I found Bob Herbert's editorial in the New York Times yesterday to be particularly grating for a number of reasons. His ridiculous comparisons to Vietnam & his complete inability to grasp the basics of the situation (among other things) make me wonder how he could even hold a job as an editorial writer for the New York Times. Here are few things he said in the article (in italics) and my responses...

"This is a dream for the jihad," said one high-ranking U.N. official. "The resistance will only grow. The American occupation is now the focal point, drawing people from all over Islam into an eye-to-eye confrontation with the hated Americans."

Excuse me, but is that supposed to be a bad thing? Where would you rather have Al-Qaeda; getting slaughtered in running gun battles with our troops in Iraq or driving truck bombs into skyscrapers here at home? There are a lot of terrorists out there who want to kill Americans and the more of them we can draw into Iraq and slaughter on our terms, the better. While it's certainly going to be harder on our troops, they're well prepared to take on Al-Qaeda while a bunch of civilians riding home on a bus or working in an office aren't. We're better off having our soldiers fighting terrorists in the Sunni Triangle than having those same terrorists roaming through the streets of New York & LA and attacking at a time of their choosing. Here's more from Herbert...

...The American people still do not have a clear understanding of why we are in Iraq. And the troops don't have a clear understanding of their mission. We're fighting a guerrilla war, which the bright lights at the Pentagon never saw coming, with conventional forces.

This is common tactic left-wingers use today. When they don't want to deal with an argument, they simply pretend it doesn't exist. But since Herbert is pretending not to know why we're in Iraq or perhaps because he's actually ignorant of it, I'll explain.

Bob Herbert may have forgotten this, but back on 9/11 some terrorists flew planes into our buildings and killed a lot of American citizens. The Bush administration then declared a war on terrorism and decided to do everything in their power to try to prevent future 9/11s. In order to do that, they came to the conclusion that they had stop not just Al-Qaeda, but all the terrorist groups of global reach as well as the rogue nations that were supporting them. Long-term, that's the only way to effectively deal with the situation. If you decide to wipe out Al-Qaeda, but not the other groups, they'll simply reform with a different name. If you go after the terrorist groups, but not the nations that support them, you can't possibly get the job done. That's because you can't wipe out a terrorist group when a rogue nation is providing them money, shelter, supplies, training, & protection.

We hit Afghanistan first because they were Al-Qaeda's main base. Iraq was next for a whole host of reasons...

-- First & foremost, they were a terrorist-supporting nation.
-- Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction which could have been given to terrorists (which I still expect we will find by the way).
-- Hussein was an anti-American dictator who hated the US and had reason to cooperate with our enemies.
-- If Hussein was gone, we had no reason to have troops in Saudi Arabia. Moving those troops out of Saudi our terms takes away a recruiting tool for terrorists.
-- Because Iraq had violated so many UN resolutions, it was easier to build support for an attack in Iraq than anywhere else. For example, even the Brits, Poles, & Aussies wouldn't have been with us if we invaded Syria after Afghanistan.
-- Invading Iraq means we can now easily move troops to the borders of Syria & Iran, two other terrorist supporting nations, if we so wish.
-- As a bonus, we got to free more than 20 million Iraqis from tyranny.

Now, we're remaining in Iraq and helping them build a Democracy because it will...

1) Help insure we don't have to worry about terrorists coming out of Iraq in the future
2) Because we're hoping a democratic Iraq will help generate a "reverse domino effect" in the region.

As the rest of the region sees a Democratic Iraq and hopefully (cross your fingers) a Democratic Iran after a revolution within a few years time, Democracy may spread. Yes, that means we're going to produce more turmoil in the Middle-East by design. But that's infinitely superior to allowing a region that's producing terrorists who're flying planes into our buildings and who will one day undoubtedly walk into one of our cities with a nuclear bomb to remain fundamentally unchanged.

All of this will be difficult to pull off and it will take a lot of time, but clearing the corpses of thousands of Americans out of the rubble while their friends and families mourn their loss isn't easy either. Back to Herbert...

"One of the many reasons Vietnam spiraled out of control was the fact that America's top political leaders never clearly defined the mission there, and were never straight with the public about what they were doing. Domestic political considerations led Kennedy, then Johnson, then Nixon to conceal the truth about a policy that was bankrupt from the beginning. They even concealed how much the war was costing."

I don't know how many times and ways this can be said, but Iraq is not Vietnam. When I hear people like Herbert obsessively trying to turn every war into Vietnam, I just want to look into their vacant eyes and ask them if they've ever read a history book. As Jack Kelly pointed out in the Washington Times,

"In Vietnam, more than 58,000 Americans lost their lives. At the height of the war, 500 soldiers were being killed each week.

In the Iraq war and the subsequent occupation, we have lost fewer men to hostile fire than in a single terrorist attack in Lebanon in 1983. We've been losing about a soldier a day since the first of June. At this rate, we'll reach the Vietnam total in about 158 years."

Just repeat it over and over Bob, Iraq is not Vietnam, Iraq is not Vietnam, Iraq is Vietnam. Furthermore, make sure to say it out loud since it may do some of your colleagues at the New York Times a lot of good. Now, here's a couple of paragraphs near the end of Bob's article...

"The U.S. cannot bully its way to victory in Iraq. It needs allies, and it needs a plan. As quickly as possible, we should turn the country over to a genuine international coalition, headed by the U.N. and supported in good faith by the U.S.

The idea would be to mount a massive international effort to secure Iraq, develop a legitimate sovereign government and work cooperatively with the Iraqi people to rebuild the nation."

Let me break this down like I'm talking to a child, which is appropriate given the level of understanding of foreign policy Bob Herbert and lot of his ilk in the anti-war movement have of foreign policy; different nations have different interests. Even other nations that have helped us in the past may not share our goals in Iraq. There are many nations, including Syria, the acting president of the UN Security Council, that do not want us to succeed in Iraq. Some of the other nations in the region fear a Democratic Iraq will stir up their own people, some nations resent the power of the US and would like to see Iraq fall to pieces just to hurt our country, & others would be rather have a pliable and friendly dictator in Iraq for economic reasons or because they think it will stabilize the region. Allowing those nations to get involved in the decision making process in Iraq via the UN is a recipe for disaster.

Furthermore, what message are we sending to friendly nations like Poland, Britain, & Australia who put their blood & treasure on the line to fight with us in Iraq if we allow countries like France, Germany, & Russia to have equal parts in the decision making process at this point? If we cave in now, what happens next time we need some help in a situation like this? Why would another country help us if they lose nothing by sitting on the sidelines? If you want to insure that NO ONE will give us more than lip service the next time we go to war (and there will always be a next time), then just listen Bob Herbert's advice and let the UN run the show.

On the whole, what we're doing in Iraq right now is slowly, but surely working. Yes, there are going to be more attacks for the Iraqi dead-enders and more terrorist attacks. Furthermore, we're going to see more stories featuring grumbling and carping from certain segments of the Iraqi population and progress is always going to be slower than we'd like. But over time, conditions are going to improve, we're going to hand more power over to the Iraqi people, and we're going to train more Iraqis to defend themselves from these attacks. It's not going to be easy, quick, or painless, but neither was helping Germany, Japan, or South Korea towards Democracy. A little perspective, something people like Bob Herbert either don't have or are too partisan to acknowledge, is in order here.

The United Nations today began distribution of mandatory prescriptions of Ritalin for all Iraqis.

A spokesman said the U.N. hopes to reduce the incidence of violence through use of the medication, which is often prescribed for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) among American school boys.

"Iraqis cannot be held responsible for their misbehavior," said the unnamed spokesman. "There must be a chemical imbalance in the brain which causes them to destroy their own water and oil supplies, shoot troops who liberated their country and even bomb the U.N. which opposed the liberation of their country. Clearly, this is a medical condition which may be mitigated with Ritalin."

U.N. psychologists are also investigating the connection between irrational acts of violence by some Iraqis and consumption of transfats and nicotine.

"We're also exploring several co-dependency theories as we speak," the spokesman said. "The only thing we have ruled out is the presence of so-called 'evil' in the human heart. That is a myth disproven by science."

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work Scrappleface.

I should have already put this up. A comparison between the left and the right on the greatest figures of the twentieth century along with my own selections. My selections were Kemal Atatürk, David Ben-Gurion, Vinton Cerf, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Dwight Eisenhower, Alexander Fleming, Henry Ford, Sigmund Freud, Mahatma Gandhi, Bill Gates, Douglas MaCarthur, Chester Nimitz, George Patton, Ronald Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Jonas Salk, Margaret Thatcher, & The Wright Brothers. The overall selections were as follows...

Here some of my favorite quotes from some of the best baseball, basketball, and football coaches of all-time. Hope you enjoy them. (Cont)

The reparations lawsuits are of course completely ridiculous. But, you want to know what would make them even sillier? Imagine if white people were suing blacks because their ancestors carried away some farming tools when they were freed from slavery. Well, here's something that's just as laughable as that...

"Egyptians may sue Jews over the Exodus

Hilmi said the "debt" could be rescheduled over 1,000 years, with the addition of the cumulative interest during that period."

Yeah, there's lots of hope for peace in the Middle-East when you have people who are still bitter because they think the Jews stole silverware from the pharaohs who were enslaving them 3500 years ago.

I'd love to actually see people polled all over the Middle-East on this lawsuit, because I bet you there'd be majorities supporting it in some countries. But they'd have to hurry or the UN might pass a resolution condemning Israel because their ancestors were thieves & that might skew the polling. Then, next thing you know, we'd have people blowing themselves up on buses and demanding Egypt's cooking utensils back.

Yep, I'm sure they're just going to talk everything out and that peace plan should start working any day now...right after the Israelis give back the pharaoh's gold plated tea kettle.

Hat tip to RWN reader Jim Lafronz for pointing out this story.

Jeff Taylor from Hit & Run writes....

"If you haven't at least encountered the Sobig virus in your inbox you must not get much email. Estimates are that 75% of all mail could be Sobig or a Sobig-caused error message. Time to retool the system.

The only possible solution is sender-pays email. Right now we have a classic tragedy of the commons situation where spammers and abusers have the most incentive to turn the email network to their own purposes. Service providers correctly make no warranty about the integrity of email. Look at your terms of service agreement and you may find that email is defined as an "added benefit" quite apart from the connection you buy. If so, then your email could go away forever tomorrow and there is nothing you could do except find another provider."

I work for an ISP wholesaler and we deal with spam and virus related issues every day, so I know what I'm talking about on this issue. Charging for email is a BAD idea that's not going to make a serious difference in the amount of spam or viruses on the net.

First off, Internet Service Providers are NOT going to voluntarily start charging people for email. That's because they'd immediately lose all their business to their competitors who don't charge for mail. So it would take new laws -- something Taylor doesn't seem to want (with good reason I might add) -- to make that happen.

But even if ISPs started charging for outgoing email, it's not going to make a serious dent in the amount of spam and viruses on the net. The spammers will just start sending email from ISPs in other nations that don't charge for email. So what are you accomplishing there besides changing the location the spammers send mail from?

As far as home users who're getting infected with viruses goes, the problem there is really ignorance more than anything else. I did tech support for more than a year and I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of people I talked to had absolutely no idea what they were doing. And why would they? It's easy for those of us who have been on the net for a while to forget, but computers are fairly complex if you're learning them from scratch. When you start talking about firewalls and keeping your virus scanner updated to someone who barely understands the concept of double clicking on things to open them, they are going to have a lot of trouble figuring out what you're talking about.

So what is the solution? In my opinion, it's going to be technological. Over time, the ISPs are going to get better at blocking spam and viruses and the automatic update features like the ones on Window's XP (although XP itself is a mass of security holes) are going to help insure that security fixes for problems are going to be quickly and nearly automatically installed DESPITE the fact that the end user isn't very knowledgeable.

In any case, charging for email would only going to add a new layer of government bureaucracy & unnecessary costs while doing very little to address the spam and virus issues. That's not a road we want to go down...

***Update***: I couple of people in the comments section made points worth addressing.

First off, nhmj says...

"I disagree with you about the fix.

So really, all we need is one email provider to take the first step."

This happens now and it's a huge, but sometimes necessary pain the butt to everyone concerned. Sure, it sounds good to block email from a provider that's spamming, but what happens when a spammer from AOL hits you and you end up blocking them? Your tech support starts getting lots of call from people complaining that they can't send an email to their son/daughter/friend/nephew/business, etc on AOL. You have to remember that it's not like there are just a few ISPs all these spammers are coming from (although some are worse than others), they're everywhere. Because of that, it's not practical to simply ban whole ISPs over spammers.

Smalloy writes (in part)...

"Let's put aside the argument of whether or not charging for outgoing email is a good idea or not and examine whether or not limiting where the spammers can come from is a good idea.

If all the spam had to come from servers in Korea, for example, then I'd live a spam-free existance, because I could block ALL mail from Korea without it affecting me in the slightest."

While it is a good idea to limit where all the spammers come from in theory, it's very difficult to actually make it happen in practice. For example, just for the heck of it, let's say that the United States mandates lifetime prison sentences for spamming and all the spam kings immediately go abroad. Well, you still haven't really improved on the situation enough to make a difference because it's not practical to block out emails from the whole rest of the planet who are of course going to ignore US law. So even if you moved all of the spammers off-shore, it wouldn't make a dent in the amount of spam hitting your inbox. This is why it's pointless for Congress to try to legislate spam out of existence.

I'm sure most of you are aware of the tragic and senseless bombing of the UN compound in Iraq on Tuesday.

So who is Kofi Annan now slamming for this terrorist attack? Saddam Hussein and the thugs who are following him? Al-Qaeda? Perhaps Hizbollah or the Palestinian terrorist groups who have sent men into Iraq? No, Annan is tearing into the United States, despite the fact that the UN blew off the advice we gave them about securing their compound before the attack...

"It emerged Wednesday that amid the rubble are the remains of what would have been a concrete barrier that the UN had begun to build to prevent vehicles packed with explosives from being parked near the compound -- as happened Tuesday with devastating results. At least 20 people were killed, including two Canadians.

"Security around our location was not as secure as you might find at the U.S. compound, and that was a decision we made so the offices were available to the people," said chief UN spokesman Fred Eckhard, in comments that appeared to confirm the UN had refused U.S. help. "We did not think at the time we were taking an unnecessary risk."

Kofi Annan's prattle reminds me of people who approvingly trot out that old Ben Franklin quote, " Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security" and then complain about not being kept safe when something actually happens.

The UN CHOSE not to have the level of security they knew they needed, they CHOSE to drag their feet in building that security fence, and they CHOSE to refuse offers from US forces to protect the compound. Then after their choices came back and bit them on the behind, instead of blaming themselves for their foolishness or the terrorists for bombing the compound, they're blaming the United States, even though this attack probably would have been stopped if they'd taken our advice to begin with. Well, the UN made their bed and now they're going to have to lie in it. Maybe next time they'll take our advice when we show them the proper way to fold the sheets...

Hat tip to Instapundit for finding this one.

You know, I like Michael Fumento's work, so much so that I actually interviewed him. Because I enjoy his writing, think he does important work, and since he was nice enough to do an interview with me, I'm naturally quite hesitant to rip into him. However, his latest comments about bloggers and the blogosphere are so unbelievably obnoxious that they deserve a response. After all, if you're taking shots at bloggers, you're taking a shot at me. Here's part of Fumento's pompous & thin skinned response to some bloggers who dared to criticize him...

"In reality, with very few exceptions (perhaps ten at most), nobody gives a squat about what bloggers say except other bloggers. That, indeed, is why they can't publish anywhere but on their own sites and are obsessed with linking to other sites in hopes of a reciprocal link. Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, Drudge, and a few others can actually influence outsiders. Others have no influence beyond their readers but they still have lots of readers because they have interesting things to say. But other than that, bloggers are basically in a giant chat room and may as well be discussing the meaning of Star Trek Episode VI — while typing in Klingon. That's why they call it a "blogosphere;" they're in their own tiny little universe.

Indeed, the whole Hailey thing shows just how impotent these people are. I was warned that since Hailey had so many "important" links I would be bombarded by readers firing shots not "across" my bow but directly at it. Instead I just got a few dud torpedoes. So hear ye bloggers: Enjoy your ego trip; but realize that's all it is. It's great that the Internet allows anybody to post their opinions, but don't think that because you post yours anybody else cares. For the vast majority of you, nobody does."

I'm really amazed that some fairly mild criticism from a couple of bloggers drove Fumento so wild that he felt compelled to throw this online temper tantrum to begin with. But since Fumento went out of his way to talk about what a big sack of nothing the blogosphere was, whereas he's so wonderful and fantastic that the suicide rate goes up across North America every time his page is down, let me just put a few things Fumento said into perspective.

First off, since I'm not one of the 10 biggest blogs on the net, It's fair to say that I wouldn't qualify as one of those "few exceptions (perhaps ten at most)" that people care about. So let's compare some of RWN's numbers with the numbers for Fumento's website.

Fumento points out, "that if you enter "Michael Fumento" into Google you get over 5,000 hits". Since John Hawkins is a fairly common name, I thought I'd paste "Right Wing News" into Google and see how many hits it came up with. I got 31,600 results. But that's no big deal, right?

So let's compare Alexa rank. Michael Fumento's page is the 334,932nd most read page on the internet. On the other hand, Right Wing News shows up in the 26,800 spot. Just to shed a little more light on the subject, when I did the Blogosphere Power Rankings a few months back, the 50th ranked page (the minimum to make the list) squeaked in almost 200,000 places above Fumento's page at an Alexa rank of 136,929. That's not bad for a bunch of blogs that "may as well be discussing the meaning of Star Trek Episode VI — while typing in Klingon."

Furthermore, since Fumento actually has open statistics on his page, we can actually compare traffic. Fumento pulls an average of 178 visitors per day. As I write this at 1:57 AM, RWN, a blog written by one of those "idiot(s) with a keyboard," already has 250 daily uniques, more than Fumento will pull in an average day. Moreover, if you compare Fumento's numbers to those in NZ Bear's Daily Traffic stats from blogs using Site Meter, Fumento would be in a tie for 222nd in the blogosphere. And remember, those are JUST from blogs using Site Meter. So you have to figure that there are at least 300-500 blogs pulling more traffic than Fumento's website.

Now I'm sure Michael Fumento would point out that even if no one is reading his web page, he's published in 400 newspapers & all of his latest material shows up at Google News. Ehr -- if you have 400 newspapers publishing your material and Google News is feeding you too and you STILL have a minimal number of people reading your website, what does that say? Worse yet, if hundreds of unknowns on the web with zero mainstream media exposure are getting more traffic than you are, shouldn't there be some editors scratching their heads and going, "Gee, is anyone actually reading this guy's column? If not, why are we running it every week?"

Now I know I've said some pretty snarky things in this post, especially given that I was torn about writing it to begin with. But when Michael Fumento figuratively gave the blogosphere the middle finger, he flipped me off too and I didn't particularly care for it.

Hat Tip: Instapundit.

Argghh...I caught some sort of mutant flu bug from my roommate. I still feel terrible. Had to skip work, can't eat, and am about to go back to bed. I may be in shape to post a little later tonight, but by then I'll be prepping for tomorrow. So I've decided to only make this post today. I am too busy to be sick, but life tosses these little curveballs at you sometimes.

Also, after talking to an advertiser last night who couldn't understand why I wouldn't reply to him, I realized that a serious mistake was made when I switched over to the new design. ALL of the email sent to any address at rightwingnews.com was going to a general account at my host. I didn't realize that was happening because the email sent to my main email addy johnhawkins -at- rightwingnews.com normally forwards to a hotmail account and some people were just using that address.

So when I looked in the catch-all account today, there were more than a thousand messages in there including tons of spam and I'm guessing a 100 viruses. Part of that is because my brassknuckles.net mail (which is almost all spam and viruses) along with my junk addresses for Right Wing News were all being forwarded to that same address. Now I don't want to download all of those messages because of all the viruses and the webmail program my host has is so archaic, slow, & generally craptacular that it makes sorting through all of the messages almost impossible. While I was able to pick a few messages out of there, you should assume that if you sent me a message at johnhawkins -at- rightwingnews.com since the redesign, I probably didn't even see it. I'm going to continue to try to sort through that mess, but I don't have the time to do the job right.

However on the upside, I have corrected the problem and so if you want to resend any mail to me, I will receive it.

Ok, that's enough writing. I need to get back to bed....RWN SHALL RETURN TOMORROW.

Since Douglas MacArthur finished a very respectable #14 in the Conservative bloggers list of The Greatest Figures Of The 20th Century, I thought it might be a good time to post his famous speech from 1951.

Truman had relieved MacArthur of command in Korea 8 days earlier for "openly challenging the U.S. civilian leadership by threatening to attack China". While Truman had little choice but to fire MacArthur, getting rid of a living legend like MacArthur and deciding not to fight to win in Korea helped cost the Democrats the election in 1952 when Eisenhower crushed Adlai Stevenson 442 electoral votes to 89 electoral votes.

MacArthur reeled off some famous lines in this speech including...

"In war there is no substitute for victory" & "(O)ld soldiers never die; they just fade away." Enjoy the speech! (Cont)

Not even a tinfoil hat and voting for Dennis Kucinich will be enough to save you when global mind control online comes online in 2004...or so says Rev. Terry-ana Robinson...

"By Spring 2004, an invasive mind control technology known as a "Frequency Fence" is slated for implementation onto global society. This Frequency Fence is a bio-neurological, electromagnetic induced form of mind control which will block your higher sensory abilities. A literal "perceptual harness" or "mental prison" will be built around you without you even knowing it is happening, and the scariest part is, your five senses will not alert to you that anything is wrong.

There is no known technological defense against this invasion and there will be no place to hide. This technology will block your higher sensory abilities which will serve to limit your human potential. The blockage of human intuition or your "gut instinct" will be just one of many natural abilities which will be impeded. Another will be your ability to commune with your "Higher Self" or God, systematically cutting you off from your God Source. This is a system that is so insidious that even the elite will be deceived even though some components of this global mind control system are being created by that very elite Another aspect of this bio-neurological invasion will be the creation and implementation of "Holographic Inserts" by 2006. It involves a technology so advanced that three-dimensional reality can be artificially manufactured and inserted right over your present reality scene in a seamless fashion so you will be unable to determine where organic reality ends, and manipulated, artificial reality begins. This could be compared to the "holo-deck" on the popular television series, Star Trek - The Next Generation, only in this case it¹s not science fiction."

So it's going to be like a "holo-deck" huh? So, is this going like one of those episodes of Star Trek where something goes horribly awry on the "holo-deck" and I end up having to desperately strive to keep a computer generated Darth Vader or Freddy Krueger from taking over the ship? Or am I going to have a computer generated Ann Coulter nibbling on my ear while I say, "Computer, have Ann Coulter become tremendously attracted to conservative men. Continue simulation. Oh yes Ann, I don't mind if you do that at all. Hey, have I ever told you how much I admire Ronald Reagan? His conservatism was an example for us all...."

Hey, if we're talking version #2 here, hurry up with the mind control already!

So Friday night I discovered that the keys to my car were missing -- the ONLY keys to my car. I had been meaning to get a copy of the key made, but I've busy as hell working on everything from RWN to unsuccessfully trying to teach my Jack Russell Terrier, Patton, that he's not supposed to poop on the couch. Oh there's nothing like losing your car keys right at the beginning of a week-end.

So I look all over for them. I check my room, the living room, the kitchen, I check the trunk of the car to see if I left them there. Then I start checking other less obvious places. Maybe I absent mindedly put them in the fridge -- nope. The trash? Nope. Under the bed nope?

The next morning I called the office at my apartments to see if anyone turned any keys in and they said, "no". Then I start wondering if the missing keys are "dog related". After all, Patton will chew on and eat almost ANYTHING. He likes cat litter, shoes, pillows, quilts, magazines, & network cable, so why not a key? So I start looking for places Patton might have dragged the key -- no dice. Then I looked around outside in the path from the car to my house, where I walked Patton the day before, etc. There was no key to be found, it just wasn't happening.

So I give up on finding the key and start thinking about replacing it. I call a local dealer and ***W00T*** he tells me that he can make me a key with a VIN number. Great! So on Monday morning I get up an hour early to catch a ride to work with my roommate (he has to be in earlier than me), but he's sick and decides to just let me borrow his car. So I got to work and head to the dealership at lunch. However, there's a problem -- my car has a "Sentry Key Theft-Deterrent System" and they need car on hand to make a key that will actually start the car. ***Sigh*** They did offer to make me a key that would open the doors, but I didn't need anything in the car so I said "no thanks" and headed back to the homestead.

So I head home, go online, and order a tow from AAA (that was the best $50 I spent this year) and leave my roomie to deal with the tow truck driver.

My roommate then calls me at work about an hour later and tells me the tow truck driver couldn't tow my car because it was front wheel drive and the front wheels were facing away from him. Since there was no way to get into the car and turn it around, he couldn't properly tow it. He did however offer to "drag" the car to the dealership. My roommate quite properly told him "no thanks". ***Sigh AGAIN***

So I have to take off of work and drive BACK to the dealership and get the key that will only open the doors and then I head BACK to the apartment and make sure it works (it does). So then I go BACK online, order ANOTHER tow from AAA, & head back to work.

Then I get another car from my roommate and guess what? The key turned up. It seems that my helpful neighbor saw it in the trunk of my car on Friday, picked it up, and then took it back to his apartment. Then when he saw my roommate getting ready to have the car towed he walked down and gave him the key.

He did say that he "pounded on my door" on Friday to give me the key. Of course, that seems unlikely since I was home all week-end without a car and I have a dog who barks louder than Lassie when Timmy is stuck down a well every time someone knocks on the door. But maybe I was walking the dog or both of us were sacked out asleep and missed it somehow. Why didn't he put a note on the car or my door? Couldn't he have tried KNOCKING AGAIN Friday night, Saturday, or Sunday????? I didn't bring that up, but he volunteered that he "forgot" to come by again.

So here's my dilemma -- on the one hand, I'm grateful that this neighbor was looking out for me and decided to grab the key so no one could get into my car. That was certainly a nice thing to do. On the other hand, I want to beat my neighbor until my arms get tired for putting me through all of that. So I have mixed emotions here -- appreciation & the urge to MAIM are both strong. However, I think I'm going to stick with appreciation. Not only because I have to live beside of this guy, but because getting really irritated over someone trying to do something nice for me seems so petty. But still, couldn't he have just...must not think about week-end without car key, must not think about week-end withou car key, must not think about week-end without car key.....

PS: I got the key back yesterday. Today, the car wouldn't start. There was a bizarre electrical problem sucking the juice out of the battery 24x7. It had to do with a trunk light which is odd given that my trunk doesn't seem to have a light in it.

Ya know, after all these problems & the brutal wreck I was in, I think I'm ready to start using some clean, fuel efficient, government funded, environmentally friendly form of public transportation....then I'll start eating granola, wearing a dress, & going to Phish concerts. Har, har, har -- yeah right -- keep dreaming you hippies!

Right Wing News emailed more than a hundred left-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a list of who they considered to be the "greatest figures of the 20th century". Representatives from 23 blogs responded.

That number of bloggers responding was down significantly from last week's totals. There are a variety of reasons why that might have happened, but I suspect the massive blackout might have had something to do with it. Had I thought about that a little earlier, I would have extended the deadline. However, that's water under the bridge now.

All bloggers were allowed to make anywhere from 1-20 selections. Rank was determined simply by the number of votes received. Without further adieu, the "greatest figures of the 20th century" according to the left side of the blogosphere are as follows...(cont)

I just had a bizarre instant messenger conversation with Andrew Ian Dodge of Dodgeblogium. It started when he referred me to this post on his page. Here's an excerpt from what he said that caught my attention...

"Let's put it this way, while I don't condone what the Columbine killers did, I perfectly understand why they targeted jocks. If you are being tormented, which they were, routinely, you go after the source of your torment, right?

Question: If some moron jock is using his uber-strength body to torture and abuse you, is it not fair that you use some kind of weapon to defend yourself?"

Here's our instant messenger conversation edited just a bit for grammar, clarity, & brevity's sake. I think it speaks for itself...

John Hawkins: Ehr -- so you're defending the Columbine killers?

Lagwolf: No, but I understand why they targeted some of the people they did. That was were they two of them erred.

John Hawkins: So they didn't err in targeting the jocks?

Lagwolf: No, if they targeted their tormentors I think it was harsh justice.

John Hawkins: Dude -- I think that's nuts.

Lagwolf: Why? You think its right for people to stoned, beaten and bottled cause they are different? That is what happened to those guys and the authorities did nothing about it.

John Hawkins: They shot and killed people including jocks who may or may not have done anything to them. Even if they were cruel to them it doesn't merit going on a shooting spree.

Lagwolf: Yes they killed innocent people which was wrong...but if any of those they killed were responsible for their torment then I do not feel sorry for them. It does not justify killing innocents no. That was wrong. Why is it that its alright for a jock to beat this sh*t out of a brain, but if she grabs a weapon and retaliates it's wrong?

John Hawkins: So the appropriate response to say a wedgie is a bullet in the head in your opinion?

Lagwolf: No...read the history of Columbine. Those guys had stones and bottles thrown and them and were routinely beaten up. As I said I don't condone what those two did but I understand the motivation. Look at the question I ask at the end of the post...what is your response? People in that situation should go tattle and get beaten on worse?

John Hawkins: These kids weren't defending themselves from anything. They just walked in and shot a bunch of people. They did get bullied, but to the best of my knowledge no one ever established that any of the people they killed bullied them. Even if some of victims did bully them that doesn't justify walking in a few days later and putting a bullet in them.

Lagwolf: I disagree...

John Hawkins: Fight back when you're attacked, go tattle, don't go on a shooting rampage -- that's CRAZY.

Lagwolf: No the shooting rampage was wrong...I said that. Go tattle..come on...give me a f*cking break that is way the get hurt even worse. The principal and the teachers were as responsible for that as the shooters.

John Hawkins: You seem to be condoning the fact that they shot some of those people if they ever bullied Klebold & Harris ...

Lagwolf: Yes...if I am a 90 pound weakling facing a 220lb jock...a firearm is a good even if no one does anything about it.

John Hawkins: That is like raving moonbat, Indy Media on their worst day, insane dude....

Lagwolf: You were obviously never bullied or had the sh*t kicked out of you. I am just saying I understand the hatred in side of them...not what they did. This bullying and abuse is a normal part of growing up is total BS.

John Hawkins: Actually I did get bullied and once I got mean enough to get into to fistfights with the bullies and that was the end of that. But in any case, having someone bully you on Monday is not cause for walking in on Wednesday and shooting them in the face.

Lagwolf: See you miss the point...the didn't do this over a week...it was systematic abuse over many years. The trouble is that in the US bullying is seen as normal and a part of growing up. It's not...any teacher or administrator that allows it to go on is guilty of grievous bodily harm.

John Hawkins: So clear this up for me, if someone punches you in the arm on Monday, are you justified in shooting them in the face on Friday?

Lagwolf: No...if some beats the sh*t out of you on Monday and has done it several times before and no ones cares...yeah shooting them is fine. Is there no right to self defense?

John Hawkins: Can I put this conversation up on RWN with a link back to the original article?

Lagwolf: Yeah...fine.

Lagwolf: I don't think you fully understand my position. I think anyone who is routinely pummeled and does not have any regress in the admin has the right to find a weapon to even the score. I am not condoning gang fights. I am talking about someone who gets the sh*t kicked out them all the time. This happens...I have seen it and been part of it.

John Hawkins: My personal opinion is that if you get the sh*t kicked out of you all time then you better learn to fight -- you don't shoot people over it.

Lagwolf: No that is wrong. Some people cant learn to fight...You are talking Lord of the Flies.

John Hawkins: So how far do we go back here? There are bullies in elementary school as well. Should the seven year-olds start blowing away kids who are mean to them?

Lagwolf: No. Alright let me make this clear. 1. bullying should not be allowed to happen ever.

John Hawkins: That's not real life. There is going to be bullying.

Lagwolf: 2. Any teacher or admin who knows about bullying and does not do anything should be liable for grievous bodily harm.

John Hawkins: But didn't you say earlier that people shouldn't inform teachers or admins about being bullied? How are they supposed to know about it?

Lagwolf: Be observant? I mean everyone knows. They interviewed all kinds of students at Columbine and they all knew that lot were bullied mercilessly. 3. If someone of increased strength...as in a jock uses this against someone with no strength, the person with no strength should allowed to use weapons to defend himself.

John Hawkins: So knifing someone is an appropriate response to a wedgie?

Lagwolf: No...Again, that is what you seem to be saying. Wait...WTF I keep talking about beating the sh*t out of someone and you say wedgie? Ehr WTF? I mean physical pummeling...which is exactly what happened to the Columbine murderers...and has happened to me.

John Hawkins: Ok, some big jock punches someone in the shoulder, is it appropriate to knife them?

Lagwolf: Yeah, if they do lots of times...yes. Their body is their weapon so why is it wrong to arm oneself?

John Hawkins: If they do it 5 or 6 times, is it appropriate to walk in and shoot them in the face?

Lagwolf: What do have against people defending themselves? You seem to ally yourself with abusive bully? I am not talking wedgies I am talking actual physical abuse. Beating the sh*t out of someone.

John Hawkins: You seem to be advocating Columbine massacres in every high school in America...

Lagwolf: No I am not. I am advocating that anyone who is facing overwhelming odds in abuse can counter with a weapon.

John Hawkins: There are bullies in ALMOST EVERY American high school who systematically pummel kids. You're saying it's fine for those victims to walk in one day and waste their bullies with a gun. Hence, you're advocating thousands and thousands of murders.

Lagwolf: Yeah. The fact that the Columbine killings were random are the major problem. However, if a few of them are killed the bullying will stop quick.

Tragically, cameraman Mazen Dana was shot and killed by US troops in Iraq on Sunday. Apparently, they mistook his "camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher" which I'm sure is an easy enough mistake to make from a distance, especially given than, earlier in the day there was, "a mortar attack in which six prisoners were killed and about 60 wounded". Now don't get the wrong idea, I'm not implying the soldiers responsible shouldn't be held accountable for their negligence, I'm just saying that I could see how it could happen.

But the response from some of Dana's colleagues is simply ludicrous. You see they're claiming that the cameraman was DELIBERATELY killed. Just look at some of these quotes, starting with one from Reporters Without Borders...

"Reporters Without Borders urged Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to conduct an "honest, rapid" investigation. The group also noted that there have been isolated cases in which soldiers in Iraq have been hostile to the news media."

An "honest" investigation? As compared to what? A "dishonest" investigation? RWB also dances around the issue by referring to "soldiers in Iraq (who) have been hostile to the news media." But just look at what the rest of Dana's Reuters crew (+ a Frenchman) had to say...

"We were all there, for at least half an hour. They knew we were journalists. After they shot Mazen, they aimed their guns at us. I don't think it was accident. They are very tense. They are crazy," said Stephan Breitner of France 2 television.

Reuters quoted soundman Nael al-Shyoukhi, who was with Dana, as saying that the U.S. soldiers "saw us and they knew about our identities and our mission."

Is it any surprise that our soldiers can't get fair treatment from the press over there when the media seems to be filled with nutjobs who think our military wants to kill them?

Again, while I feel terrible for Dana, his friends, and his family, he had to know that he was doing dangerous work. Anytime you go into an area where US forces are fighting guerillas, who may be dressed like you, on the same day as an attack, while carrying a camera that could possibly be mistaken for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, you are putting your life at risk. If you don't understand that (and apparently some of Dana's friends & RWB don't), then you're better off staying stateside rather than going somewhere dangerous like Iraq.

Back on August 8th in a post about the California recall, I said...

"Although we'll know a little more once all the final candidates are set and the real polling begins, Bill Simon & Peter Ueberroth are going to split the GOP vote and could guarantee that a Democratic victory right from the start."

Well, that appears to be exactly what's happening. According to the latest numbers out of California...

"The California Field Poll found 25 percent of registered voters opted for Bustamante followed by 22 percent for Schwarzenegger.

The other candidates trailed in single digits: State Sen. Tom McClintock took 9 percent; businessman Bill Simon won 8 percent; former baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth received 5 percent."

So the other three Republicans of note in the race are pulling just as many votes as Arnold? I think it's going to be VERY tough for Arnold to win if that continues to be the case because Bustamante only has to worry about Arianna Huffington stealing his votes and she's at 4 percent. While the gap between Bustamente & Arnold is small now, I expect it to continue to grow as more left-of-center California voters who are currently undecided realize that Bustamante is their only viable candidate.

However, Tacitus has run across a disturbing article about Bustamante which points out that he used to be a member of M.E.Ch.A, a racist & treasonous anti-American group that actually wants to recapture the land America took from Mexico after the Mexican-American war (California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Kansas). In short, they're an organization full of wannabe Benedict Arnolds and the fact that Busamante used to be a member makes it questionable whether he's fit for public service in any capacity in my mind. At the very least, Bustamante should be asked to publicly renounce M.E.Ch.A and what it stands for. Hopefully someone will step up and get this on the radar in California because the public needs to be made aware of this issue.

Hat tip to Instapundit for finding this story.

Right Wing News emailed more than a hundred right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a list of who they considered to be the "greatest figures of the 20th century". 31 bloggers responded. All bloggers were allowed to make anywhere from 1-20 selections. Rank was determined simply by the number of votes received. Without further adieu, the "greatest figures of the 20th century" according to the right side of the blogosphere are as follows (cont)...