That's it for Q&A Friday #9 folks! Thanks for all the great questions. Have a nice week-end and get ready for another big interview (my second interview with this person) that I'll be releasing on Monday. Make sure to tune in and check it out...

Question: "What do you think is the probable solution to Iran's nuclear problem (i.e. Israel a la Osiraq? or Iraq-style invasion?)?" -- DBO

Answer: My guess is that the Europeans and Bush administration (through back channels) are going to continue negotiating fruitlessly with the Iranians for a period of time. Then eventually, when Iran is starting to get a little too close to building nukes for comfort , either we're going to bomb their nuclear facilities or the Israelis will.

It would be insane to let the fundamentalist, tyrannical, terrorist sponsoring, "death to America" crowd that runs Iran get their hands on nuclear weapons. Although it would be better to negotiate a peaceful solution, especially since America is relatively popular with much of the Iranian population, I don't think that's going to happen.

Under no circumstances should Iran be allowed to acquire nukes. They could very well give them to terrorists, launch them at Israel, use them for nuclear blackmail (once their new long range missiles that can hit the US are in place). It would start a nuclear arms race in the Middle-East...it would be such a nightmare scenario that war would be preferable to allowing it to happen...

I find this to be bizarre...

"Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.

The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.

Williams said Thursday he understands that critics could find the arrangement unethical, but "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in."

I like Armstrong Williams, in fact I tried to get an interview with him once, but this just makes no sense to me on any level.

Obviously, there's an ethics problem here if you have the administration secretly paying a pundit to promote their policies. The administration should have known that and Williams should have known that, so it's baffling to me that they went through with it. Williams, who had his columns dropped by Tribune Media Services over this, said that,

"This has been a great lesson for me. I apologize. ... I should be criticized, and I crossed some ethical lines. I've learned from this. It will never happen again."

Yeah, but Williams had to know he was crossing "ethical lines" when it happened, so what was he thinking?

Moreover, if Williams believes in the program as he says (and which is probably the case), why did he need to be paid to promote it? It just makes no sense to me.

This sort of thing makes people question the legitimacy of commentary that they read or hear, because they have to wonder whether some "secret deal" is being struck that is allowing some unknown party to put words in the mouths of radio hosts.

Williams has apologized already. Now, the Bush administration needs to do the same thing, reveal if they paid off any other pundits or radio hosts, and then they need to pledge never to do this sort of thing again.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for bringing this story to my attention.

Question: "After reading about Newdow's new anti-religious lawsuit plans I was inspired (not religiously so) with this question...

Does the establishment clause actually imply a separation of church and state or is the left yet again trying to trample the Constitution?" -- Silverback

Answer: The "separation of church and state," as it's interpreted today, is not only wrong, it stands the First Amendment, which was designed to protect religious liberties, on its head. The First Amendment reads,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, how does a judge putting the 10 commandments up on his courtroom wall equate to Congress establishing a religion? Who can believe that some kid singing "Away in a Manger" at an elementary school concert somehow means the Federal Government is declaring Christianity to be the state religion?

When the Founding Fathers were around, they studied the Bible in public schools and there were even official state religions. So, how is it that today we can try to claim that the Founding Fathers considered those things to be unconstitutional?

Separation of church and state, as it's interpreted today has nothing to do with what the Founding Fathers intended and it has everything to do with liberal, anti-Christian, zealots who are twisting the Constitution in order to suit their own agenda.

You can read more about this topic here, in my interview with David Limbaugh.

Question: "Any preliminary thoughts on Mahmoud Abbas, the next leader of the Palestinian movement?" -- Schroman2002

Answer: A lot of people are excited because he's a new face, but quite frankly, I'm deeply skeptical that he is going to be willing and/or able to accomplish much.

If Abbas wants real peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, he's going to have to get rid of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, unconditionally oppose any terrorist attacks on Israelis for any reason, & stop Palestinian schools and government controlled media from promoting terrorism and anti-semitism. Until all those things are done, real peace isn't possible.

Even after Abbas is elected, will he have a mandate from the Palestinian people to do those things? No. Even if he did have a mandate, does he have enough loyal armed men to make it happen? No. Is he even inclined to do those things? My gut instinct says no, he isn't.

So Abbas can make his pretty little speeches about peace that are primarily designed to appeal to naive Westerners who don't understand that talk is cheap, but it doesn't mean anything. Watch what Abbas does, not what he says to see if progress is being made.

Nine times out of ten, I agree with Michelle Malkin, but I have to disagree with her stance on letting Kid Rock play the Republican inauguration.

Here's what Michelle had to say about the groups protesting Kid Rock playing inauguration,

"I applaud them. Some "South Park conservative-" types are ridiculing the protesters. "Lighten up," they say. But I'm with the family groups on this. The inaugural celebrations should highlight the best the GOP has to offer. A guy who, as World Net Daily points out, "dedicated his first album to songs about oral sex and who was voted the Sluttiest Male Celebrity at the 1999 MTV Video Music Awards" and who titles songs "F--- U Blind" and "F--- Off" doesn't belong there, even if he is a rare celebrity Bush supporter.

Good. Glad to see that some conservatives aren't embarrassed about upholding decency."

Personally, I'm a big fan of Kid Rock & I like his music.

I also understand that he is profane and raunchy, but I would also add that he's a guy who supports Bush, performed for the soldiers in Iraq, and even chided other performers for not performing in Iraq...

"You see this thing now where like Bruce Springsteen, Jon Bon Jovi - like I love all these guys as musicians - they're gonna raise money for John Kerry. God bless 'em... But, before you go and do that, why don't these motherf**kers go over there and play for our soldiers in Iraq? I'm not vocal about my views on the war. I'm just vocal about my views on the troops..."

"I do not believe that artists or actors and people should be out there like voicing their full-blown opinions on politics because, let's face it, at the end of the day, I'm not that smart of a guy. I play rock 'n' roll, that's what I do. Who would you trust to make your decisions, Donald Rumsfeld or the Dixie Chicks?"

I do understand that Kid Rock offends some people and I'm not criticizing anybody who doesn't like him. People are entitled to their opinion.

But, I would say that's he's not being nominated for Attorney General here, they'd just like to have him play a little music =D...and as far as I'm concerned, anybody who supports W and sticks up for the troops like that is OK to play the inauguration in my book.

Question: "What do you think might happen to the libertarian party? Will it become the 3rd major political party, replace either the democratic or republican party, or just stay as a small percentage of americans?" -- GoodOleBillyC

Answer: First off, there are plenty of smart, politically savvy Libertarians. However, history says that the Libertarian Party is unlikely to ever be anything but a spoiler party that siphons votes from Republicans. Here's an excerpt from my interview with Michael Medved that will explain what I mean...

"...One of the big lies in American history is that third parties have played a prominent or constructive role, they never have. They've only played a destructive role. The Republican party was never a third party. This is another one of the big lies. The reason I say it was never a third party is because the first year the Republicans offered candidates under the name "Republican," in 1864, they elected almost 200 members of Congress. They were second only to the Democrats.

I think it's possible for one party to collapse as the Whigs did and then for another party to replace it. But, we've never had a situation where third parties have achieved anything in America. Let me give you a good example. People look on the Teddy Roosevelt campaign for president in 1912 as a great success....

John Hawkins: With the Bull Moose Party....

Michael Medved: Exactly. He got 27% of the vote, which is more than any other third party candidate ever got. The purpose of his campaign as historians recall was basically to move the Republican party in a more progressive direction. But what he did was killed the progressive wing of the Republican party, he killed it dead. Because basic logic here, you do not influence a major political party by leaving it. You influence a major political party by staying in it and fighting for the ideas and the candidates you care about.

The Libertarian Party in particular is never going to go anywhere. The LP tends to run embarrassingly bad candidates and they tend to come across as a little bit kooky on the national stage. Moreover, the GOP and Dems co-opt a lot of the decent ideas they have and you almost have to be a political junky to even understand where Libertarians are coming from. In other words, Libertarian ideas and the things they tend to really care about don't translate well when you're talking to people who aren't policy wonks.

As an aside, Libertarians often get offended when I write posts like this, but I'm not trying to be insulting. There are some issues I agree with Libertarians on & my favorite blogger (Instapundit) is a Libertarian, but that doesn't change the fact that voting for candidates on the LP ticket is, was, and probably will always be a dead end 99% of the time...

Question: "What are your thoughts on secession? Are the states themselves sovereign, or did they become slaves to the federal government when they ratified the constitution?" -- Goose

Answer: I know there may be a few Libertarians who disagree, but this question was answered to my -- and most people's -- satisfaction by the Civil War. In the unlikely event that it ever became a serious issue again, I expect that the issue would be settled the same way if necessary.

Question: "Do you do this full-time? If you do it in your part time, how do you manage? By the time I get home from work, watch two episodes of the Simpsons, massage my wife's feet, and do my homework, I have little energy for such endeavors." -- IlliniGuy

Answer: I have a full time job doing tech support and RWN is in essence a second full-time job. I manage by working like a dog Sunday-Friday. Typically, I get 5-6 hours of sleep per night during the weekdays and work on RWN constantly from the time I arrive home (although I do listen to music and watch TiVo while I work a lot of times). On Saturdays, I catch up on my sleep and try to spend most of the day relaxing, although just as often as not it doesn't work out that way.

So, although I really enjoy working on RWN, it is an enormous amount of work. But, if you want to write for a living one day -- and I do -- nobody is going to hand it to you on a silver platter; you have to pay your dues and prove you have what it takes by building up an audience.

Today will be Q&A Friday #9 at RWN.

So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective, heck it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV.

Then later today, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them. My posts will probably be a little shorter than normal, but expect at least twice as many posts as normal from me.

So ask away!

Question: "Have you ever been left wing?" -- Chairman_Mao

Answer: No, I've never been a liberal. I was apolitical in high school, but had great interest in learning more about politics when I arrived at college.

As I started learning more about the body politic, I was looking for what I thought were practical solutions to problems that faced the country. After taking a hard look at liberalism, I came to the conclusion that it was an ideology for people who put feelings ahead of facts, not for pragmatic or logical people....and I still hold that view by the way.

So, I started reading more about politics & did a little work for the local Republican Party HQ. Then after doing some minor work for a few candidates in one campaign cycle, I decided it was a sleazy business & for the most part lost interest in day to day politics for several years until the Bush/Gore Florida brouhaha in 2000 inspired me to get involved again.

Question: "How do you think this country/the world will remember George W. Bush and his Administration? Will he be criticized in history books or celebrated?" -- Rooster349

Answer: It's impossible to give a complete answer to this question not only because Bush's term hasn't been completed yet, but because oftentimes events that happen AFTER a President goes out of office reflect on his Presidency.

For example, some of the luster from the Gulf War, the most notable achievement of Bush 41's presidency, has rubbed off since we had to go back into Iraq. Furthermore, after 9/11, Clinton's failure to take significant action against global terrorist groups and the fact that he turned down Sudan's offer to hand over Osama Bin Laden, put him in an unflattering light. On the other hand, Reagan's place in history was elevated immeasurably when the Soviet Union collapsed in Bush 41's term, largely because of the Gipper's efforts.

Now, has Bush done some things that could make him stand out in the history books? Absolutely. I think in large part, when all is said and done, Bush will be judged on how the war on terror plays out. Will Iraq and Afghanistan eventually become stable democracies? Will freedom spread across the Middle-East in the next few years? Will there be other major terrorist attacks in the US? Can we get Iran and Syria to stop supporting terrorism? Can Bush get North Korea out of the business of building nuclear weapons? Will there be more 9/11s -- or worse -- in the next four years?

Then there's the rebuilding of the military, Social Security reform, tax reform, medical reform, tort reform, helping the GOP become the dominant political Party in the US...there are so many different things that can be remembered long after the petty political issues of the day are forgotten.

So could Bush be looked at as a "great President" one day? Sure, but we may be more than a decade out from getting an idea of how history will view him...

Oliver Stone is whining again because his movie "Alexander" stunk it up at the box office. Rather than put the onus on himself for making a film that has gotten horrible reviews, Stone not only denounces, "American critics and audiences, saying they had focused solely on the issue of homosexuality," he suggests that President Bush should shoulder some of the blame for perhaps the worst Hollywood bomb since Waterworld.

Let's take a look at what Stone has to say in more detail, shall we?

Amusingly enough, Stone complains that the "gay issue" was "overblown." I say, "amusingly enough," because the reason that Alexander's sexuality got so much attention was because Stone gave an incendiary interview to Playboy in which he said things like,

"We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality. Young boys were with boys when they wanted to be."

&

"You only need five words. Alexander says, 'Stay with me tonight, Hephaistion,' and you get it. If you don't get it, f--- you, it's your problem."

I could also add that while Alexander may have been "bisexual" (and I say may have been because there is some controversy over that issue and its significance in Alexander's day), it certainly wasn't a pivotal issue in life. Choosing to make that into a significant issue in the movie was a mistake by Stone equivalent to doing a movie about George Washington and spending an inordinate amount of time focusing on his false teeth.

Furthermore, this sort of casually stupid comparison is particularly offensive, although sadly all too common these days on the left...

"Stone, a three-time Oscar winner and director of acclaimed films including "Platoon" and "Born on the Fourth of July", said his latest venture had fallen victim to events in Iraq.

"I think it makes people feel queasy about empire and the concepts that Alexander espoused, but Alexander was not attacking the east in order to drain it of its resources. He stayed in the east."

Bush has liberated 50 million people from monstrous regimes and he gets unfavorably compared to Alexander for it? Alexander was certainly a gigantic figure who left his mark on history, but he was also the Hitler of his day, a megalomaniacal butcher who strived for world conquest. Here's a little more on what Alexander was really like...

"Like Napoleon, who caused the death of hundreds of thousands in Russia and Iberia, while lecturing on the sacrifices needed to bring Revolutionary egalitarianism to Europe, Alexander’s “Brotherhood of Man” – a purportedly noble Hellenic effort to civilize and unite Asia into a kinder and gentler continent – was the brilliant rhetorical veneer that rested atop millions of corpses.

Add to this tally the random murders of Macedonian cavaliers – Cleitus stabbed in a drunken rage, Philotas executed after a show-trial, seventy-year-old Parmenio beheaded, and the generals Cleander and Sitacles along with 600 of their soldiers dispatched. The cranky philosopher and historian Callisthenes was finally done away with, and so were hundreds of Macedonian pages. Alexander, the philosopher king, introduced the popularity of both decimation and crucifixion into the Western world."

If Bush were half as monstrous as Alexander, Stone would have been crucified on Hollywood Blvd already in order to send a message to all the other liberal celebrities. You'd think Stone would understand that since he just made a movie about Alexander and presumably learned something about what sort of man he was. But given that we're talking about a man with a soft spot for Fidel Castro, I guess we can't expect that rationality is his strong suit...

-- It looks like Crossfire is history which I can't say saddens me in the least. The less political shows that feature a bunch of people shouting at each other, the better as far as I'm concerned.

-- Alberto Gonzales is the latest conservative minority to be targeted by Democrats for silly reasons and Linda Chavez explains why,

"It irks some Democrats that a Republican president keeps naming blacks and Hispanics to such unprecedented, high-level posts. Liberals believe they own the franchise on minorities and can't stand any Hispanic or black who breaks rank."

As long as minority groups stay subservient to the white liberals who run the Democratic Party, they get a free pass from the left. But, the moment they refuse to toe that liberal line, look out, it's time for another "high tech lynching" as Justice Thomas called it. The Democrats always deny that race has anything to do with it, even when they're caught explicitly targeting a conservative because of his race, but everybody knows that is exactly what's going on...

-- I'm a very optimistic person, but if I were a Democrat, this news, that they're considering sticking with a proven loser like McAuliffe, would probably put me into a funk...

"Senior Democrats are trying to persuade national Chairman Terry McAuliffe to continue his service as party chairman, especially if none of the current candidates gains momentum in the race to replace him.

"Terry McAuliffe has been a great chair and he could continue that," Schumer said Wednesday. "The bottom line is that Democrats have a lot of good candidates to lead us."

Hey, since the Dems are sticking with losers, why don't they run Jimmy Carter again in 2008?

-- From PoliPundit,

You’ve got to stand back in sheer awe at the lunacy of what Senate Democrats will be doing today. They will:

1. Beat up on the first Hispanic ever nominated to become Attorney General.
2. Beat up on him for being too harsh on our terrorist enemies.
3. Formally challenge the legitimacy of a presidential election that was decided by 3.5 million votes in the largest turnout ever.

You know why they're doing this? Because they've gone so far to the left over the last thirty years or so and lost so many moderates over the last 30 years or so, that conspiracy nuts, America haters, race hustling poverty pimps, have become a significant part of their base and they feel a need to cater to them. Expect it to continue to get worse over the next four years at least...

-- How can you be a famous economist like Paul Krugman and have absolutely no understanding or knowledge of human nature? Read what he has to say about the non-existent Social Security trust fund and you'll see what I mean...

"So where's the imminent crisis? Privatizers say the trust fund doesn't count because it's invested in U.S. government bonds, which are "meaningless i.o.u.'s." Readers who want a long-form debunking of this sophistry can read my recent article in the online journal The Economists' Voice (www.bepress.com/ev).

Politically, that seems far-fetched.

So Krugman in essence admits that there is no money in the Social Security "trust fund," but that the government will still pay off. Really?

Well remember that taxpayer funds are used to pay for Social Security. So, when we're, let's say, paying out 300 million dollars a year more for Social Security than it's taking in, Krugman believes what -- that the people caught on the wrong end of the ponzi scheme are just going to say, "Ok, jack up our taxes every year to pay for your promises"?

There's not a chance in the world that will happen. Instead, when taxes get high enough or the debt gets too large, the taxpayers are going to revolt and demand that the amount paid out to Social Security recipients be decreased. Then either the Social Security checks will have to be reduced or the age limit will go up. The idea that taxpayers are just going to "grin and bear it" long-term as their taxes continue to surge upwards to pay for Social Security is pure fantasy and anyone with even a modicum of common sense understands that. That's why Bush wants to reform Social Security now, so we don't end up waiting until the program is in the red already to make decisions. It's proactive, it's smart, and if the Democrats actually cared more about keeping the program solvent than trying to deny Republicans a political victory, they'd be working with Bush to find a solution they can live with...

Alberto Gonzales, President Bush's Attorney General nominee, told the Senate Judiciary Committee today that he would state only his name, rank, date of birth and Air Force serial number, which is all that is required under the terms of the Geneva Conventions.

Mr. Gonzales, who faces criticism from Democrat senators over a memo he wrote seeking to clarify whether the Geneva Conventions apply to terror suspects, refused to answer further questions from committee members at his confirmation hearing.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said President Bush hopes Senators will, at least, treat Mr. Gonzales according to Article 14 of the Third Geneva Convention, which states: "Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour."

Mr. Gonzales' refusal to answer Senators' questions did not affect the committee's inquiry, which consists primarily of speeches to a gathering of journalists.

Content used with permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

In his remarks in Madison County, President Bush claimed that he has a mandate for tort reform:

I talked about it everywhere I went on the campaign -- nearly everywhere I went on the campaign trail, and I believe the voters made their position clear on election day about medical liability.

As regular readers know, I support both the President and tort reform, but I'm not convinced the President can claim a mandate for tort reform. Absent the rare single issue campaign, people vote for a candidate for a whole complex of reasons. So it's hard to draw inferences from Bush's victory with respect to any single issue (possibly excepting his positions on security).

Mandate or not, however, the President made a strong case for malpractice reform elsewhere in his speech:

In 2003, almost half of all American hospitals lost physicians or reduced services because of medical liability concerns. ... Over the past two years, the liability crisis has forced out about 160 physicians in Madison and St. Clair Counties alone. ...

They have specialists who stop taking emergency room calls. Doctors turn away patients with complicated, life-threatening conditions because they carry the highest risk for a lawsuit. Defensive medicine drives a wedge between the doctors and the patients, and defensive medicine is incredibly costly for our society. Altogether, defensive medicine drains some $60 billion to $100 billion from the economy. Defensive medicine raises medical bills for patients and increases insurance costs for employers and it takes money away that small businesses could use to invest and expand.

There's considerable data to support Bush's argument. A Harvard study, for example, confirms the problem of physician flight:

In the last two years, professional liability insurance premiums have increased dramatically for physicians in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics, emergency medicine, general surgery, surgical subspecialties, and radiology in states across the country. Many states have seen the departure of insurance carriers that had held very substantial market shares, leaving thousands of physicians scrambling to find alternative coverage.

A Stanford study confirms that doctors are practicing defensive medicine:

We find that malpractice reforms that directly reduce provider liability pressure lead to reductions of 5 to 9 percent in medical expenditures without substantial effects on mortality or medical complications. We conclude that liability reforms can reduce defensive medical practices.

Finally, a NBER working paper by the same authors concluded that:

Malpractice reforms that directly reduce liability pressure - such as caps on damages - reduce defensive practices both in areas with low and with high levels of managed care enrollment. In addition, managed care and direct reforms do not have long-run interaction effects that are harmful to patient health. However, at least for patients with less severe cardiac illness, managed care and direct reforms are substitutes, so the reduction in defensive practices that can be achieved with direct reforms is smaller in areas with high managed care enrollment.

In sum, whether Bush has a mandate for tort reform or not, there is a strong case to be made. I'm glad to see that he's started doing so.

This content was used with permission of Stephen Bainbridge from Professor Bainbridge. You can read more of his work here.

Here are my favorite 20 political websites on the net (non-blogs), in order. Do keep in mind that these sort of lists change all the time. Websites go up and down, pages come on and go off the list, etc, etc. With that being said, here are my current selections...

20) Tech Central Station
19) Steyn Online (*** Note: I end up reading most of Steyn's columns on other pages. That's why this page doesn't rank higher ***)
18) The Weekly Standard
17) ChronWatch
16) Men's News Daily
15) Boortz
14) The Rush Limbaugh Show
13) Glenn Beck Program
12) Front Page Magazine
11) Jewish World Review
10) Hundred Percenter
9) TownHall
8) Blacksheep News
7) Cybercast News Service
6) World Net Daily
5) Newsmax
4) Real Clear Politics
3) National Review
2) The Drudge Report
1) Lucianne

If you haven't checked out these web pages, give them a look, they're fantastic websites.

Ah, there are few things we bloggers love more than sweet, sweet, recognition which is why I decided to put together a little list of just some of the people who deserved a little more acknowledgment for what they did last year...

-- Best Blog In Iraq: Iraq The Model
-- Best RWN Poster In The Comments: Right Thinking Girl
-- Best Blogger: Glenn Reynolds, who blogs so much you'd think there were two of him.
-- Best Columnist: Mark Steyn is the Michael Jordan of his profession.
-- Best New Blogger: Michelle Malkin by a landslide...
-- Biggest Blog Tease: Rachel Lucas, who's hopefully back for good now (cross your fingers).
-- The Best Non-Blog For Content: National Review
-- The Best Non-Blog For Links To Interesting News: Lucianne
-- The Blog I Intend To Read More Of In 2005: Tie: Alarming News & Jihad Watch
-- The Blog I Used To Think Was Just OK, But Now I Think Is Awesome Award: Poliundit, they didn't change anything, I just started paying more attention.
-- The Blogger Most Likely To Have A Syndicated Column in 300 Papers In Five Years Who Doesn't Already Have A Syndicated Column, Which Means That James Lileks Isn't Eligible Award: La Shawn Barber
-- The Blog That Gets An Award Just Because They Constantly Link To Me: YoungPundit
-- The Funniest Blogger Who Doesn't Do A Humor Blog: They don't get any funnier than Tim Blair
-- The 'I Wish He Was On Our Side' Award: This goes to Mickey Kaus, who spends all year masterfully dissecting every flaw the Democrats have and then proceeds to vote for them when elections roll around =D
-- The Most Overblown Story Of 2004 Award: Torture at Abu Ghraib, which was perpetrated by a few perverts and would have dropped off the front pages in a couple of days had there been no pictures, was blown up into a major scandal by Democrats and biased journalists who were desperate to use it to attack the Bush administration.
-- The Most Underrated Blog On The Right: Right Thinking From The Left Coast
-- The Next Glenn Reynolds Award: Betsy's Page deserves this. It's nice to see another "linker" on the right side of the blogosphere start to build up some traffic.
-- The 'Time Was Right, They Were The Blog Of The Year Award': Power Line
-- Too Much Talent To Waste Award: This goes to Allah, who just disappeared with no explanation one day. Come back A-Double Lizzle, come back!
-- The 'You Sure Ain't A Daily Read Anymore' Award: Andrew Sullivan

When imaginary reporters ask me for advice, I respond.

Cub Reporter: I've got to do a piece on a recent US victory in Iraq, but my editor told me know that even though we're covering this story to claim "balance" in our reporting I still have to find a way to leave readers demoralized and if possible unaware that the US actually is winning. What advice can you give me?

Greyhawk: Well, the common approach is what's called the S*** sandwich, where you write two stories, one the American victory and the other listing every "successful" insurgent attack over the past couple weeks, then combine them by alternating paragraphs into a fused product. To break it up a little, toss in the phrase "beleaguered Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who has been rebuked in recent weeks by Republican Senators and Army Privates alike, was not available for comment." Whatever the story is be sure to mention the upcoming elections and how this makes it less likely for them to be seen as legitimate, then top it with a headline that makes it clear that the country is descending into chaos.

Cub Reporter: The headline isn't a problem, my editor already wrote it, along with all the Rumsfeld parts. But we ran several of those "sandwich" stories already this week...

Greyhawk: So you need something else?

Cub Reporter: Right.

Greyhawk: Well, here's an idea. It's not new, but it hasn't been completely burned out yet either. Play the "human cost" card.

Cub Reporter: You mean mention the total number of dead since Bush declared an end to major combat operations? That's so last year. And those numbers are too big for our average reader to grasp now, they're becoming numb.

Greyhawk: Yes, but small numbers are what work now. Look, here's what you do. The Americans are currently experiencing a string of successes in Iraq. Despite the challenges the Iraqi people are increasingly optimistic about their futures, and tired of the insurgents. But every American and Iraqi victory comes at a price, and that price is often the lives of soldiers. So you focus your story on the guys who died in the battle, not the outcome of the battle itself.

Cub Reporter: That's sick! My publisher will love it!

Greyhawk: No doubt.

Cub Reporter: "Putting a face on the war" - yes! I mean, we could make everyone reading question any victory the Coalition forces could ever achieve, just by pointing out the "shattered dreams" of the casualties of the fight. And no one could question our motives - because we support the troops!

Greyhawk: Just make sure you don't mention the word "hero".

Cub Reporter: Certainly not, that's a word we reserve for John Kerry and Mike Moore. Better stay away from "sacrifice" too. Way too Christian... hey, this will be great! I've got the whole thing written already. We're gonna break new ground here. I'm thinking Pulitzer!

Greyhawk: Well, I wouldn't say that...

Cub Reporter: What? This is what the committee looks for!

Greyhawk: Oh, I'm sure. But I mean this has all been done before. Look, here's a recent example from Long Island Newsday. You'd be hard pressed to know this was the story of a coalition victory.

Cub Reporter: Reading:

MOSUL, Iraq - Spc. Michael Kreuser was curled at the bottom of his sleeping bag Wednesday afternoon inside a tan apartment building the U.S. Army had converted into a combat outpost when an enormous blast shook him awake.
Sandbags fell on top of the young medic, and he struggled to get up. Unable to see through the fog of plaster dust filling the room, he patted the floor, found his medical kit and one boot that he pulled on and raced to a third-floor balcony, where he heard screaming.

Pfc. Oscar Sanchez was on the ground, hit by shrapnel and bleeding. Kreuser, his stocking foot now soaked with Sanchez's blood, and another soldier dragged the private into the hall, cut open his shirt and tried to revive him.

"We weren't going to let him go easy," said Kreuser, a lanky 22-year-old from West Bend, Wis.

But moments later, Sanchez died, the sole victim of a sophisticated attack by a suicide bomber. The 19-year-old soldier from Modesto, Calif., had been on guard duty, standing on a chair to get a better view as he aimed his automatic rifle at anything suspicious, when a black-clad insurgent drove a truck loaded with 1,500 pounds of explosives into concrete barricades roughly underneath the balcony.

As Kreuser thinks about that day, he brims with irrational blame. He blames himself for not being able to save the buddy he trounced at video games and teased for singing sappy love songs. He blames other soldiers for not telling Sanchez to get down off that stupid chair. He blames his commanders for stationing soldiers smack in the middle of the most dangerous neighborhood in Mosul.

Wow - this was a Coalition victory?

Greyhawk: Yes, it was, with at least 25 insurgents dead. But read the last paragraphs...

Cub Reporter:

Finally, Kurilla's convoy arrived at Tampa, which was under barrage from mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, and saw a 5-foot-deep crater in the road - and the remaining bits of charred, crumpled metal from the truck that had carried the explosives.
Four loud fighter jets appeared overhead, strafing the cars and low-slung buildings where insurgents were holed up and swooping to fire Maverick missiles on targets. Their precision was startling, and a relief to those who sat in nearby military vehicles.

He looked at the ground and walked away.

Wow! This is great stuff! "The fighting stopped." That quote rocks!

Greyhawk: Yup, dead insurgents generally stop fighting.

Cub Reporter: But damn! There's no way I'll get a Pulitzer for my story.

Greyhawk: Maybe, maybe not. But you will get noticed, of that I can assure you.

This content was used with the permission of Greyhawk, a military blogger who runs The Mudville Gazette. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

I watched the movie "Troy" tonight -- which I thought was the best movie of 2004 even if it isn't true to the original story -- and there was an exchange early in the movie between Achilles and mother, the goddess Thetis...

Thetis: If you stay here, with me, with your family, you'll have a long, peaceful life. You'll marry, you'll have children, and your children will have children. They'll love you, and when you're gone they'll remember you. But when your children are dead, and their children after them, your name will be lost.

But if you go to Troy, you'll never come home. You'll die there.

Achilles: And you know this, mother?

Thetis: I know it.

A fascinating choice, is it not? If you had a choice, would you rather be Leonidas, the king who died fighting in the Spartans' immortal stand at Themopolae against the Persians or Xenolas, the unknown Greek farmer who died at 90? Would it be better to be Davy Crockett who died fighting at the Alamo or Phineas Hogenbottom, a banker no one has ever heard off? Is it better to be Bob Wilson, nameless family man, or Nathan Hale who said, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country" before he swung?

I guess you would never truly know which way you'd go until you actually had to make the call, but right now, I think Achilles made the right decision...

I know I'm a few days late, and RightWingDuck already did some on my site, but here are my predictions for 2005. Since I didn't have a crystal ball, I instead consulted crystal meth.

PREDICTIONS FOR 2005

* Michael Moore will make a new "documentary" trying to expose the Iraq war as evil. To do so, he will head to the Middle East to interview terrorists. Since Moore's body odor is classified as a WMD, Tenet will be vindicated when Moore is discovered in Iraq.

* Saddam's trial will turn into a circus when the judge rules that clowns and elephants will be allowed in the courtroom. In the end, Saddam is executed by being fired out of a cannon.

* Satan will finally give up on the moral qualms he had and help Hillary Clinton in her run for the presidency in 2008.

* The MSM will break down and devote all its time to pointing out alleged flaws in blog posts.

* Democracy will be such a big hit in Iraq that all the citizens of nearby countries will demand to get in on the fun. Democracy will spread so far that it will eventually reach Canada.

* George W. Bush will continue to refuse to demand that Kofi Annan resign, even as he personally strangles the Secretary-General of the U.N.

* France will surrender in the war on terror and begin terrorizing themselves. The U.S. will offer to help.

* Democrats will further break down until they become a loosely organized roving gang that jumps people in dark alleys and whines at them.

* Space aliens will land and offer to share their technology to bring us long life and world peace, but we'll kill all the aliens because they look funny... and we'll be right to do so!

* Distraught liberals will try to form a perfect society underground, emerging every so often from the sewers to steal bread crusts from our trash cans.

* Dan Rather does an expose on how Jesus never did raise Lazarus from the dead based on memos allegedly typed at the beginning of the first millenium A.D. It recevies little scrutiny from his audience at the nursing home.

* Seven hurricanes will hit Florida. Having to go at least three months without power, I'll learn to blog using only candles and coconuts.

* SarahK and I, now in the same state, will join forces to rule the blogosphere, then Florida, then Minnesota, and then the world. No monkey will be spared.

This content was used with the permission of Frank J. from IMAO. You can read more of Frank J.'s work by clicking here.

Now Patton, that's one cute dog!

The owner of the Dallas Mavericks, billionaire Mark Cuban, suggests that George Bush cancel the inauguration and send the money to the tsunami victims....

"Could there be anything more confusing and shocking than to read that our country was offering $35mm in aid to the areas affected by the Tsunamis, but that the cost of inauguration parties would be about $40mm?

You, Laura and the girls can still have family over and appreciate your blessings. I’m sure people who want to get out and have a good time, will still find a way to have fun. But that 40mm dollars can go a long way. Instead of shaking hands all night and being driven from party to party, send them a thank you card letting them know that the corporate and individual donations that had been earmarked for fun, was now going to help more people than they could ever imagine. Without the hangovers."

First of all, the government is now up to $350 million and that figure is almost guaranteed to go up. That's on top of all the money that American citizens and corporations have chipped in...and let's not forget that America's military got right in the thick on things early on.

Moreover, as blogger Rex Hammock says,

"...What will canceling a two hundred year old national celebration of democracy do to promote tsunami relief?...Why not call for the cancellation of the NBA season and take all the dollars advertisers have committed for broadcasting it and send those funds to tsunami relief? What, the advertisers won't do that? Have you asked?"

Exactly, if we're going to start cancelling things, instead of starting with a once every four year tradition that goes back to George Washington, why doesn't Mark Cuban call up some of the businesses that are buying luxury boxes for Maverick games and tell them that he'll give them their money back so they can contribute it to tsunami relief? Better yet, why doesn't Cuban trade Michael Finley, Dirk Nowitzki, Alan Henderson and then replace them with scrubs? That would free up over $35 million dollars that Cuban could send to Indonesia right there!

Ok, maybe I'm overreacting just a little bit, but these little niggling complaints about how we're reacting to the tsunami are getting really irritating, especially when they're coming from a guy who's so rich that he could probably buy half of Indonesia. If Cuban is going to whinge about us not doing enough, despite the fact that we'll end up doing more than anybody else on the planet when all is said and done, then as far as I'm concerned, Cuban better have written a check with a lot of zeros on it himself...

Now here's a Canuck, Toronto Sun columnist Peter Worthington, who gets it...

"Thank goodness for the Americans. What would this world would be like without the U.S.?

...A world without the U.S. would be a sorrier world indeed, especially when leadership in humanitarian causes is needed. "

Exactly!

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for finding this one.

Today, I ran across a column by Neal Peirce in the Seattle Times called Legalizing street drugs an experiment worth considering.

Since I'm an ardent supporter of the war on drugs, I thought it might be a good idea to fisk the article. Peirce's words appear in italics and mine follow...

WASHINGTON — Can a single city do anything to change drug policies that are delivering terror to our inner-city streets, diverting police, clogging our courts, breaking up families, and making a once-proud America quite literally the incarceration capital of the world?

Arrest more drug dealers? Give them longer sentences? Three strikes and you're out laws?

It's tough because federal and state drug laws, passed by tragically misguided "law-and-order" politicians, are highly intrusive. But Syracuse, N.Y., with a detailed analysis of drug-law impact by outgoing City Auditor Minchin Lewis, followed up by recent City Council hearings, is courageously asking tough questions and searching for alternatives.

Lewis' audit, inspired by Syracuse drug reformer Nicolas Eyle, focused on the Syracuse police department. It discovered that 22 percent of the department's 28,800 arrests in a single year were for drug-related incidents, more than arrests for assaults, disturbances and larcenies combined. Close to 2,000 persons were charged with possession or sale of marijuana, a substance many claim is no more if not less dangerous than alcohol.

We always hear that "Oh, marijuana is no worse than alcohol or cigarettes." Ok, let's say that were true: how many people die because of cancer caused by cigarettes or because of drunk driving every year? Heck, alcohol did so much damage to our country that we tried to ban it (and failed because it was already so accepted by society). And the U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona supports banning cigarettes now. Given that, even if marijuana is no worse than alcohol or cigarettes, why would we want to make it easier to obtain?

Lewis found that drug arrests were focused in six poor, heavily black inner-city neighborhoods. Police raids in search of evidence were rendering housing units, many government-owned, uninhabitable, and forcing many families to split up because of government rules evicting drug users from public housing.

If Syracuse's drug raid and arrest policy is intended to reduce drug use, the Lewis audit concluded, "it is not achieving its goal. The drug activity is continuing with an ever-increasing spiral of violence."

Do you think it's a coincidence that poor, violent, crime ridden areas are riddled with drugs? Do you think a guy hitting a crack pipe all day is going to be a model citizen? And even if the government sells heroin, it's still going to cost money that some people are going to acquire by robbing people's houses. Have people come-to-terms with the fact that legalizing drugs will make them more widely available and will likely mean that the misery that drugs are associated with will likewise spread?

It's true, Lewis concluded, that the city can't change federal or state drug laws. But it can use its authority over police to reduce the emphasis on drug-related arrests and focus on "harm reduction and prevention efforts rather than absolute prohibition."

You know, maybe it's just me, but when the police wave at the drug dealers who are selling a 14-year-old kid crack and just drive on by because they're reducing their "emphasis on drug-related arrests," it's not exactly what I'd call "harm reduction."

"City Council member Stephanie Miner said she found citizens typically unconcerned about people using drugs in the confines of their homes, but deeply alarmed by the violence visited on their neighborhoods by drug dealing on the street.

"The main effect of prohibition is to drive the market underground," Jeffrey Miron, a Boston University economist and drug trade expert, told the Syracuse council hearing in October. Like the alcohol trade in the Roaring Twenties, he said, narcotics rendered illegal by federal decree soar in price and have created an opportunity for traffickers and dealers interested in getting a share of the $65-billion-a-year nationwide market."

Yes, and by making carjacking, robbery, & murder-for-hire illegal, we've driven the market underground and "created an opportunity" for people looking to get a share of those markets. That's a good thing. Better underground and hence, happening less frequently, than above ground and happening more often.

"Jack Cole, the executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition who served 12 years as an undercover agent for the New Jersey State Police, told the hearing: "There is such an obscene profit motive that an army of police officers will never arrest our way out of it. ... Every arrest is a job opening."

"This is a unique opportunity to change the image of the city, from an undistinguished Rust Belt city to a progressive community actively working to improve itself," Eyle argues. But it's clear his long-term goal is much broader: lifting drug prohibition altogether."

Yes, nothing will improve the image of a city faster than announcing that it'll be the one place in the state where you won't get arrested for smoking pot. That'll lead to every pothead, junky, and scumbag in the state who will flock into the city and within 6 months, ordinary people will be afraid to go into the parks, you'll have thugs congregating in the streets, and you'll see kids getting high by the jungle gym when you take your child to the playground.

Personally, I'd say that if you don't have enough police to handle arresting people who use marijuana, then the solution is to hire more police.

"What would that mean? Eyle suggests European-style "harm reduction," recognizing that a segment of the population will always use illegal drugs, so that government's role is to reduce the harm to the user and society. A possible approach: decriminalizing personal possession of drugs, leaving importation and manufacture and sale of significant amounts illegal. There also would be voluntary treatment programs for addicts."

There's always some segment of the population that will do something illegal whether you're talking murder, robbery, rape, or boinking farm yard animals. But that, in and of itself, isn't a reason to make the activity legal. Heck, we could drop the crime rate to zero tomorrow -- if we simply said, "Everything's legal."

What about total "legalization"? It's a good possibility, says Eyle, if we revise, hand-in-hand, appropriate regulations. The parallels in his argument are intriguing:

But, Eyle asks, do we have "a large market in every community selling alcohol to minors? No. Are beer salesmen spraying bullets at each other to settle arguments over shelf space in the supermarket? No."

There's no need for "a large market in every community selling alcohol to minors," because alcohol is so readily available now that any kid can easily get a friend, or a friend's friend, to just go buy it for them at an ABC store. Do we want crack, cocaine, and heroin to be that readily available to a bunch of young kids who think they're invincible and are looking to try new things?

Legalization, by this reasoning, is OK, and good for us all, if it can successfully eliminate the gruesome waves of crime that surround today's illegal drug market. The "how" could be complex: Does government do the selling, or does the free market? Is advertising permitted? How do rules differ for marijuana, cocaine, heroin?

But just think what legalization could deliver: radically reduced incentive to crime, far safer streets and cities, fewer shattered families, less-crowded and costly prisons breeding new criminals, more racial equity. In a society that prizes freedom and innovation, I'd call this an experiment we owe ourselves.

It is correct that legalization would reduce violent crime. However, legalization would also lead to an explosion in drug use, the consequences of which would be highly likely to dwarf the gains we made by getting the dealers off the street.

America already has a serious drug problem. Now imagine that these drugs are legalized and thus become: legal, safer, cheaper, easier to obtain, and more societally accepted. How can that do anything but make the number of people using these drugs skyrocket?

Would that really be good for America? A huge increase in junkies on the street? New armies of bleary eyed Ricky Williams clones who'll give up their careers & millions of dollars so they can sit on the couch and get high? Don't we have enough crack babies as it is?

Legalizing illegal drugs would be an enormous mistake that would do terrible damage to our country over time.

Thanks to Instapundit, Lucianne, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, INDC Journal, Polipundit and countless other blogs that linked The 40 Most Obnoxious Quotes Of 2004, RWN finished yesterday with 38,225 daily uniques and 52,336 pageviews, which made it the page's best day ever. Much thanks to everyone who linked!

Yesterday I told you about two stories, one from the Washington Post and one from the L.A. Times, which covered the same event (the release of Chief Justice Rehnquist's annual report on the judiciary) in very different ways.

Today I want to provide another example of two stories from the L.A. Times and Washington Post covering similar topics. We'll do it quiz-style. I'll give you the headlines of the stories and some relevant excerpts. Your mission is to guess which story appeared in the Post and which was in the Times.

One story is titled: An Election Day That Could Be a Close Call. The sub-head reads: "Worried about unrest, a volatile Sunni Muslim area of Iraq is bracing for this month's vote. Most candidates skip a chance to tape ads." It opens:

BAQUBAH, Iraq — At the former Baath Party headquarters known as the Blue Dome, everything was set for candidates in the upcoming elections to come in and tape political ads for local TV. . . . But recording the campaign spots this recent morning didn't take long.
Only three people showed up.

The story is full of pessimism, and suggests that Iraqis may be reluctant to vote:

A boycott here in central Iraq in the area known as the Sunni Triangle could undermine the elections. Some Sunni Muslim politicians say that continued violence, especially in the central and northern parts of the country, will make it difficult to hold a fair election.
. . . .

"I think I would," he said. "But I don't live here."

The article ends with this cute story:

Still, the three who showed up had enough time to deliver their messages. Candidates from the Communist Party and the Elites of Diyala explained their parties' platforms — improving local infrastructure and irrigation, an interpreter said. The third candidate, from the Socialist Arab Movement, read from a script as U.S. soldiers watched him exercise his right to free speech: "No to the American occupation," he told the camera.

The story from the other newspaper is titled: Iraqi Officials Cite Rise Of Interest in Elections. The sub-head reads: "In Final Week, Many Act to Ensure Registration." And the first sentence says:

The number of Iraqis making sure they are properly registered to vote has surged dramatically, officials said Saturday, calling the rise evidence of enthusiasm for the Jan. 30 elections despite continuing security concerns that have blocked the process in two provinces.

The story is optimistic in tone:

Officials said more than 2.1 million people went to local election offices to assure that eligible members of their households could vote. About 1.2 million forms were submitted to add names to the voter lists, an involved process that requires providing proof of identification and residence.
"That's a definite marker of voter interest," said an expert with the Independent Election Commission of Iraq who was not authorized to speak publicly.

"This is a very good indicator," said Hussein Hindawi, who heads the election office. "We are very optimistic."

Your mission: to guess which story appeared in the Washington Post and which was in the L.A. Times.

If you guessed that the first story was published in the L.A. Times and the second one appeared in the Washington Post, you win the grand prize: a hearty "Attaboy!" from Patterico.

Is the Washington Post story simply being too optimistic? Not at all. It reports that the percentage of likely voters is lower in the Sunni areas, and spins this news in an unnecessarily negative way:

In such Sunni provinces where insurgents remain active, the level of voter preparation will remain unknown until officials break down the nationwide tally by province, which could take several more days. But in a poll for the International Republican Institute, more than 40 percent of residents surveyed in Sunni areas said they did not intend to vote.

In the poll, conducted in late October and early November, more than a quarter of Sunnis surveyed responded with the most adamant option: "Not intend at all." Only 20 percent said they "strongly intend" to vote.

Here's another way to look at the results of that poll. Looking at the poll's most recent results (from November), the poll said that 67% of Iraqis believe that the country will be ready to hold elections by the end of January. 84% said they intend to vote -- and of those, 71.4% said they "strongly" intend to vote. In the Sunni areas, the percentages of likely voters are far lower -- but nevertheless, the majority of Sunnis surveyed (53%) said they intend to vote.

But the L.A. Times chooses to focus on the Sunni areas exclusively -- and tries to make it sound like as though almost no Sunnis are going to vote. As you can see from the above excerpts, the paper does this by taking isolated quotes that suit this purpose -- quotes from a woman on the street worried about violence, or a military official who isn't sure he'd vote if he lived there.

By the way, I'd like it if either of the stories had put these percentages in perspective. Historically, voter turnout in the United States for presidential elections has hovered at just above 50%. In non-presidential federal elections, turnout is generally under 40%. And turnout for presidential primaries was recently as low as as low as 7.2%.

So why would it be tragic if "only" 53% of Sunnis voted?

I understand that we want Sunnis not to feel excluded. I would like to see Sunnis turn out for the elections in large numbers. But if "only" 53% of Sunnis vote, I won't see that as a failure -- especially if the rest of the country is voting at levels of 70% or more.

Unfortunately, none of this context is provided by the L.A. Times, which is simply spinning the events to make it look as negative as possible. But the Times does accomplish one impressive feat with this story. It makes the Washington Post look like a down-the-middle newspaper. That's a tough thing to do, so you gotta give 'em that.

Content used with permission of Patterico from Patterico's Pontifications. You can read more of his work here.

January 3, 2005

January 2, 2005

January 1, 2005

December 31, 2004

December 30, 2004

December 21, 2004

December 20, 2004

December 17, 2004

December 16, 2004

Content used with permission of the Chorler. You can read more of their work by clicking here.

Any left-wing conspiracy nut can speculate that the Bush administration rigged the election. But, the really imaginative members of the "reality based community" can take it a step futher.

For example, these folks at the Democratic Underground not only think that the election was fixed, but that Karl Rove was behind it, and that George Bush is going to have him killed, while making it look like a suicide =D Now that's real creativity...or pure lunacy, you can make the call...

Cronus Protagonist: Will Karl Rove have to be suicided?

Once the election fraud comes out and it's clear Roves fingerprints are all over it, and that it leads all the way to Bush's desk, Bush's best defense will be a Rove "suicide" - remember the old maxim in politics - dead men tell no tales.

If left alive, Rove would have too many tales to tell.

hollowdweller: He'll be given the Bill Casey/Lee Atwater "Brain Tumor"

AntiCoup2K4: They gave that to Reagan too, but he survived.....and then they gave him "Alzheimers" - from a needle.

Stephanie: Karl Rove should consider hari kari for crimes against humanity

bush_is_wacko: Not sure it will be JUST Rove, in the end. I'm sure though, given the history of THIS regime, he knows his head is on the chopping block. Perhaps the reason why TIME decided to put * on the cover instead. I bet Rove is paranoid as hell right now!

yurbud: Bush always blames the help.The whole "Bush's Brain" shtick is probably partly to put the stink on him if things go terribly wrong. Rove is good at what he does, but there are a lot of pieces in play that were there before him and that he can't control.

I do hope they tie all the black vote suppression to him though, and put him in a cell block with the brothers.

Jeff Lastname has pointed out to me that some of the folks at the Al Maghrib Forums, an American Muslim bulletin board, are convinced that natural disasters are caused by Christians celebrating their holy days. One poster put up a list of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and such dating back to 1815, putting some of their dates in bold type in order to point out that many of them took place in December or April: the months of Christmas and (usually) Easter.

Another poster responded:

Assalamu 'Alaikum
That is really interesting - all those dates do revolve around the celebrations of the kuffar.

Ps. Those other dates that are not bolded... maybe if the disasters were a form of punishment from Allah(SWT), then who knows, maybe the people were involved in so much shirk whch caused their ruin - e.g. from the faiths of buddhism, hinduism and chinese/japanese cults.

Maybe. But then why were so many Muslims killed? Probably, by this poster's lights, because they weren't energetic enough in ridding the earth of unbelievers.

Anyway, it would be interesting to know how this fellow proposes to "clear this earth from kufr."

This post was used with the permission of Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch. You can read more of his work here.

Here are a few "best of 2004 lists" that I ran across and decided to compile for your reading enjoyment...

100 Things We Didn't Know This Time Last Year
The 2nd Annual 10 Worst Quotes From The Democratic Underground For 2004
The 3rd Annual Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States: The 2004 Edition
The Best And Worst Of 2004 According To John Ellis
Best And Worst Of Blogistan 2004!
Dumb and Dumber: The 2004 Knucklehead Awards
Funniest Political Quotes For 2004
Five Sports Overachievers And Five Sports Underachievers From 2004
The Lycos Top 100 Search Terms Of 2004
Most Disappointing Movies of 2004
Top 20 Gaming Lows of 2004
Sex, Dogs And Chickens - Weird Headlines Of 2004
Star's Most Annoying Person Of 2004
Stupidest Crimes and Misdemeanors of 2004
The Third Annual Warblogger Awards For 2004
The Top 25 Oddest Stories Of 2004
The Top Darwin Awards Of 2004
Winning Quotes In MRC's Annual Awards For The Worst Reporting

You know, I was pleased, but not the least bit surprised to hear about the enormous amount of aid being given to the tsunami victims by the US gov't (350 million -- so far), American citizens (44+ million to the Red Cross alone), & our corporations (40+ million in goods and services).

However, I was not pleased, nor regrettably, surprised, to hear whining and moaning about what we were doing,

"President Bush should have gotten on TV sooner, we're not giving enough, America's 'Stingy'," wah, wah, wah,..."

The last thing anybody wants to hear, particularly someone who lives in a generous country like America, is kvetching about the amount of money we're giving and how we're giving it.

So, my first order of business when I got back from vacation was going to be replying to the critics of what we've been doing, but Charles Krauthammer beat me to the punch....

"We are six percent or less of the world's population, yet we give almost half. We are a very small number of people, relatively speaking, and we carry the weight of a dozen countries. Secondly, we maintain a military structure that keeps the peace of the world.....Who is in the Indian Ocean with the aircraft carriers, helicopters, skilled personal? No one has the infrastructure in the world, we spend almost half a trillion dollars a year on our military structure, which is essentially the fire department of the planet and is it always at the disposal of people hit in a national disaster.....Incidentally on food aid, we five 60% of all the food aid in the world. It is simply irresponsible to talk about the U.S. as anything other than the most generous nation on the planet." -- Charles Krauthammer

Hat tip to Real Clear Politics who acquired that quote from Fox News Sunday.

PS: I wouldn't normally mention this, but since the lefties are likely to ask in the comments section, yes, I have donated to two different charities for Tsunami relief and the Unicef blogad is a freebie.

Almost two months after election day, Democrat strategists continue to debate John Kerry's loss to George Bush, wondering how Mr. Kerry failed to lose by a landslide.

"It's baffling," said Democrat National Committee (DNC) Chairman Terry McAuliffe, "He had all the earmarks of a devastating, 10-million-vote, 49-state defeat. And yet he only lost by a few million in the popular vote and cut it pretty close in the Electoral College."

The debate over how Mr. Kerry managed a mediocre performance rather than a crushing embarrassment threatens to tear the fabric of Democrat party unity.

On the one side, many strategists think President Bush should have beaten Mr. Kerry "like a steel drum" due to the latter's lack of guiding principles, reasonable ideas, tolerable personality or track record of accomplishment.

On the other side, a raft of consultants continues to pore over precinct spreadsheets trying to calculate why more people don't hate George Bush.

"If we can solve this riddle," said Mr. McAuliffe, "Our 2008 candidate will be able to return us to the halcyon days of Mondale and Dukakis."

Meanwhile, he said, pundits and pols ponder the central question: "How can a man who stands for so little still get the support of about 50 million voters?"

Mr. Kerry, who is also a U.S. Senator, still attributes his "virtual victory" showing to curiosity.

"I think many Americans were curious to see my plan," he said. "My whole strategy was to tease them with it during the campaign, so they would be burning to get a glimpse of it by November. It worked. Without that plan, sculptors would be chiseling my face on the Democrat Mount Rushmore, right next to Walter and Michael."

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

Hey you! Yeah, you! You ready for some obnoxious quotes? You are? Well, this is your lucky day because not only does Right Wing News have obnoxious quotes, RWN has the 40 most obnoxious quotes of 2004 -- in order! You can see them by clicking here.