John Kerry has been mocked -- and rightly so -- for incessantly talking about Vietnam and comparing his service in Vietnam to Bush's service in the National Guard.

But amazingly enough, today on the Don Imus show, John Kerry apparently grew tired of talking about the Vietnam era for the first time -- at least for a very short period of time -- right after Don Imus asked Kerry about Jane Fonda =D....

"You know, we just move on. You know, we're 30 years beyond that and I think people are interested in the future. I disagreed, like everyone else in America, with the choice she made at that point in time. I thought it was terrible."

Now of course, if Bush would have been the one who had been protesting his own country after the Vietnam war, the press would be all over him like a cheap suit. But, since it's Kerry, they've been giving him a free pass on what he did after the war.

However, if Kerry is going to try to tell Americans they can trust him as commander and chief based on what he did in the Vietnam era, I think he has a responsibility to answer some tough questions about his protesting days. If one is relevant, the other certainly is as well. Here are some questions I'd like to hear Kerry asked -- and these are just for starters...

1) Did you and Jane Fonda once speak at a protest from the back of the same truck?
2) How much money did Jane Fonda give to Vietnam Veterans Against the War while you were leading the group?
3) When was the last time you spoke to Jane Fonda?
4) How many times would you estimate that you and Jane Fonda spoke at the same anti-war rallies?
5) Did you ever march in a rally where the flags of the Viet Cong were being flown?
6) Did you ever march at a rally where Communist groups were present during the Vietnam war?
7) When Vietnam Veterans Against the War was under your leadership, did some of its members wear "pro-communist graffitti" on their uniforms while they protested?
8) It has been said that Vietnam Veterans Against the War encouraged soldiers to desert during the war. Is that true?
9) Why did you allow people to believe that you threw your medals away for so long?
10) How does it make you feel to know that the Vietnamese read prisoners clippings about your group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, in an attempt to break their will?
11) You once said, "War crimes in Vietnam are the rule, not the exception." Do you still stand by that statement?
12) You once said, "To attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom . . . is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy." Do you stand by that quote?

If the voters are going to be asked to vote for John Kerry because of his Vietnam experience, then even Democrats should be willing to admit that the American people deserve answers to these questions...

Nothing against Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine, because I like his blog, but I just do not get the attitude that he and so many other people on the left have about Janet Jackson showing her boob at the Super Bowl half-time show.

Jarvis refers to the people in Congress upset about Jackson flashing the public as a "posse of prudes" and alludes to "book burners". So I feel compelled to ask, "Is there any sort of line at all" for people who feel this way? I mean if the cheerleaders from both teams got together for an unannounced XXX lesbian halftime show, would there still be so many people determined to give off this faux cool "only a prude would be upset by that" vibe about it?

I know the typical response to this; it's "Come on, haven't you ever seen a nude woman before?" Yes, I have. But apparently, unlike the people who say this is no big deal, I have just "this much" empathy for people who just wanted to watch football, not explain nipple jewelry to kids who spent the afternoon watching Barney.

Now, if you don't mind if your small children see that sort of thing -- fantastic -- maybe they'll put you up for the "Larry Flynt Parent of the Year Award." But, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't think they should have to deal with that at the Super Bowl of all places and they're right about that.

U.S. security officials recently analyzed a simulated Al Sharpton presidency and grimly concluded its impact would be "somewhere on the scale between a giant tsunami hitting the west coast and being ravaged by marauding Huns along most of Interstate 40."

The test was designed to show the country’s resolve and willpower under "extreme duress," and Norm Richards, who helped design the simulation, concluded that "Mr. Sharpton’s fiscal policies alone would send thousands plunging from bridges."

Fears were assuaged by John Kerry’s surge on Super Tuesday, in which the Massachusetts Senator won five of seven states. "Had Sharpton won two or three," Richards stated, "I would have seriously considered moving all my loved ones to Canada."

The test also placed Dennis Kucinich as Sharpton’s Vice-President. "We sorted through an array of historical characters and, the whole citizenship requirements aside, discovered only Vladimir Lenin, Attila the Hun, and the Roman emperor Nero would have made more disastrous Sharpton sidekicks," Richards said. Among U.S. citizens, only Yoko Ono and Ralph Nader would have more "severe consequences on the health of the nation."

With Kucinich as president, the computer simulator apparently did "the tilt," technical jargon for information overload. As commander-in-chief, the United States would have to fend off an invasion from the coalition forces of the tiny Caribbean nation of Aruba and Venezuela. "Once Aruban and Venezuelan forces overran Florida and Georgia, the computer kind of went haywire," said Richards. In the simulation, Kucinich’s proposed "Department of Peace" was immediately regarded by other nations that the U.S. was a "nation of shopkeepers...and sissies."

"Hell, I even think a Sharpton / Kucinich ticket would be much worse than the tsunami scenario," an anonymous official said. "I mean, a tsunami wipes California off the face of the earth...tell me, how does this qualify as a disaster?!?"

Another official, who refused to offer her name, took heart in John Kerry’s recent successes. "Al’s campaign – thankfully – doesn’t appear to be going anywhere." And lest people think Sharpton’s demise is a result of the American people’s concern about putting a black man in office, Richards disagrees. "That’s not the case at all. It’s not about race in the least. It’s about giving extraordinary powers to a man with a mullet. We haven’t had a mulleted president since John Tyler, and I don’t think people remember him as a great president."

Thanks to RWN reader Matt Myford for sending in this satire.

I just finished Mona Charen's excellent book, "Useful Idiots -- How Liberals Got It Wrong In The Cold War And Still Blame America First" and I thought I'd share some of the quotes from the book with you. Enjoy! (Cont)

-- Vladimir Putin has been slowly but surely been using the power of the state to crush his political opponents and pushing Russia back towards a more authoritarian form of government. How far does he intend to go with this? I'm not sure, but these comments from Putin aren't going to ease anyone's concerns...

"The breakup of the Soviet Union is a national tragedy on an enormous scale (from which) only the elites and nationalists of the republics gained...I think that ordinary citizens of the former Soviet Union and the post-Soviet space gained nothing from this. On the contrary, people have faced a huge number of problems."

It's not very comforting to see the President of Russia pining for the days of the evil empire...

-- This picture of John Kerry and Jane Fonda standing together is starting to spread around the blogosphere. In fact, I've already seen it presented as legit at 3 different blogs.

However, I don't believe that this is the real deal. Notice the telltale distortion around Kerry, Fonda, and the words in the pic that often accompanies photoshopped pics. More importantly, despite the fact that there very well may be pictures of Kerry and Fonda standing side by side, I don't believe that they ever made the AP. If they did, I can almost guarantee you that the big name conservative mags would already have discovered & produced them.

Given that, I'd caution people to be skeptical about the validity of that pic.

-- Tom "moof" Davies over at Something Awful (Some bad language and obscene links) has a brilliant plan that will help protect America from terrorists. He says it's "top secret", but I believe it consists of dropping millions of copies of this map all over the Middle-East...

-- Here's a story that hasn't gotten enough play,

"Boos nearly drowned out "The Star-Spangled Banner" and dozens of Mexicans chanted "Osama! Osama!" as Mexico eliminated the United States in Olympic men's soccer qualifying Tuesday night in Guadalajara.

"A loud anti-American crowd hollered as Mexico beat the United States 4-0 Tuesday night in the under-23 tournament, claiming a berth in the Athens Olympics," the Associated Press reported today."

How ironic is that the very fans who were out there chanting "Osama! Osama!" would be welcomed as US citizens by the Democrats or given a three year long guest worker pass by President Bush if they're willing to break our laws and sneak across the borders? I hope they have footage of this somewhere so it can be put into commercials when the Dems and GOP start seriously debating immigration reform...

As I'm sure most of you have already heard, there are now claims that John Kerry has been alleged to have engaged in infidelity and to have spirited his "Monica" out of the country to keep her away from the press.

There are already left-wingers claiming that Karl Rove is behind the Kerry adultery story or that it's just "Republican dirty tricks," but, I really tend to doubt that for two reasons.

One, this along with all the new info about his filthy hippy act after the Vietnam war may be enough to cost him the nomination which would leave the door wide open for John Edwards. In my opinion and probably in Rove's (although he isn't talking of course), Edwards would be a significantly stronger candidate than Kerry. So even if Rove had this info, he would have been better served by sitting on it and releasing it at some point after Kerry won the nomination.

Perhaps more importantly, it turns out that Drudge wasn't actually the first page to break this story. The story was actually mentioned at Watchblog 6 days ago and as Jonah Goldberg points out, Cameron Barrett, who also worked for the Clark campaign, writes for that blog. Add to that this info from the Daily Kos...

"First of all, this isn't Drudge's story. It's been around for several weeks. Clark was talking about it to reporters (I confirmed it independently from the Drudge piece). It was common knowledge, but the press sat on it for whatever reason (looking for confirmation? Hoping to avoid being labeled as gossip mongers?).

...Then again, Lehane (Clark press secy) likely had access to Kerry's internal oppo when he worked for him. Given that Clark was talking about Kerry's "intern problem", it would lend credence to this theory. And like I said, I have independent confirmation that Clark did, indeed, make those comments. And given that these allegations have been circulating for several weeks, it's possible Lehane leaked this hoping it would break sooner. But knowing it was going to explode, why would Clark drop out? It doesn't seem to make sense."

...and my guess is that it's a story put out there by the Clark campaign that broke too late to knock Kerry down and give the general a shot at the brass ring.

In any case, I'm not sure that this story is going to cost Kerry the nomination. While we know there is SOMETHING to the story (or Kerry would have already been all over the news denying it), it's possible that it's not as damaging as it may sound (maybe this was actually long ago).

Also, you have to consider that the Democrats spent the length of Clinton years denying saying that the character didn't matter. So, maybe they believe their own BS at this point, you can never tell.

Give it another couple of weeks and we should have a pretty good idea of how this is going to play out in the primaries...

***Update #1***: Someone claiming to be David Remer of Watchblog (I say claiming because I haven't verified his identity with Watchblog) writes the following in the comments section...

"You are fostering a conspiracy theory regarding WatchBlog which has no basis in fact. Cameron Barrett turned the management of WatchBlog over to me back in October when he went to the Clark campaign. Cameron has had absolutely no role in WatchBlog operations since then, save for providing the server WatchBlog software runs on.

Posted by David Remer, Managing Editor, WatchBlog"

You know, I'm not trying to be snarky here, but when I look at the front page of Watchblog, I still see Cameron Barrett's name with an email address beside of it that says "editor@watchblog.com". Furthermore, as of now, at 9:28 PM EST, there isn't a post on the front of Watchblog noting that Cameron Barrett "has had NO participation in WatchBlog since October of 2003" as you claim in the comments. So, I'd have to suggest that you get you make some effort to correct the record on your OWN PAGE before you start complaining about a "conspiracy theory".

But, if you do make the correction and email me about it (because I don't read your blog), I'll change the post to read that Barrett "founded the blog," instead of "writes for" it. I think that's fair enough...

***Update #2*** The Sun has more details on the Kerry "scandal"...

"Alex Polier, 24, was named as the woman at the centre of a scandal that threatens to damage Democrat Kerry’s bid for the White House.

“He invited her to be on his re-election committee. She talked to him and decided against it.”"

As far as I'm concerned, if that "he said /she said" bag of nothing is all there is to the story, then I don't think it merited being reported AT ALL. Moreover, for Drudge to treat this as some kind of big scandal -- if this is all there is to it -- is positively sleazy in my view and totally unfair to Kerry.

***Update #3*** John Kerry is handing out a flat denial of Drudge's charges, "I just deny it categorically. It's rumor. It's untrue. Period." As far as I'm concerned, it'll embarassing for Drudge if nothing else of significance comes out on this story.

I'm sure that most of you have heard about this story,

"Boos nearly drowned out "The Star-Spangled Banner" and dozens of Mexicans chanted "Osama! Osama!" as Mexico eliminated the United States in Olympic men's soccer qualifying Tuesday night in Guadalajara.

"A loud anti-American crowd hollered as Mexico beat the United States 4-0 Tuesday night in the under-23 tournament, claiming a berth in the Athens Olympics," the Associated Press reported today."

While there certainly was some disagreement about this subject at the DU, there were several people at the Democratic Underground who PRAISED that "anti-American crowd" or blamed it on Bush. Here are the quotes....

JailForBush: "Mexican Soccer Fans Chant "Osama!" and boo the U.S. National Anthem. The icing on the cake? They beat the U.S. team 4-0. Go, Mexico!

DenverDem: "They hate us because we're @ssholes. We exploit their labor for their willingness to work for below living wages. We steal their resources. We abuse their citizens when they attempt to get into our coutry to better themselves. This kind of reaction doesn't surprise those of us who have eyes to see. The rest of the world hates us because we are greedy, exploitative, wasteful, hubris riddled assholes. We must change or die."

Brian Sweat: "You're right. It is disguesting that our foreign policy has created such ill will toward our nation and it is nothing that we should be happy about."

Karenina: "Errraaaa...There's been NO INVESTIGATION. We don't even REALLY KNOW if "Osama" was behind it."

DrWeird: "...Frankly, since the US used 9-11 to unjustly slaughter thousands of civilians in Iraq, I'd say this is the least we deserve."

Vietnam veteran John F. Kerry will soundly defeat National Guardsman George W. Bush in the 1972 presidential election, according to a new poll commissioned by the Kerry campaign.

"This election is not about the future, or my legislative record," said Mr. Kerry, "It's about what George W. Bush and I did more than three decades ago. Today's issues pale in comparison to the relevance of my heroic service in Vietnam...and of course, Mr. Bush's valiant efforts in Texas and Alabama from time to time."

The poll has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 32 years.

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

I just wanted to let you know about a few updates to RWN that I've made recently.

First off, my long neglected links has finally been updated. Why don't you take a look at a few of the blogs on the list? Most of them have been around for quite a while and you may find some new bookmarks.

Next up, I've made some updates to the FAQ. Nothing earth shaking, but take a look if you're so inclined.

Most importantly, I got rid of the General Humor, Political Humor, War Humor, & ICQ Pranks sections and created a Best Of RWN Humor category. There are 165, that's right, 165 humor articles in that section. They run from the earliest days of Brass Knuckles Webzine (the humor zine I used to run) to the present. If you're a fan of RWN's humor, you're going to absolutely love this...

Hey, hey, hey, the latest "National Enquirer" has a story on John Kerry and since I used them as a source when I talked about Rush Limbaugh's drug problems, I don't think it's unfair to report their salacious gossip about Senator flip-flop.

Most of what the Enquirer came up with wasn't new to me, but they did have some trashy and fun material that I thought was worth sharing. If you want to get the full effect, make sure to hum "I'm just a gigolo" while you're reading this...

"(Kerry is) so vain. The first time he took Hollywood star Dana Delany home, his big move was showing her video clips taken of him in the Navy when he was in Vietnam. She never went out with him again.

After Kerry and Teresa were married on May 26, 1995, he went from near-homelessness to a multi-million-dollar Boston townhouse."

***Update #1***: For those of you coming over from The Corner, there is nothing in the National Enquirer about the Kerry affair that has been breaking on Drudge.

As I was perusing Citizen Smash's fine blog, I ran across a post entitled "Let’s Talk About Real Issues". In that post, Smash takes note of all the charges and countercharges flying back and forth about what Kerry did after Vietnam and Bush's service in the National Guard and writes,

"CAN WE GET BACK to the issues at hand now? I have to say, as a member of “Generation X,” that this constant replay of the hot-button issues from the early 1970’s is getting very tiresome."

My guess is that Citizen Smash is speaking for most voters who it must be noted paid very little attention to these sort of issues when it was George H.W. Bush vs Bill Clinton, Bob Dole vs. Bill Clinton, and John McCain vs. George W. Bush.

However, if you're already sick of talking about Vietnam, just give it a few months. I say that because the Democrats seem to be gearing up to make John Kerry's distinguished service in Vietnam one of the key issues, perhaps THE key issue that he intends to run on.

I know some of you are probably thinking,

"Come on Hawkins, he won those medals 35 years ago and then he even allowed the world to think that he threw them away for more than a decade. Surely he can't think that he's going ride those medals to the Presidency?"

Hey, I'm not in charge of political strategy for the Kerry campaign. But, if they're crazy enough to think that they're going to be able to sell people on the idea that man who has been in the Senate for 20 years is going to stand up and "fight special interests," then they obviously believe they can convince people of just about anything.

But, if you're watching, all the signs of a "Vietnam" strategy are there. Kerry has already been mocked across the blogosphere for incessantly mentioning that he was in Vietnam. He also surrounds himself with Vietnam vets and has run campaign commercials in the primaries that focus on his status as a, "veteran and war hero".

Most importantly, you have to remember that the last thing a Massachusetts liberal with a terrible voting record on security issues wants to do is go toe to toe on defense issues with George Bush in a time of war. So expect him to try to use the old Max Cleland dodge to get out of it. Kerry will claim that simply being a decorated Vietnam vet makes him credible on national defense and if anyone questions his judgement, they're attacking his patriotism. Then the issue becomes the attacks on his patriotism, not his sure to be mousey foreign policy.

So if Kerry is going to try to convince voters that they can trust him in the Oval Office primarily because he's a war hero, then the GOP is going to have to hammer him on his disgraceful activities after he returned Vietnam just enough neutralize the issue. Of course, that means -- yes, you guessed it -- we're all probably going to be treated to Vietnam discussions ad nauseum for months unless Kerry gets his nose bloodied on the issue early and decides to go in another direction. All I can say is root for that bloody nose...

***Update #1***: I think this bumper sticker I ran across on WorldNetDaily officially signifies that the gloves are off on the Vietnam issue...

***Update #2***: Speaking of taking the gloves off on this issue, here's Ann Coulter on Max Cleland who I mentioned earlier in this post...

"Moreover, if we're going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam.

Cleland wore the uniform, he was in Vietnam, and he has shown courage by going on to lead a productive life. But he didn't "give his limbs for his country," or leave them "on the battlefield." There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight. That could have happened in the Texas National Guard – which Cleland denigrates while demanding his own sanctification."

“Simply Awesome!” That’s how scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory describe the adrenaline rush from the renewed success of their Mars ‘Spirit’ rover this past week. The Mars probe mission has performed flawlessly since recovery with Mission Controllers releasing dozens of color photos in the past 48 hours.

But not everyone was enthusiastic.

“It’s just more American arrogance,” says Belgium scientist Nathan Shingle, with the European Space Agency (ESA). The agency’s own Mars rover, ‘Beagle’, has not responded to signals since its scheduled landing in December and is presumed lost. “There’s nothing more loathsome than seeing NASA eggheads dance around doing high-fives, ‘Look at me, look at me!’ We’re on Mars!’ Bleh, whatever.”

Mars Project Manager James August accused the Europeans of suffering from ‘Rover-Envy.’ “Looks like someone used a bargain brand rover, ” said August. He went on to state that two out of three scientists surveyed preferred NASA rovers over the no-name brand rover.

“Says who?” countered Shingle, heatedly. “There’s no survey, they are making that up!”

As for the color photos from ‘Spirit’, Shingle and his German counterpart, Vaas Hoffseig, seemed unimpressed.

“Have you seen those pictures?” said Hoffseig. “Big whoop! I swear they took the old Viking photos from 1977 and just Photoshopped them. I laughed when I saw them!”

“I thought they were boring,” Shingle interjected.

“They were funny and boring,” Hoffseig added. “I laughed, then quickly fell asleep.”

August shrugged off the Rover Envy with a grin. “If those guys want some help we’d be glad to, you know, give them a few pointers. Maybe our rover will stumble over their dead one, and we can give it a little push. What’s it called again? Bagle?”

If you enjoyed this satire by Cody Farley, you can read more of his work at Broken Newz.

It has been a while since I checked in to see what the detestable scumballs in White Supremacist movement were up to, so I stopped in at the Vanguard News Network forums. A lot of the threads were the "same old same old". You know...

-- Trying to figure out if women they're attracted to are Jewish or not.
-- Complaining that other mind bogglingly racist websites aren't racist enough for them.
-- Throwing out Democratic Underground style conspiracy theories.
-- Coming across like school girls with a crush when they talk about Hitler and the Nazis.
-- Raging about race mixing and blacks.
-- Ranting about Jews.
-- More ranting about Jews.
-- Did I mention that they really don't like Jews?

The only thing that's new to me is that the dislike of Bush on these sort of websites has now grown into a full-blown loathing. A lot of these white power freaks are socialists anyway and if there were an anti-Israeli nominee from the left running for President, they'd vote for him en masse. For example, if Howard "it's not our place to take sides" Dean would have been the nominee, he probably would have carried 75% of the white nationalist vote. I even included a few quotes this time to show you what I'm talking about.

But enough talk, it's now time to take another hair raising journey into the dark side of the internet. That's right it's for another edition of ACPOTI (Anyone can post on the internet). Let's get to it...

---

This loopy post from "Super Moderator" Georgie could have come right off the Democratic Underground,

Georgie: To make things easier on yourself...

You can also bet your bottom dollar that the U.S. government has Osama bin Laden somewhere in captivity and is waiting for the right moment to release him so that President Bush will get re-elected no matter what.

---

Like I said, if these guys could keep their racist opinions to themselves for 5 seconds they'd fit right in at the DU,

Spengler: Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by heaven above
Nah, jews are usually quite clever. That of course lets DUBYA out, sort of, doesn't it ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OUCH!!! To compare Dubya's intellect to a Jew is insulting to Jews. I think you're one of those filthy anti-semites I've seen on 20/20!

--

Uh Oh! Someone called "Billy Bob" accused Wes Clark of being a Jew! Apparently "them's fighting words" on a white supremacist forum and he and "superiorman" were going back forth in the way that only Nazi loving freaks can...

superiorman: Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Billy Bob
PERHAPS YOU ARE A F@G AS WELL AS A K*KE!

AND YOUR MOTHER IS A WHITE VIRGIN? SO THAT MEANS YOUR A TEST TUBE BABY?

---

I think this guy must have been reading Noam Chomsky inbetween Klan rallies...

Leeb: This may be besides the point, but why shouldn't Iraq have had weapons of mass destruction to defend themselves against the U.S.?

---

Ironworker explains his...ehr...bizarre, odd, I'm not sure exactly what you'd call them, racist theories about Greeks and Italians...

IronWorker: Italians are half-n*gger.

This trait was inherited from n*ggers also. (look at n*gger kobe bryant engaging in anal rape with that one White girl in Colorado)

---

This guy buys into "blame everything on the Jews" school of thought that's so popular in the Middle-East today...

MartinLindstedt: ...The loss of the 'militia momentum' was precisely why ZOG staged the OKC Bombing. A bunch of us met in Springfield the Saturday afterwards all pissed off that now according to the jewsmedia we were now 'mad bombers.' Nothing we could do about it, though, except keep fighting. They were in the same boat that I was in for giving a talmudvision interview and saying ZOG did it.

We live in Revolutionary times. Those who weren't able or willing to be 'extremists' had no reason to keep on in the face of hostile ZOG sheep. They faded away into irrelevance. Only those on one side or another are relevant -- the rest of the herd is simply hostage to fortune, none of it good. That's why I like VNN and this forum, it's not willing to compromise until ZOG is dead.

If you want to see an example of the sort of bureacracy and incompetence that that brings to mind that great P.J. O'Rourke quote...

"The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop"

...then you need look no further than this story from Maine,

"Crossing the U.S.-Canada border to go to church on a Sunday cost a U.S. citizen $10,000 for breaching Washington's tough new security rules.

That forces local residents to make a 200-mile detour along treacherous logging roads to get home via the nearest staffed border checkpoint."

First off, you've gotta love the idea that the government's idea of securing the border consists of putting up an unmanned gate that you can simply drive around in your car on Sundays. Apparently the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection believes that any bad guys who might cross at that part of the Canadian border will play fair and wait until the gate is staffed again on Monday before they make their move.

But while I sincerely doubt if they're catching any illegal aliens, drug dealers, or terrorists with that gate, at least we no longer have to worry about the threat of Americans who want to go to church in Canada. Yes, that dark, menacing, shadow has been has been lifted forevermore from the face of Maine. Thank you government, thank you!!!

Current polls actually have Bush behind Kerry in a national match-up. Then again, Mondale led Reagan in the polls early on, so that doesn't mean too much. Still, it would be great if Bush started to raise his popularity, and I have some suggestions how.

TOP TEN WAYS BUSH CAN RAISE HIS POPULARITY

10. Use funky new remixed version of "Hail to the Chief" when entering a room.

9. Rescue kids from a burning orphanage. It may take a number of tries for Bush to get the rescue right, but there are plenty of orphanages and they are all surprisingly flammable.

8. To quickly create millions of new jobs, murder Canadians and steal theirs.

7. Have Bush hunt down Osama and then defeat him in brutal kung fu fight while cameras are recording the action. Could also be used for fund raising if it's pay-per-view.

6. Dismiss questions about Bush war record by having him use a fighter jet to destroy a strategic military target - such as the Kennedy Compound.

5. Have phony pollsters do approval rating poll & then hunt down and kill anyone who disapproves of Bush's performance.

4. People love juggling, and people love puppies - so juggle puppies!

3. He could burn down the IRS headquarters while on national T.V. leading us in the song, "Kumbaya."

2. Same as previous, but replace song with "Welcome to the Jungle."

And the number one way Bush can raise his popularity...

1) Finally find some WMD's in Iraq and totally rub the world's faces in it.

If you enjoyed this post by Frank J, you can read more of his work at IMAO.

I've been a big Star Trek fan since I was a little kid....well, let me rephrase that; I've watched and enjoyed the different Star Trek series since I was a little kid. The really big fans are walking in their houses with vulcan ears right now and fantasizing about scoring with 7 of 9. That's why I find the political discussion of Star Trek going on right now in the blogosphere at blogs like QandO, Matthew Yglesias, Cobb, The Review, Pandragon, & The Corner to be of interest. As a matter of fact, I may be descending into total geekery here, but I think there are fascinating questions raised by Star Trek once you take them out of the realm of science fiction and ask what the real world implications would be.

For example, there's the economics question. Once you can simply replicate anything you want, then does the question of which is better, capitalism vs. communism, an argument that has already been decided in the real world, change or become irrelevant? Well, if as Thomas Sowell has said "Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses," then I believe economics itself is no longer very important when there are very, very, few scarce resources with alternative uses.

Also, I'm of the opinion that if we really did have the sort of technology depicted in the Star Trek series, we wouldn't have the manpower available to explore the universe on spaceships. Like I wrote back on May 15th of last year,

"...I tend to think that the Star Trek world, one where resources are nearly unlimited, wouldn't be as benign as we imagine. My guess is that you'd have a whole planet full of holodeck junkies who'd only come out long enough to replicate some food. I mean once you can create a machine that allows to shape your own reality in any way you wish, how many people would want to experience the real thing? People would spend so much time in their own private holodecks that eventually most of the human race would die out and the luddites would have to replenish the earth."

Yes, you're reading that right. I'm predicting that too much prosperity and freedom from want would destroy the human race. as it is, Western societies do not have a birth rate high enough to even keep their populations from shrinking. Now imagine the effect of personal holodecks. People just wouldn't expend the effort to go out and find a mate when they could walk into a holodeck and literally have anything they wanted, any way they wanted, anytime they wanted. You think Mariah Carey is the most desirable woman on earth? Great, you can be with her in the holodeck in 5 minutes. Oh...but her voice is a little too squeaky for you? Change it. Are you tired of her? Great, you can be trapped on a desert island with Lucy Liu and Ann Coulter tonight if that's what you want. Heck, even if you did meet an interesting woman in real life, there would no longer be a need to romance her. You could just head to the holodeck that night and create her from scratch.

Add to that replicators to produce absolutely anything that you could possibly want, androids to fix anything that breaks, & holographs capable of doing everything else, and there would be almost no reason for human beings to ever leave their virtual worlds. I know that a lot of you probably don't buy this for a second because you believe people would want to get out into the "real world". But, if the virtual world were superior to the real world in every way except that it wasn't "real," then I believe the overwhelming majority of the human race would rarely leave it. Then within a generation or two, it would be left to the luddites among us to try to keep the human race from amusing itself into extinction. Death by prosperity, that would be a heck of a way for the human race to destroy itself, wouldn't it?

The Libertarian party is a party of principle. This fact is an enormous comfort to the party each election year when its candidates lose every major race. Being free from the burden of mattering, we can all be proud of the purity of our untested principles. OK, it is a little harsh to say that the Party does not matter. After all, occasionally one of its candidates may, in a tight race, siphon off just enough votes from the least abominable candidate to push the more abominable one over the top and on to Washington! Husah!

At some point though, even the purist must wonder just what it might be like to actually put a Libertarian into office and see our principles put into action and law. If you are among the select group for whom principle alone is wearing thin, then please take a moment to indulge me in an immodest proposal to overhaul the movement's playbook just a little.

Traditionally, the Libertarian party has run its campaigns along the following model. A candidate is chosen. A primary is usually not necessary, since the Libertarian living in each district can run unopposed. The candidate is often young and eager to indulge in political debate between jobs or classes, or older and eager to engage in political discussion between jobs or teaching classes. Upon cleaning out his couch cushions, the candidate has a campaign budget and then files the necessary paperwork to appear on the ballot. This is the crux of the campaign strategy, too, since appearing on the ballot will not only allow people to vote for the candidate, but it is also to be the candidate's big announcement of his campaign to most voters. "Huh! There's three people running for this office. Who knew? And what the Hell is the Librarian Party, anyway?" Chunk! One more Republicrat vote is cast. (Cont)

You'd never know it from watching the news, but apparently things aren't going so well for Al-Qaeda in Iraq. It seems that Al-Qaeda's head man over there, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is actually getting a bit frantic because things aren't going so well...

"American officials here have obtained a detailed proposal that they conclude was written by an operative in Iraq to senior leaders of Al Qaeda, asking for help to wage a "sectarian war" in Iraq in the next months.

"The Americans will continue to control from their bases, but the sons of this land will be the authority," the letter states. "This is the democracy. We will have no pretexts."

Yes, even as the Democrats moan that Bush has no plan, al-Zarqawi fears its success. While anti-war leftists sneer at the idea that America can help Iraq become a Democracy, al-Zarqawi sees that "zero hour" fast approaching. If I may paraphrase a line Brandon Lee delivered in "The Crow," I guess it's not such a good day to be a bad guy in Iraq.

It's also not such a good day to be a liberal journalist at CNN, because Glenn Reynolds got a screenshot of a since corrected headline that put an anti-Bush spin on this news that has to be seen to be believed...

You shouldn't be surprised when a snake acts like a snake or when a the liberal mainstream media shows their true colors during an election year. It's just to be expected...

Democrat presidential frontrunner Sen. John F. Kerry today ignored reports that he is 'aloof' and dismissed charges that he is 'patrician' or 'aristocratic', calling the the latter "lies promulgated by provincial proletarians -- the ignorant hoi polloi."

As reporters pressed Mr. Kerry about his alleged aloofness, the junior senator from Massachusetts casually waved his hand, as if brushing off crumbs from his necktie. He then continued to talk about his service in Vietnam in contrast with President George Bush's "on again, off again stint in the National Guard."

During a campaign stop at a restaurant, Mr. Kerry carefully carved a pizza slice with a knife and nibbled small morsels of it from a fork as he told some local people about his service in Vietnam.

He used the occasion to again refute claims that his noble lineage sets him apart from most Americans.

"Just because I was born into wealth, attended an Ivy League school, married two wealthy women and live in a multimillion dollar home in Boston's finest neighborhood, doesn't mean that I can't identify with the common man," said Mr. Kerry. "I can relate to the average Joe Sixpack. He loves to hear about my service in Vietnam and I enjoy talking about it. So we have something in common."

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

I've been traversing the blogosphere so I could see what bloggers thought about Bush's performance on "Meet the Press" and the reviews have been all over the map. I think that may be because it was almost like there were two interviews.

At the start of the show when Russert was grilling Bush about the war, I thought Bush came across as evasive, long winded, & obtuse (although in all fairness, it reads better than it sounded live). In fact, Bush reminded me of an unprepared college student giving an oral report and just tossing out facts he knows about a subject in hopes that the professor will give him a "D-" instead of an "F". But, once Bush got past the war, I thought he was very effective.

So what was the difference between the 1st & 2nd halves of the interview? In the 2nd half of the interview, Bush effectively countered the charges Russert brought up in a way that I thought was concise, on topic, and understandable to the average person. For example, here's an exchange that I thought was great...

RUSSERT: And we are back in the Oval Office, talking to the president of the United States.

Mr. President, this campaign is fully engaged. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terence McAuliffe, said this last week: I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard. He didn't show up when he should have showed up.

BUSH: Yes.

RUSSERT: How do you respond?

BUSH: Political season is here. I was -- I served in the National Guard. I flew F-102 aircraft. I got an honorable discharge.

I would be careful to not denigrate the Guard. It's fine to go after me, which I expect the other side will do. I wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard, though. And the reason I wouldn't, is because there are a lot of really fine people who have served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq.

So Bush not only definitively says that the AWOL charge is bunk, he points out that he was fighter pilot, something a lot of people who aren't political junkies may not be aware of. Furthermore -- and here's the best thing about this response -- Bush turns it around. Not only is he pointing out that this is just "politics as usual from the Dems" he's warning them not to continue to insult members of the National Guard who are risking their life for our country.

So what about the war questions? What Bush needed to do on there was ramble less, get to the point, and turn the tables on the people tossing rhetorical barbs at him. Here's an example of what I mean; this a response Bush COULD HAVE made to one of the war questions from Russert,

RUSSERT: How do you respond to critics who say that you brought the nation to war under false pretenses?

THEORETICAL BUSH RESPONSE: Well Tim, that's obviously ridiculous. The Brits, the Germans, the Israelis, George Tenet, the Clinton administration, even Democrats running for President like John Kerry, John Edwards, & Wesley Clark all believed Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs and said so publicly before the war.

Furthermore, while we haven't found the WMD that all of us expected to find, David Kay has already confirmed that the Iraqis were working on a chemical weapon using ricin, had the material needed for dirty bombs, and that Saddam fully intended to resume his weapons programs. If the critics would rather that Saddam were still in power today, still working on producing chemical weapons, still supporting terrorism, then I couldn't disagree more with the critics.

A response like that not only convincingly refutes the charge that Bush lied, it lets people know there was SOMETHING going on in Iraq. Furthermore, it puts "the critics" on the defensive. Let them explain away all the other people and intelligence agencies who believed Iraq had WMD. Let them explain why they don't believe Iraq's chemical weapons program was a threat.

In any case, I think this sort of give and take with someone like Russert will help sharpen up the message for the campaign trail and given some of those early responses, Bush needs that...

I find it quite interesting that John Kerry has made Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. Not only because being a decorated Vietnam Vet doesn't automatically make you a foreign policy genius, but because war records haven't really meant very much over the last few elections (Think George H.W. Bush vs. Clinton, Bob Dole vs. Clinton, & George W. Bush vs. McCain). Moreover, I think it's important to note that John Kerry has not one, but two Vietnam records.

Of course, Kerry has talked extensively about his time in Vietnam. Given the fact that Kerry earned three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star there, it's understandable that he'd want people to know about it. Other people may question Kerry's length of time in Vietnam or whether he earned those medals or not, but I don't plan to be one of them. To the contrary, I have nothing but respect and admiration for John Kerry's service to our country in Vietnam.

On the other hand, Kerry did not cover himself with glory when he returned from Vietnam. To the contrary, his behavior was disgraceful. It has been often noted that John Kerry pretended to throw his medals away and years later corrected the record. Today, those very medals he apparently cared so little for are an integral part of his campaign for the Presidency. That's ironic isn't it?

Furthermore, in 1970, Kerry actually "railed against U.S. war policy from the back of the same pickup truck" as Jane Fonda, a fervent supporter of VVAW, an organization that Kerry would later lead. Of course, we are talking about "Hanoi" Jane Fonda who later proved to be a despicable traitor (and I do not use those words lightly) to our country.

Moreover, while American soldiers were still fighting, dying, and being tortured in Vietnamese prison camps, the John Kerry led Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) were holding anti-war protests that featured soldiers wearing "pro-communist graffitti" & marching with communists under the "flag of the Viet Cong".

So what sort of effect did John Kerry's actions have on our soldiers? Here are a few excerpts from a column written by former POW Joe Crecca that doesn't paint a pretty picture...

"The rigors and hardships of being a POW aside, I remember the so-called "peace movement" and peace marches and rallies that were taking place back home in the United States.

...I hope people will reconsider their support for Kerry in light of his actions, which were so detrimental to our Vietnam combat soldiers, sailors and airmen, many of whom are not here today to tell you themselves."

I hope so too Joe, I hope so too.