funds but after a year or two of this you'd see homelessness drop drastically. Not only would that mean that the funds for the program could be cut, but soup kitchens, shelters, etc., could also be dramatically scaled back. Most importantly, you'd take a group of people who are totally useless to society and to themselves and you'd help them get their lives back under control. That would be a worthwhile use of our tax dollars and it would make a genuine difference in people's lives.

John Hawkins, Political Gun For Hire #2: The Republican National Committee needs to go on the offense on these business scandals instead of letting the Democrats control the tempo. Something like this would be good...

(Scene 1: Commercial stars with old man who looks like typical grandfather sitting in a chair with his head in his hands. Old woman who looks like typical grandmother walks in)

Grandmother: Honey, what's wrong?

Grandfather: The Democrats are talking down the stock market again and everyone knows their new anti-business legislation would be a disaster, so the bottom is falling out of the market. We've lost thousands of dollars in the last few weeks. I guess..I guess...I'll have to go back to work.

Grandmother: With your heart condition? Oh honey, how can the Democrats do this to you? (Starts to sniffle)

===

(Scene 2: Stockbroker is talking to middle aged couple)

Stockbroker: Investors lost their confidence after the Democrats went on TV every day making a mountain out of a molehill over these accounting scandals. And the legislation they're pushing? It would send the market into a permanent tailspin. It'd be like the depression all over again if the Democrats got it passed. Everyone is scared to put money in the market because of that...

Woman: But we saved our whole life to buy that house, it's not fair that we're going to lose it because the Democrats need an issue for the election.

Stockbroker: Are you sure there's no way you can hold out until after November? The market should start going up again then, especially if the Republicans take control of the Senate.

Man: We need that money soon or our home will be gone. Don't you think there's any chance the market will be back up before November?

Stockbroker: (Bites his lip and looks away) I'm sorry, but the Democrats need to kill the market. I hate to tell you this, I think it may get worse if the Democrats have their way....

===

(Scene 3: Woman is driving down a pitch black road in the middle of nowhere in her SUV with 3 kids in it. Car engine sounds horrible.)

Five Year Old Little Girl: Mommy, mommy, what's wrong?

Mother: The car isn't working right honey. I don't think it'll go much further.

Twelve Year Old Little Boy: Mom, I thought you and dad were going to get a new car a couple of weeks ago?

Mother: We were son. But it's an election year and so the Democrats are trying to destroy the stock market by talking endlessly about accounting scandals. The more the stock market drops, the better the Democrats think they'll do in the election. But we lost so much money that we couldn't afford to buy a new car...(Engine makes grinding noise and car slows down as headlights start to dim)

Five Year Old Little Girl: Mommy, I'm scared!

Mother: Don't worry honey, It'll be Ok...(mom has frightened look on her face as the scene fades into darkness)

===

(Voice speaks over vote Republican in 2002 image) Tell your Democratic Congressman that it's not right for them to try to destroy the stock market and take money out of YOUR pocket in an effort to win an election. In 2002, vote Republican; we're for tax cuts, vouchers, and sensible accounting reform...things that will put money back in your pocket.)

If Only Animals Could Talk!: In the Aquaman section of his "Super Friends" page Seanbaby sums up about what I think of the intelligence of animals...

"Our genius scientists taught that gorilla sign language, and do you know what we learned? "Banana is pretty! Banana make gorilla happy!" I'm going to say what we already know: we're not going to learn sh*t from animals. I guess we could teach a cat to talk to find out what @ssholes taste like without having to go to prison. Maybe dogs could let us know if it's a good idea to make food that turns into "gravy" when you add water, but what would anyone learn from fish? "Sunken toy castle is adventure! Big fish equal danger!" Fish don't know anything."

McDonald's Brews Coffee in the Corpses of Baby Cows: Thousands Die at the Hands of Ninjas: Once again McDonald's is under legal assault from vegetarians because of it's food preparation techniques. Recently they were sued by a vegetarian activist group because they used animal fat to cook their fries. In other news, thousands died at the hands of ninjas today. A McDonald's spokesman addressed their latest legal entanglements in a press conference earlier today... (Cont)

The RWN Guide To Anti-Americanism: Greetings friends (and by friends I mean everyone but Americans)! RWN has long been accused of being too pro-American and in order to refute these scandalous charges we've decided to write a "Guide to Anti-Americanism." If you've ever wanted to fit in at European Dinner Parties, Anti-globalism protests, or at a Harvard faculty meeting this is a report you must read! (cont)