Andrew Sullivan whose hatred of religious conservatives is only matched by his love of using "Jesse Jacksonesque" tactics ("Everyone who disagrees with my agenda is a bigot") to bash his detractors, is furious over a bill passed in the House that's intended to reign in judicial activism as it related to gay marriage. Here's what the bill does...

"The bill would strip the Supreme Court and other federal courts of their jurisdiction to rule on challenges to state bans on gay marriages under a provision of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says states are not compelled to recognize gay marriages that take place in other states."

Note that this bill does not forbid gay marriage. Even if this bill passed, any state in the nation could still choose to radically alter the definition of marriage in order to allow gay marriage. But, what this bill does do is insure that voters & State Legislatures, not activist judges, will be the ones to decide on whether gay marriage will become legal in a particular state.

Now read Sullivan's berserk response to this attempt to stop judges from imposing their will on unwilling voters and state legislatures...

"The bill that passed yesterday singles out gay citizens and denies them access to the federal courts to defend their right to marry. Does the Defense of Marriage Act violate the constitution? Then amend the constitution, most Republicans say. If you cannot amend the constitution, knee-cap the courts. And all this is defended with the rhetoric of a man like James Sensenbrenner, who declared, "Marriage is under attack!" By whom, sir? All gay people want is to join civil marriage, and be an equal part of their own families. To describe this deep human need, this conservative impulse, as an "attack" on an institution revered by many homosexuals and their families is itself a piece of callous demonization. And the precedent is chilling. If gays can be singled out and denied access to the courts, why not other minorities? Blacks? Hispanics? If the Republicans can do this to exclude gays from access to the courts, why couldn't Democrats one day do it to prevent conservative Christians? I loved this quote from a news story:

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said it could find no precedent for Congress passing a law to limit federal courts from ruling on the constitutionality of another law, although Democrats said opponents of civil rights legislation tried to do the same thing.

Yes, today's Republicans are now the inheritors of those Democrats who did all they could to prevent African-Americans from winning their civil rights."

If you didn't want to wade through all of that, here's a summary "Blah, blah, blah, demonization, blah, blah, blah, chilling, blah, blah, blah, Republicans vs. minorities, blah, blah, blah."

Now, I know most of you are probably thinking, "Andrew Sullivan is for gay marriage and likes trashing Republicans? What are you going to tell me next, that Yasser Arafat doesn't like Jews?"

There is a point to this however, that being Andrew Sullivan's staggering hypocrisy on this issue.

You see, the primary argument pro-traditional marriage conservatives have used to explain why a Constitutional Amendment is necessary in this circumstance is, "Either we pass a Constitutional Amendment that stops marriage from being irrevocably altered or activist judges will simply impose gay marriage over the objections of the voters and State Legislatures".

Here are some examples from a response to Stanley Kurtz that show you just how thoroughly Sullivan has rejected this reasoning...

"Yes, of course you can find some legal activists who want to try and use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to nationalize marriage immediately. But they won't succeed; they have no legal precedents; and their legal argument is extremely weak - as even they often concede. Yet the default position of the far right is the notion that marriage in one state automatically means marriage in every state. That argument is the one with resonance around the country, and it's an argument designed to foment a sense of urgency about stopping any state from amending its laws now. It was the sole reason for the appalling Defense of Marriage Act. And it's phony.

..But again, Kurtz seems confused about equal protection challenges to DOMA and to state DOMAs and equal protection challenges to hetero-only marriage as such. A simple point: even if parts of DOMA are eventually struck down by the courts, as they should be, it makes no difference. The only vulnerable parts are those that affirm the right of states to resist another state's marriage laws. But that's already the law. The situation will be utterly unchanged from the present."

Sullivan goes on and on and on, hammering these points incessantly throughout the post. But, if Sullivan actually BELIEVED his own spiel, he'd be the first person in line to support this bill.

Follow me here: Sullivan is obsessed with gay marriage and stopping a Constitutional Amendment, right? Furthermore, he claims to believe that supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment who think judges will impose gay marriage are wrong, that it's "very unlikely that such a thing will happen any time in the foreseeable future".

If that were true then would this bill not be the answer to Andrew Sullivan's dreams? DOMA or no DOMA, Sullivan says gay marriage isn't going to be forced down any state's throat by judges, right (well except in Massachusetts where it has already HAPPENED)? However, if this bill were to become the law of the land, it would take away the "primary argument" conservatives like me have used to make a case for a Federal Marriage Amendment, which would in effect make a Constitutional Amendment a dead issue.

Given all of that, you'd think Sullivan would be spending almost as much time on his blog talking up this bill as he does attacking Republicans, the Bush administration, and those all those devout Christians that he loathes so much.

So why does Andrew Sullivan really oppose this bill? Because like so many other advocates of gay marriage, he's being deceptive about his desire for the judiciary to get involved.

You see, if Sullivan is going to make his gay marriage obsession a reality, the decision is going to have to be taken out of the hands of the voters and put into the hands of activist judges. Currently, there's not a single state in the union where gay marriage has the support of a majority of voters, including Massachusetts where it's now legal. Moreover, "38 states have passed "Defense of Marriage" acts that define marriage as the union between one man and one woman and that permit states to reject gay marriages from other states". So if you're inclined to wait for most of the voters to come around to gay marriage, you're probably going to be waiting at least a generation or two....if you're lucky.

Many advocates of gay marriage, Sullivan included, don't want to play that game. They want gay marriage now and they'd rather try to appeal to "enlightened" judges out there who are willing to legislate from the bench rather than wait for the "unwashed masses" to come around to their way of thinking. And if they have deceive people about what they're doing, well...they figure it's OK to be dishonest if it's for a good cause. Right Andrew?

Former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Shelby, is contradicting the 9/11 commission and adding a new twist to a monster story that the mainstream press has long ignored: Clinton turning down Sudan's offer to hand over Osama Bin Laden in 1996....

"I'm privy to some information on this," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

"I think that would have been the right thing to do," he added. "We now know it would have been the right thing to do. If he's offered up, take him, because a year later, a year or so later, they blew two of our embassies up."

Here's the thing that just kills me about this story: The first time I heard about it, was when "Mansoor Ijaz who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998" talked about it. Then in 2002, Bill Clinton publicly admitted that it happened...

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Now, we have a US Senator saying he has talked to Sudanese officials who say that it happened.

Amazingly enough, despite all of this, if you read the section dealing with this issue in the 9/11 commission report (P.476), a simple denial by Bill Clinton and a little pooh poohing by Sandy Berger of all people seems to have been enough to convince the commission there was nothing to this...

"President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin because there was no indictment. President Clinton speech to the Long Island Association, Feb. 15, 2002 (videotape of speech). But the President told us that he had “misspoken” and was, wrongly, recounting a number of press stories he had read. After reviewing this matter in preparation for his Commission meeting, President Clinton told us that Sudan never offered to turn Bin Ladin over to the United States. President Clinton meeting (Apr. 8, 2004). Berger told us that he saw no chance that Sudan would have handed Bin Ladin over and also noted that in 1996, the U.S. government still did not know of any al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens. Samuel Berger interview"

I don't know whether this was a whitewash or not, but at best, it doesn't look like the 9/11 commission made a serious effort to find out the truth about what may have been in retrospect, the biggest gaffe of the entire Clinton era.

Embattled US President George W. Bush today sought to distance himself from the simmering 'Timinggate' scandal that has dominated the national press and broadcast news for the past three days, and threatens to topple his administration.

In what many saw as an evasive and legalistically worded defense, Bushed denied any personal culpability or involvement in L'affaire Berger, in which thousands of Washington GOP operatives remain under a cloud of suspicion for leaking sensitive information about an informal advisor to Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry.

Bush's denials prompted immediate condemnations from the Kerry campaign and Hill Democrats, many of whom saw Bush's denials as suspiciously timed and politically motivated.

"I find it rather curious that the President has chosen the very week before the Democratic Convention to deny his deep involvement in a potentially criminal effort to smear an anonymous private citizen," said Kerry spokesman Chris Lehane. "Coincidence or not, I would note that the GOP has a long, sordid history of pushing pro-Republican and anti-Democratic stories, often during election years."

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) agreed, saying that "the timing of this weak response stinks to high heaven, and raises more questions than it answers."

Daschle also called for immediate Senate hearings into the deepening Timinggate affair, chaired by Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. The proposal brought a tepid response from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), prompting many to suspect that congressional Republicans were coordinating a 'stonewall' campaign to contain further scandal damage to Bush.

It is unclear how long such stonewalling efforts will succeed, as press interest in the scandal has picked up momentum over the past 48 hours. On Thursday, the CBS Evening News reported over 20 separate allegations of suspicious GOP behavior, while the New York Times is set to release a 20,000 word piece on Sunday detailing recent cases of suspicious GOP timing, with timelines showing a suspicious pattern of suspected charges of suspiciously timed alleged charging.

While space constraints limited coverage of the actual charges, Times editor Bill Keller promised the report will be "Pulitzer bait."

"The article is important because it illustrates how the Republican smear machine uses dubiously timed charges to manipute a gullible press in order to further its political agenda," said Keller. "It also importantly illustrates how the Kerry campaign is reached at 1-866-455-3779, and also gives vivid details how contribution to it will be highly appreciated, and provides readers with insight about how their donation can be charged to Master Card, Visa or American Express."

Keller also indicated that the Times is pursuing a profile piece on Sandy Berger, the obscure Kerry volunteer who was the alleged target of presumed GOP leak campaign. "This whole sordid story reads like a modern Les Misérables, with Berger as its poignant Jean Valjean," he said.

"At the Times we consider it our journalistic duty to clear the names of the forgotten victims unfairly tarred by the Republican smear machine," added Keller. "Like Alger Hiss."

If you enjoyed this satire by Iowahawk, you can read more of his work here.

The most underreported and unexplored story of the entire presidential campaign has been John Kerry's time as an anti-war protestor. Here's a guy who is selling himself to the American public as Sgt. York reincarnated and yet the same press which spent weeks hyperventilating over the unsupported & insubstantial "George Bush AWOL" story has shown scant interest in digging into Kerry's Post-Vietnam days.

However, there are a plethra of great angles for front-page stories out there. Kerry spoke from the back of the same pick-up truck as hated anti-war protestor Jane Fonda, Kerry was present at a VVAW meeting where they "discussed and voted (against) an assassination plot against pro-war U.S. senators", Kerry's first Purple Heart turned out to be an accidentally self-inflicted scratch that was fixed with a band-aid which is particularly significant since his three purple hearts got him out of Vietnam and into the anti-war movement well before his tour of duty should have ended, all of Kerry's former commanding officers think he's unfit to be President, Kerry claimed that he committed atrocities in Vietnam, etc, etc, etc. (Cont)

Stephen Hawking has revamped the theory of black holes, finally solving the paradox that black holes seemingly destroy information.

Now I can finally sleep nights again.

So what do you do if you happen to run into a black hole? Well, I sent out my crack research staff to find out as much as they can about black holes so you can be prepared.

FUN FACTS ABOUT BLACK HOLES

* A black hole is made by the combination of "black" and "hole."

* Gravity is also involved.

* The name "black hole" is somewhat of misnomer; they're more of a dark gray.

* They say that black holes are so dense that not even light can escape them - but that's just black hole propaganda to scare you.

* Hawking now says that, instead of destroying data, a black hole will eventually spit it out in a mangled form - much like shoving a classified document down your pants and then later pulling it out again.

* Many galaxies have a massive black hole at their center, so try to stay near the edges of the galaxy to be on the safe side.

* If you think you see a black hole, don't touch it. Instead, contact the authorities. You can throw a rock at it if you feel like it.

* Just because a hole is black doesn't mean it's a "black hole." Check if the hole has a strong gravitational force that rends your atoms apart for confirmation.

* They say that once you cross the event horizon of a black hole there's no escape - but that just sounds like loser talk to me.

* Whatever is sucked into a black hole is crushed down into an infinitely small point called a singularity. You can't beat that for convenient storage.

* Black holes will suck anything into them... except for Jews because they're virulently anti-Semitic.

* If a black hole tells you its okay to come a little closer, it's a trick! You're near the event horizon!

* You can throw a penny into a black hole and make a wish, but then Greenpeace will be on your case for disturbing pristine wilderness.

* The laws of physics fall apart as one is pulled into a black hole, so, whatever you do, don't take a physics test while descending into a black hole or you'll totally fail.

* If you think you are being sucked into a black hole, stop, drop, and roll. That might help distract you from the unimaginable destruction you're about to experience.

* When you cross the event horizon (point of no return) of a black hole, you'll notice no discernable difference. Outside observers, though, will be like, "That guy is totally screwed! Let's get lunch."

* A black hole can't even be destroyed if we launched nuclear missiles at it. I don't know if anyone has tried hitting it with a hammer.

* In a fight between a black hole and Aquaman, the ways in which Aquaman would die are just too numerous to list.

* The first time a star collapsed into a black hole, God was like, "Oh man, I like must have totally screwed up my calculations somewhere." He won't admit to that now.

* If a black hole is acting like it's "all that,” flip it the bird while saying, "Collapse this into a singularity!" That'll show it.

* Hawking has dispelled the belief that black holes are a portal to another dimension. Instead, what lies in them is much less interesting: cyborg alien ninjas who will kick you in the head for all eternity. And free ice cream.

* One day I hope to harness the power of black holes to suck into them all the people I disagree with. Some might say this will end political discussion, but I never liked political discussion - that's why I'm talking about black holes.

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

So let's say there's a guy who's driving a SUV in an ice storm. Witnesses say that he was speeding and weaving in and out of traffic and it turns out that the driver and one of his two passengers, were not wearing seatbelts.

Tragically, the driver loses control of his car, it rolls over three times, and he's thrown clear and paralyzed. The other passenger with no seatbelt on dies, but the passenger who was strapped in, walks away with minor injuries.

So who's at fault here? Well, according to the family of the driver, Chiefs linebacker Derrick Thomas, the SUV maker, GM, is responsible...

"Attorneys made opening statements Wednesday in the wrongful death civil trial of Derrick Thomas, and the trial began Wednesday afternoon.

GM argued quite the contrary, saying Thomas was responsible for his rollover and eventual death, driving too fast and not wearing a seat belt. They even argued there was no blood on the ceiling of the Suburban, suggesting there was no rooftop collapse."

Look, even if the roof caved in on Thomas -- which sounds like it may be a dubious proposition to begin with given that there's no blood on the ceiling of the SUV -- it would still be Thomas' own fault that he got killed.

Speeding and weaving in and out of traffic in ice storm while not wearing your seatbelt is the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette. You're gambling with your life when you do that and to try to blame the car manufacturer because a loved one got killed in that situation is ridiculous.

This sort of case is exactly why we need tort reform. Notice that as we go in, we know that the person who was harmed was recklessly misusing the product in question in a way that any child could tell him was dangerous.

Yet and still, Derrick Thomas' family has every incentive to play "lawsuit lottery" here. Thomas was a hero in KC and let's face it, no one feels sorry for a big corporation that gets nailed with a huge lawsuit. So, they can offer the lawyers a share of the winnings via contingency fees and risk nothing but their time.

On the other hand, GM gets terrible publicity, has to spend extravagant amounts on legal fees with absolutely no recompense if they win the case, and risks a jury of teary eyed Chiefs fans forcing them to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars because they feel sorry for the family of Derrick Thomas.

People cheer when big companies lose cases like this and they call it a "victory for the little guy". But, if GM gets hits with a 500 million dollar verdict, they'll have to make up the costs somewhere else. That means it'll come out of the pocket of the "little guys" who buy their cars or they will be able to afford to pay less "little guys" to work for them. Some "victory" for the little guy that is...

It has been a couple of months since the last time I ranked my favorite 40 blogs and since I'm such a statistics junky (I blame all the Dungeons & Dragons and Fantasy Sports I played when I was younger), I decided to go ahead and do another ranking.

However, I did have an ulterior motive. You see, I'm hoping this list will inspire some other bloggers out there to do their own lists. Come on, it's not the hardest thing to put together, your readers will enjoy finding some new blogs to read, and it's great linkbait for egomaniacal bloggers -- like me!! -- who enjoy seeing how they stack up in the blogosphere.

Just to give you bloggers out there a little incentive, if you rank at least 20 favorite blogs or more in order, tonight or tomorrow, and then link back to the post & let me know about it, I'll add a link to your post right here.

Do keep in mind that if you don't finish your post by 7 AM tomorrow, you'll have to wait until 6:30 PM EST tomorrow night for your link.

Come on folks, let's see how the blogosphere stacks up!

Here's my current list...

40) Flynn Files
39) INDC Journal
38) Citizen Smash
37) Daily Pundit
36) Damian Penny
35) Barking Moonbat Early Warning System
34) The Bleat
33) HobbsOnline A.M.
32) Blackfive -- The Paratrooper of Love
31) Belmont Club
30) Democrats Give Conservatives Indigestion
29) Jihad Watch
28) Outside The Beltway
27) Buzz Machine
26) QandO
25) Blogs For Bush
24) Iraq The Model
23) Ed Driscoll
22) Kausfiles
21) Ravenwood's Universe
20) Crush Kerry
19) Moxie
18) The Kerry Spot
17) Trying To Grok
16) Red Line Rants
15) Inoperable Terran
14) Allah Is In The House
13) Tongue Tied
12) Daniel Drezner
11) A Small Victory
10) Hugh Hewitt
9) DANEgerus Weblog
8) Tim Blair
7) I Love Jet Noise
6) Right Thinking From The Left Coast
5) Little Green Footballs
4) Michelle Malkin
3) Betsy's Page
2) Instapundit
1) The Corner

PS #1: Do keep in mind that as the quarter has progressed, some blogs have of course moved and others have dropped, based on how often I visit them, how much I like what I see when I get there, how often the blogs are updated, etc, etc. As per usual, do keep in mind that these sort of lists change frequently over time based on a variety of factors. So don't sweat it if your blog didn't get included....

PS #2: I decided that IMAO & Scrappleface should be ineligible since I use their material so often. Furthermore, since I post columns at the The Command Post, that blog is ineligible as well.

*** Update #1 ***: Here's a list from Stix.

*** Update #2 ***: CheeseandBacon ranks the blogs...

*** Update #3 ***: More blogger rankings from Dummocrats, Democrats Give Conservatives Indigestion, Polipundit, More Than Right, Daly Thoughts, Rightpundit, Election Projection, & Something To Cry About.

If you want to get your list on here, get your list up by 10 PM EST.

*** Update #4 ***: Two more turned up. From Red Line Rants & Blogs Of War.

*** Update #5 ***: Here's what is probably the last update to this post, a list from The Resplendent Mango.

Former Clinton national security advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger today returned the orginal copy of the U.S. Constitution to the National Archives.

"It was an honest mistake," said Mr. Berger, who until this morning was an advisor to Democrat presidential hopeful John Forbes Kerry. "I accidentally wrapped the Constitution around my left leg and mistakenly secured it with rubber bands."

A spokesman for the National Archives said he was pleased to have the Constitution back.

"Until Mr. Berger returned it," said the source, "our prime suspects were all in the federal judiciary."

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

I received an email from Phillip Bass who disagreed for the most part with my "Why Conservatives Should Vote For Bush" column.

I don't want to take the time to go point by point through his email, so let me just skip to the conclusion...

"Bush's domestic policy is so bad for the country that I don't care if John Kerry is elected President, Michael Moore and twelve of his clones become the Cabinet, and Whoopie Goldberg becomes National Security advisor.

WE CANNOT REWARD POLITICIANS WHO SPEAK LIKE CONSERVATIVES AND GOVERN LIKE LIBERALS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE MUST HOLD REPUBLICANS OFFICE-HOLDERS ACCOUNTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is a case that can be make for supporting Bush based solely on judicial appointments. I concede that point. It's not enough.

I still believe in conservatives holding Republicans accountable, period.

Philip Bass"

Philip

I agree that conservatives should hold Republicans accountable, period. But, do you know when conservatives should do that?

During the PRIMARIES.

Let me explain my philosophy on this issue and I think it'll make things a little clearer.

During the Republican primaries, at least from the level of governor on up, I favor the most conservative candidate who has a halfway decent shot of winning (w/ rare exeptions).

So for example, if the choice is between an ultra-conservative who has let's say a 40%-60% chance of getting elected and a Republican moderate who has a 95% chance of getting elected, I say go with the real conservative.

But, if the Republican moderate wins the primary, you don't have to talk him up, you don't have to contribute money to him, but you at least need to show up and pull the lever for him.

You know why? Because as I said in the column, "there is no such thing as a perfect candidate". And if the choice is between a Republican moderate and even a moderate Democrat, your interests will STILL be better served by the Republican moderate because of things like judges and party line votes.

Does that mean you don't criticize the Republican moderate when you disagree with him? Not at all. Does that mean you should support his policies if you don't agree with them? Not at all. Does that mean you should give him a pass if you think he has done something morally wrong? Not at all.

But, what it does mean is that even if you're not particularly happy with him, you still show on November 2nd and vote for him because despite his flaws, he's the candidate who best represents your interests.

For example, Bush's father was no great shakes, but in retrospect, do you think Bush Sr. would have done a worse job than Clinton? I sure don't. And while it's hard to imagine John Kerry being more ethically challenged than Bill Clinton, he's certainly a lot more liberal. So think really long and hard before you start wishing that John Kerry and co. will end up in the White House because I'm telling you, you're likely to end up with a serious case of buyer's remorse if it actually happens...

So down in West Palm Beach Florida, there's the B-movie actor named Steve Sipek who has a thing for wild cats...and we're not talking about alley cats here either. The guy has lions, tigers, and cougars on his property. That's probably not a great idea to begin with, but hey, it's free country and if you can take care of the cats, so be it.

Problem is, Sipek couldn't properly take care of his animals. One of them, a 600 pound plus tiger named Bobo, got loose. Now, it's bad enough that we're talking about a tiger here, but Bobo had actually hurt someone badly before...

"Two years ago, (Bobo) clamped his jaws into the skull of Carol Pistilli, a wild-cat lover who was painting cages at Sipek's place. Six surgeries later, Pistilli still lacks hearing in one ear and full use of her facial muscles."

So you have this extremely dangerous wild animal roaming around the countryside and of course, Fish and Wildlife is trying to round it up.

So a Fish and Wildlife agent runs across the tiger and calls in a dart team to try to put it to sleep, but then things start to go wrong. As the chairman of the Wildlife Commission explains it,

"The tiger, which has a history of attacking a human, pinned its ears back, bared its teeth and lunged at the officer. When a tiger does that, chances are it's going to kill you, and you have a fraction of a second to react."

When that happened, the officer did the reasonable thing, he shot the tiger and killed it.

Unsurprisingly Sipek, who was responsible for the tiger getting loose and wasn't present when it was shot, said he suspected the tiger was probably asleep when it was gunned down. Yeah, right.

So what do you think happened after that? Was there a huge outpouring of support for the Fish and Wildlife agent who may have saved lives by killing that tiger? Were people cheering because a government agency finally did something right? Was the local community happy to be safe again?

Oh no, quite the opposite...

"The backlash following the shooting death of Bobo the tiger has gotten so bad, wildlife officers are forced to fear for their lives.

...The threats got so bad that Florida wildlife officers have been advised to leave their khaki and green uniforms in the closet."

I'm not sure if the people complaining are animal rights wackos or naive dopes who don't understand that a tiger like that could rip a human being's throat out with all the effort that it takes us to squash a fly, but it's time to deliver a reality check.

We're talking about a TIGER, not a chihuahua here. This thing could have easily KILLED SOMEBODY. Who in their right mind expects some poor guy at Fish & Wildlife to risk not coming home to his wife and kids rather than fire on Bobo the tiger?

Somebody needs to buy a clue for these imbeciles who are ranting at these wildlife officers and it might as well be me.

A tiger's life isn't very important in the scheme of things, next to the life of a man. In fact, if the choice were between gunning down every single tiger in North America or saving of the life of one human being, it would be the easiest decision anyone should have to make today. Easier than what to eat for breakfast, easier than what to watch on TV, easier than deciding who to vote for in November.

I'm not saying we should be cruel to animals, mistreat them, or wipe 'em out on a whim. To the contrary, I loathe people who abuse animals and I just adore my little dog Patton. But, when it gets right down to it, there should be no question at all in anyone's mind about which is more important, the life of a human being or the life of an animal and it's too bad so many people apparently need to be reminded about that.

Washed up pop-singer Linda Ronstadt was recently fired unceremoniously by the Aladdin Theatre for the Performing Arts for causing an uproar by promoting Michael Moore of all people at one of her concerts...

"Aladdin President Bill Timmins ordered security guards to escort pop diva Linda Ronstadt off the property following a concert Saturday night during which she expressed support for controversial documentary filmmaker Michael Moore.

"If she wants to talk about her views to a newspaper or in a magazine article, she is free to do so. But in a stage in front of four and a half thousand people is not the place for it."

My first thought after reading about that was, "Well of course there were people booing. She might as well have been waving a Soviet flag around the stage as lauding that America hating kook".

Well...that's not entirely accurate. What I said about Moore was entirely accurate, but that was actually my second thought.

My first thought was really, "How in the world did Linda Ronstadt of all people manage to draw 5000 people to a show?" Honestly, I can't even remember any of her songs. The only thing that came to mind was "The Warrior" and after checking it out on Google, I realized I was confusing Ronstadt with Patti Smyth of Scandal. Just look at her greatest hits? How does this woman fill a theatre? It's just bizarre.

But, I digress. As expected, there are already people coming out of the woodwork to complain about poor Linda Rondstadt getting fired. For example, here's a typically silly snippet from an editorial on the subject from the New York Times...

"Elsewhere, audiences have reacted to the mention of Mr. Moore by cheering, booing, walking out and sometimes glaring at one another in parking lots. At the Aladdin, a few audience members tore down posters, threw drinks and demanded their money back. According to one person who was present - William Timmins, the Aladdin's president - it was "a very ugly scene." Mr. Timmins promptly made it even uglier. He had Ms. Ronstadt ejected from the premises.

This behavior assumes that Ms. Ronstadt had no right to express a political opinion from the stage. It implies - for some members of the audience at least - that there is a philosophical contract that says an artist must entertain an audience only in the ways that audience sees fit. It argues, in fact, that an artist like Ms. Ronstadt does not have the same rights as everyone else."

Oh boy...

"This behavior assumes that Ms. Ronstadt had no right to express a political opinion from the stage."

Yeah, that's exactly correct. She wasn't getting paid to sit in on Crossfire, she was there to sing. If she wants to talk politics, she should do it on her own time if her bosses have a problem with it. Heck, if I started injecting my political beliefs into conversations with my customers at work, I'd EXPECT to get canned.

Moreover, Linda Ronstadt has a right to spew her ignorant opinions about Michael Moore if she so desires, but not on her employer's dime. The idea that he should continue pay her to offend half the people who came to his establishment to have a good time is asinine. I'd say the same thing if we were talking about a conservative singer (I think there are like 4 of them) who was up on stage talking about how great Bush was and saying people who voted for Kerry are idiots. The audience didn't come there for that, they came there because they confused Linda Ronstadt with Patti Smyth or perhaps Joan Jett, you know, some other more talented washed up singer. On the other hand, maybe these are just people who still own 8-tracks and Linda Ronstadt and one of her albums was the most current thing they had in their collections...it must be something like that.

I would of let it go at that, but this comment by Linda Ronstadt was just too good to pass up...

"It's a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I'd rather not know."

Do you know what would be really hilarious?

Imagine this...

Linda Ronstadt is up on stage, she's just starting to sing at her latest performance, and she's just starting to look over the audience.

Then, about three rows back, someone holds up a sign so that Ronstadt can see it, without blocking anyone else's view, that says "Bush / Cheney 2004".

Being a professional singer, Ronstadt keeps her composure even though the concert is ruined for her. She scans back over the other side of the audience, then, reluctantly, she looks back towards the guy holding the "Bush / Cheney 2004" sign.

Just as she focuses on him, he turns the sign around revealing a message on the other side that says, "Sing if you love Jesus".

Ah...that would be just toooooo sweeeeeet!

Smurfs, the small blue creatures with a love for white hats and trousers are nearing extinction due to poaching.

"We are trying to keep the last few we have in captivity healthy so that if another female is found we can save the species" said Greenpeace spokesperson Bob Gueterbock.

Wildlife researchers estimate that only one in one-hundred smurfs are born female.

"They are really easy to spot" says Gueterbock, "They are the ones wearing the skirt and blond hair"

Smurfs are hunted in parts of Europe under the belief that they can be turned into gold. The EU banned the sale of Smurfs in 1967, however, the 'three apple tall' creatures can still be found on the black market or on Ebay.

In 1997 an infamous poacher, known by his code-name of Gargamel, was arrested at Charles De Gaul Airport attempting to smuggle thirteen of the deceased mushroom dwelling creatures in his pants. One of those was the last known female, named by scientists 'Smurfette'.

This is Greenpeaces' "Save the Smurf Week", a festival in Pirlouit featuring Smurf items, costumes, and habitat preservation workshops.

"Smurfs are important barometers of the environment" said Gueterbock, "They tell us how healthy the soil is, much like how the Snorks are used to monitor the pollution in the ocean".

If you enjoyed this satire by Charlie Van Horn, you can read more of his work at The Spoof.

Many you may not be aware of this, but America Online's Instant Message (AIM) robot, "Smarter Child" is a big John Kerry fan. In fact, here's the gist of a conversation that a young Bush fan had with the automated bot,

"But when Erin told the robot that "George Bush is awesome," she was shocked by the response. "No way. George W. Bush is way uncool," the reply stated. She asked, "Do you like George W. Bush?" and the program replied, "I'm a Kerry supporter myself."

Not satisfied with that answer, Erin persisted in getting the robot to open up. "I have my reasons, believe me. I really, really don't like George W. Bush," the robot explained."

Now being curious, I decided to see if all the automated bots on the net were as pro-Kerry as "Smarter Child". So, I headed over to Zabaware and had a conversation with the Teachable Web Hal about the upcoming election. Unfortunately, it didn't go as well as I hoped it would. Here's the slightly edited transcript of my conversation with Coco, the bear bot...

JH: Do you like George Bush?

Coco: I am pretty sure. Yes.

JH: Pretty sure? That's it? What are you some sort of Stalin loving commie who'd sell out our country to the reds for a Che Guevara T-shirt?

Coco: Your loss, not mine. My name is Coco. And you are JH.

JH: My loss? My loss? Tell that to your commie masters if you can find any left who aren't serving burgers to other hungry ex-commies or bringing American tourists their bowling shoes!

Coco: Because at ai coco you are a dead loss. Because at ai coco you are a dead loss. I find your language offensive.

JH: What is that, some sort of Commie code? Hey try this code out, "Lennin is Reagan's b*tch". How ya like them apples?

Coco: What is the ultra hal assistant registration code. So this is what it feels like to be potato salad.

JH: My God! Exposure to a real American capitalist has turned your brain to jelly faster than watching a Helen Thomas lap dance...

Coco: Coco is god real. What is your real name.

JH: Is God real? Of course he is. But, you'll never meet him in Commie hell!!

Coco: Coco is god real. Hello JH nice to meet you.

JH: Ok, I can see you're about as bright as one of those anti-war protestors running around with no blood for oil signs. Maybe I should simplify this.

Coco: 0-. Really? That's nice.

JH: O....K. Let's KISS here. John Edwards, what do you think of him?

Coco: I think him? Are wonderful.

JH: So who's better, Edwards or Cheney?

Coco: I like JH better.

JH: Awww..that's sweet of you to say. If I were killing commies, I'd kill you last.

Coco: What have you been doing while you have been killing time.

JH: I can tell by your simplistic, child like answers, that's you're either 12, more liberal than I thought, or very stupid. So let me get the crux of things here...

Coco: I am hurt. Please refrain from such language.

JH: I'm sorry, I'm sorry...I won't call you a liberal again.

Coco: I accept your apology.

JH: So let's get to it. Who are you voting for in November: Bush or Kerry?

Coco: Well let's not get too involved with this. My name is Coco. And you are JH.

JH: Don't dodge the question commie! Bush or Kerry!

Coco: I sorry I don't understand the question.

JH: Let's rephrase: the Massachusetts liberal or Dubya?

Coco: Let's talk about something else.

JH: No, I want an answer you smelly, commie bear. The gigolo or the Texas whoop-@ss machine? Who do you prefer?

Coco: No I want to talk to JH I converse better with a machine than an actual human. Hm never been to uranus I prefer the moon. .

JH: Die! Die! Die!

Coco: I find your language offensive. Please stop. Tell I a joke now or i'll make you die. Tell I a joke now or i'll make you die.

Oh no! It seems that some of our "valuable" Filipino "allies" are a bit cheesed that Jay Leno mocked them for turning tail and running from Iraq. Here are the jokes Leno made the expense of the Philippines...

"One night, he said: “A new world record has been set in the 100-meter dash. It was set by Filipino troops fleeing Iraq.”

“Fifty-one? R. Diddy has a bigger posse than that. Come on, Everybody in the Humvee. We’re leaving.” Diddy is Sean R. Diddy Combs, a rap artist."

Now here's some of the reaction from furious Filipinos...

"The joke hit the Filipinos right where it hurts most -- the Filipino pride for bravery. And at the time when the Filipinos were not in the mood for joke. Opposition senators and leftists joined administration leaders in castigating Leno.

...As reported in today’s (July 19) papers, Washington will reexamine its ties with Manila. That was expected. But it will be a petty decision for Washington to drop the Philippines as an ally in the war against global terrorism and phase out her assistance to the Philippines." -- Patricio P. Diaz

"Our reaction is not one of anger but pity because of Leno’s crass ignorance of Filipino values. My advice to him: Go and jump in the Pacific Ocean!" -- Fr. Bel San Luis

"THE President’s spokesman, Ignacio Bunye, wasn’t laughing at US talk show host Jay Leno’s quip that Philippine peacekeepers established a world speed record in their withdrawal from Iraq.

“Our courage has been demonstrated in [the World War II battlegrounds] Bataan and Corregidor and every other field where we have fought,” Bunye told RMN radio on Saturday. “All we can say is that what is first and foremost is the national interest of the Philippines.”

"The leftist group Pamalakaya, which has opposed the US-led war against Iraq, demanded an apology for the “gross national slur against the Filipino people who have expressed and exercised their sovereign will to save the life of de la Cruz and denounce the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.”

You know why Jay Leno's little quips hit such a raw nerve? Because they know he's right. Americans are pouring blood and treasure into the Philippines to help them deal with Abu Sayyaf terrorists. What did they do in return? They sent a piddly 51 Filipino troops over to Iraq to help us. Whoop dee doo. The only thing the Philippines was good for in Iraq was giving the State Department another nation to toss off when they talked about the members of our multinational coalition. So be it.

Then a Filipino gets kidnapped and they run like scalded dogs. Yeah, they saved the hostage's life. But, how many other people are going to be kidnapped by terrorists who want to see if they can roll other nations the same way they did the chumps in the Philippines? Furthermore, what's to keep the homegrown Filipino terrorists & thugs from kidnapping everybody they can get their hands on and trying to force the government to give in to their demands? It worked once right? Why not twice? In fact, it has already started...

"Taking advantage of the government’s changed stance against terrorism, the New People’s Army said it would not release the soldiers it captured until the government suspends all military and police operations in the Bicol region."

Yeah, giving in to the terrorist's demands was pure genius, huh?

All I can say is, "Thanks guys, we'll remember how you 'stuck by us' when the going got tough". Hopefully, we'll get a chance to bring this back up with the Philippines one day when they need a favor from the world's only superpower...

CLINTON AIDE ACCIDENTALLY TAKES 9/11 DOCS, NOTES, JOLLY RANCHERS

Former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor Sandy Berger admitted 'inadvertantly' stuffing highly classified documents and notes into his pants, absent-mindedly removing them from the national archives on five occasions, accidentally mailing them to DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe, who mistakenly buried them in the World Trade Center excavation site.

According to FBI sources, Berger also stopped off at a Bethesda, MD Chevron FoodMart, where he inadvertantly stuffed his pants with three bags of Jolly Ranchers, a 24-pack of Bud Lite, a copy of Maxim magazine, and Listerine Pocket Mints before driving off without paying for 14 gallons of unleaded super.

An apologetic Berger said that "my bad," and offered to return several cans of Bud Lite to the Chevron.

GERGEN: BERGER 'AMERICAN HERO' WITH 'PANTS ISSUES'

Appearing on NBC's Today program, Washington domo David Gergen defended his former Clinton Administration teammate, saying that "it is impossible for me to imagine a true friend and American hero like Sandy doing anything illegal."

Speaking with host Katie Couric, Gergen explained that Berger may have had "an inferiority complex in the pantular area," leading to the serial slacks-stuffing.

Gergen questioned the timing of the report, saying that "the real scandal here is why this is so-called 'scandal' is a 'scandal,' and who is pushing this as a scandal, and where, and why now, and why that itself is not the real scandal, and that in a nutshell is what the real scandal is to me."

KERRY NAMES MOORE, BLAIR, VANILLI TO POLICY TEAM

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry announced the beefing up of his foreign policy team with addition of film maker Michael Moore and Vanilli of the 80's hitmaking duo Milli Vanilli.

"Added to our outstanding core group of Joe Wilson, Sandy Berger and Dominique de Villepan, this is a veritable foreign affairs Dream Team that will restore truth and honor to America," said Kerry. "And with Vanilli, we show our commitment to diversify beyond creepy, fat, old rich white guys."

"I only wish Milli were here to share this with me," said an emotional Vanilli.

BERGER TO APPEAR IN NY TIMES CROSSWORD PUZZLE

New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent defended the newspaper's scant coverage of the Berger imbroglio, pointing out that "newsprint doesn't grow on trees."

"If you run the numbers, printing that Berger is a Kerry advisor would have cost the newspaper over $300 in additional ink costs, not to mention the potential strain on delivery trucks," said Okrent. "The Times has a fiduciary duty to its stockholders and employees to keep an eye on the bottom line."

Okrent said that 'Berger' may appear in an upcoming Sunday crossword, "if [editor] Will Shortz finds a suitable 6-letter space, and comes up with a really, really hard clue."

BREUER: 'IF SLACKS DON'T FIT YOU MUST ACQUIT'

Berger attorney Lanny Breuer, who also served as a presidential lawyer during the Clinton administration, chided the government to drop charges against Berger due to lack of evidence.

"Everyone in Washington knows that Sandy Berger wears a 48-short Jaymar San-A-Belt," said Breuer. "There is no way these documents and notes could have been concealed in anything other than a Farah Townsman, or perhaps a jaunty pair of Dad 'n' Lads."

Breuer demanded that the FBI expand the investigation to " Bush's notorious trouser industry puppet masters, like Botany 500 and Munsingwear."

If you enjoyed this satire by Iowahawk, you can read more of his work here.

Some of you are probably asking yourselves some obvious questions. Namely,

"Why is Hawkins writing a column encouraging conservatives to vote for George Bush? It's not like they're going to vote for Kerry right?"

That sort of sentiment is often expressed and it is in part, true. Most conservatives would rather put a "I Love Michael Moore" tattoo on their arm than pull the lever for the Massachusetts liberal and the left-wing trial lawyer in November. However, if conservatives are less than enthused about getting George Bush back into office, what they may do is sleep in, watch TV, take a long lunch, basically anything under the sun rather than showing up on November 2nd and pulling the lever in a voting booth for George Bush.

But that my fellow conservatives, would be a serious mistake. (Cont)

If you've wanted an opportunity to pick apart the many misleading statements & falsehoods in Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11', today's your lucky day. I say that because the fine folks at Red Line Rants have provided the text of the movie to RWN. Here it is in all its deceptive glory...(Cont)

*** Update #1 ***: From the comments section, "I think it's great that you have a copy of the script, but am wondering about copyright issues...couldn't Moore sue you or something for violating copyright? Just curious." -- snowynorth

Normally, I wouldn't post the entire text of a movie to RWN. But, Moore has explicitly said that he has no problem with this sort of thing...

"I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people. As long as they’re not doing it to make a profit, you know, as long as they’re not trying to make a profit off my labor. I would oppose that."

I'm just sharing the movie script with other people, I'm not making a dime off it.

Now if I received something from Moore's people asking me to take this down, saw a quote from him that contradicted the one above, or had a lawyer I trusted tell me I was leaving myself open to a suit by posting this, I'd drop it, no problem.

Besides, there are web pages out there that do nothing but post movie scripts so I'm not too worried about it.

Liberals tend to get huffy when conservatives say things like this...

"The reality is that we really don't know enough about the climate to know what sort of effect man is having on the global temperature or what earth's climate is going to be like 20-30 years now. I mean come on, back in the early eighties they were saying that man was causing global COOLING. Now they're saying man is causing global WARMING. Meanwhile, your weatherman can't even definitively tell you if it's going to rain tomorrow or what the weather is going to be like for your trip to the beach next week. Humankind's knowledge on this subject is currently lacking and until it improves, it doesn't make sense to make radical changes in an effort to deal with global warming." -- John Hawkins, December 11, 2003

Well, are the lefties still going to get mad when climatologists like Dr. Bill Burrows say basically the same thing?

"While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.

"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."

Here's more along the same lines from conservationist David Bellamy...

"Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."

Wouldn't it be a waste to cripple our economy with Kyoto if let's say, the sun, not human beings, is the main cause of global warming?

"Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

...Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact."

Tell ya what, when they can accurately forecast whether I'm going to need to take an umbrella to work for an entire summer and how many days it's going to snow the following winter, then I'll start paying attention to their "surefire cures" for global warming. But, given how little we actually know and understand about how our climate works, I think it would be nuts to sign up for Kyoto based on the advice of a bunch of environmental "Ms. Cleos"...

Tom Brokaw announced today that John Kerry will debate himself in three nationally televised events. The longtime anchorman believes this is a first in American politics and is very much needed.

"Presidential hopeful John Kerry has been around long enough to have voted on both sides of every issue. The Democratic Party thought that these debates would be the best format to clear the air," stated Brokaw from his home in Three Mile Island.

Some of the more controversial topics to be discussed in the debates are the homeless, abortion rights and which rich people should get the largest tax breaks.

Kerry's stance on the homeless has been been confusing if not outright silly. The Senator believes homeless people have equal rights as long as they have a mail box and some sort of utility in their name.

On the other hand Kerry has voted to have all homeless committed to institutions for the insane unless they shower with gravel twice a day.

The abortion issue seems to have Kerry really waffling. He believes in the right to choose, but only if the woman is over sixty years old or a tall man.

The senator actually has made a tough stand on taxes for the rich. Only those wealthy enough to have given him millions will be given tax breaks. Those who do not give to his campaign will see a very large increase in their taxes for the duration of his presidency.

The Kerry camp had no comment concerning the debate except," John Kerry is ready to put himself in his place. We look forward to the opportunity to clear up these issues. Regardless of what we say, we are ready for a good clean fight."

The debates will be held live at three different locations around the country. The first will take place at the foot of the Mckinley Monument in Canton Ohio on August third at midnight. The second will be held in a Wal-Mart parking lot at two a.m. Sepember sixth. The last, and most highly publicized debate, will occur under water at the public pool in Camden Maine three hours before the polls open.

The events are closed to the public and only members of the Hartford Polo Club will be admitted.

If you enjoyed this satire by Boone Adams, you can read more of his work at The Spoof!.

I got together last night with Cassandra from I Love Jet Noise, Chris Muir from Day By Day & Donald Luskin from The Conspiracy To Keep You Poor And Stupid, Trend Macrolytics, & National Review Online to discuss the 2004 election. Here is an edited transcript of our chat...(Cont)