That's it for Q&A Friday! Thanks for the great questions, it was a lot of fun. See you on Monday!

Question: "What's your beef with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Buchanan?" -- Belwar

Answer: I don't like Robertson and Falwell because both of them have really bad cases of "foot'n'mouth disease". Every few months, one of those two goofs seems to say something that's just astonishingly stupid, ill-thought out, and nearly impossible to defend.

Remember this from Robertson (which I don't believe for a second by the way), right before the election?

"And I warned (Bush) about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "

He said that's when the president told him he did not expect casualties from the invasion."

How bout this from Falwell & Robertson right after 9/11?

"And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system."

These two clowns don't speak for me or represent my views and I like to make that clear.

Buchanan is a different animal than Falwell or Robertson. He's an isolationist, against free-trade, virulently anti-Israel, debatably anti-semitic, and his American Conservative mag along with his anti-war tirades are as far out there as CounterPunch when it comes to the war.

Add to that Buchanan's demented ranting about neo-cons & the fact that he claims that his 1930's brand Paleo-conservatism is what real conservatives believe in even though it represents a tiny slice of the right, and I think it's easy to see why I so strongly dislike him. Again, this is not a guy who speaks for me or most conservatives...

Question: "Why is it that Republicans justify cutting programs such as education and environmental conservation under the pretext that they cost too much, and yet they cry bloody murder if anyone even suggests cutting down on the half-trillion dollar defense budget?" -- Oliver

Answer: Liberals advocate enormously expensive programs that achieve nothing like Kyoto on the environmental front and never ending increases in education spending despite the fact that the money never seems to improve performance. That's why conservatives are generally opposed to throwing good money after bad on new spending that seems unlikely to accomplish anything.

On the other hand, because of our spending on national defense, we're an influential super-power with the most dominant military mankind has ever seen. Furthermore, the national defense is responsibility #1 of the Federal Government for obvious reasons. As British Labour Defence Minister Denis Healey once said,

"Once we have cut (military) expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders."

Question: "1. Aside from the diplomatic measures, what do you think the administration has planned for Iran and North Korea?" -- BoilerFox04

Answer: In North Korea, because we have Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan on board, I expect to see us reach a diplomatic solution. With their cooperation, we have the option of putting a squeeze on the Norks so tight that we could leave most of the country starving to death in the dark.

Because of that, in the end, it's likely that we'll end up cutting a deal where the North Koreans verifiably dismantle their whole nuclear program in return for goodies from us and/or the other countries involved in the talks.

Unfortunately, I doubt if it'll be that easy with Iran. The Islamo-Fascists who run that country seem hellbent on getting nuclear weapons and I don't believe any amount of diplomacy, sanctions, or bribes are going to change their minds. Of course, we will try to persuade them with the "help" of the UN & Europe, but I consider the chances of success to be very small.

This puts us in a real pickle, because it would be madness for either the US or Israel to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Therefore, the Bushies are going to have two far less than perfect options available to them. The first is trying to encourage a rebellion.

Iran's populace is very dissatisfied with the mullahs and a revolution is not out of the question, but trying to predict that sort of thing is difficult and if anything, Iran looks further away from revolt than it did this time last year. While I'd be surprised IF WE AREN'T already funneling large amounts of money & material to anti-government forces in the country, the chances of an Iranian uprising happening before the mullahs get the bomb don't look all that great at the moment.

That means that either Bush or Sharon will likely end up having to send in the bombers to take out their nuclear facilities. That probably means bombing multiple sites, taking out Iranian planes, facing long range missiles fired at our troops in the region or at Israel, and alienating the Iranian people, who are relatively friendly towards the US now.

My guess is -- and I hope I'm wrong -- that it's going to come down to bombing Iran. Whether we'll do it or the Israelis will, I don't know. But Iran must be stopped from getting nukes by any means necessary...

*** Update #1***: "John,

Finally, I think it is time to allow both Japan & South Korea to defend themselves. That way at least 3 of the "multilateral" parties involved will have a real interest in what happens in North Korea that isn't antithetical to US interests." -- sgwilson

Sgwilson

You made some good points that I thought deserved a response.

At first, I was concerned that the Chinese were just stringing us along as well, but I've become convinced that they're concerned enough about the fallout from a possible war and the fact that long-term, a nuclear North Korea means a nuclear South Korea & a nuclear Japan, to actually work with us to bring the Norks in line. Besides, who wants a poofy-haired kook like Kim Jung-Il on their border? The Chinese are our enemies, but it's to their advantage to work with us on this.

I agree also that Kim Jung-Il couldn't care less if his people starve. But at a certain point, things will get so bad that he'll have to fear a military coup or an uprising. People aren't going to sit in the dark & eat tree bark and grass forever.

Last but not least, once we get the nukes out of NK, I'd love to see us draw down in SK, move the troops out, and let them handle their own defense or just sign a defense treaty with them.

As far as Japan goes, there's a lot of bad blood between Japan and its neighbors and I really don't want to see a fully rearmed Japan stomping around the region and making trouble. That's why I'd prefer to keep defending them.

First, bloggers dragged down Trent Lott. After that, Dan Rather was the next big name to go down under the relentless fury of the blogosphere's assault. Well, now we can add another name to that list, because Eason Jordan has been overwhelmed by the swarm...

"CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amidst a furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq.

During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum last month, Jordan said he believed that several journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq had been targeted."

I covered this story in the daily news but didn't write too much about it because I kept waiting for the transcript to come out.

But Michelle Malkin, La Shawn Barber, Mickey Kaus, Hugh Hewitt, Jim Geraghty, N.Z. Bear and the other bloggers who kept the heat on & refused to let Jordan stonewall deserve a round of applause.

There was a time when Jordan's comments would have never been reported, when the libs in MSM could bury the Swift Boat Vets for Truth by simply ignoring them, and when CBS could have gotten away with peddling forged memos during a presidential election, but those days are gone for good and that's great news for the American public...

Question: "What moderate or at least rational and intelligent Democrat blogs or writers can you suggest people read (for example, scifi writer Orson Scott Card)? I like getting the other viewpoint on things, but I don't care to dig through the conspiracy theories, lunacy, and hate on too many of the leftwing sites." -- Christopher_Taylor

Answer: Ah, so you want me to punch up a "kiss of death" list? Sure! Here are some to get ya started...

Ann Althouse
Boi From Troy
Buzz Machine
Daniel W. Drezner
Mickey Kaus
Normblog
Obscure Store
Roger L. Simon
Michael J. Totten

Question: "Here's my question: How do you deal with friends who are unabashedly liberal? Given how... passionate they feel about some topics (Bush, Iraq), it can sometimes get a little tense." -- Jonathan (Via Email)

Answer: Here's my advice about talking politics to your liberal friends: Don't.

Liberals tend to get particularly emotional about political issues, they often view your disagreements with them as moral failings on your part, and like the old saying goes, "Conservatives look for converts while liberals look for heretics." This is not a mentality that leads to fun conversations with people who have diametrically opposing political views.

Personally, I try to avoid talking politics at work or with liberal friends and usually regret it when I do. That's not to say that there aren't any liberals you can discuss politics with (I had a liberal roommate in college and we had a blast talking politics), but they're the exceptions, not the rule. For every James Carville and Mary Matalin, there are probably 100 people who stopped speaking to each other over political disagreements.

So my advice would be to just change the subject, move on to something non-political, and just accept that you're going to have to agree to disagree about your politics.

Today is Q&A Friday #11 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 roughly twice as many posts as normal from me.

So ask away!

Question: "Dick Morris said in an op-ed piece this week that Condi Rice was a social conservative. In many of your posts, you have said she is pro-choice and pro-affirmative action. Who is right? Where can one find her writings on these subjects?" -- BlkMktBabyDealer

---

"I've been looking without much success. In 2000, George Will reported that she considers herself a "Second Amendment absolutist." She also said, "I joined the party for different reasons. I found a party that sees me as an individual, not as a part of a group. I found a party that puts family first. I found a party that has love of liberty at its core. And I found a party that believes that peace begins with strength." Somehow I doubt she's in favor of abortion or affirmative action, from that." -- CavalierX

Answer: Here's what Dick Morris said in his latest column about Condi,

"As a social conservative and deeply religious person, (Condi) would face no bar in winning the votes of the Christian Right, so crucial to winning the Republican nomination. Unlike former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and senator John McCain -- either of whom could probably win the presidential election in 2008 -- she would be very attractive to the pro-life, anti-gun-control, anti-affirmative-action base of the GOP during the Republican primaries."

Morris said roughly the same thing about Condi when I interviewed him.

However, as CavalierX pointed out, there's very little information out there about her domestic views. So how could Morris have gotten that info? Well, keep in mind that Morris is a Washington insider and it's entirely possible that he has a sit-down with some of Condi's friends or maybe even Condi herself and discussed this subject. So he may very well be privy to information to which we have no access.

That being said, Condi is pro-Affirmative Action. Back when the Bush administration was dealing with the University of Michigan Affirmative Action case she said,

"I believe that while race-neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body."

Rice also applied Affirmative Action when she was at Stanford,

"As provost, Rice took a nuanced position on affirmative action, saying she supported special treatment at the time of hiring but not when it came to granting tenure, with its promise of prestige, higher pay and guaranteed job security. Race was a factor to weigh in creating campus diversity, she suggested, but not evaluating job performance.

"I am myself a beneficiary of a Stanford strategy that took affirmative action seriously, that took a risk in taking a young PhD from the University of Denver," Rice said during a contentious May 1998 meeting of the Faculty Senate, referring to her initial hiring."

Furthermore, Condi is also pro-abortion...

"Dr. Rice has reportedly described herself as "mildly pro-choice" on one occasion and "reluctantly pro-choice" on another. Our understanding is that Dr. Rice is personally opposed to abortion and would prefer that they never happen, but she also respects the law and the lawmakers with their obligations to the voters."

Given that (& although as CavalierX pointed out she is a "Second Amendment absolutist"), I don't think that Dick Morris is correct when he says that Condi will be, "very attractive to the pro-life, anti-gun-control, anti-affirmative-action base of the GOP during the Republican primaries."

Condi may be a social conservative in many respects (although so far, nobody but Dick Morris seems to be able to confirm this), but I don't think a pro-abortion candidate is going to appeal to the Christian Right come primary time...

Question: "What would you do with the money if you won the lottery tomorrow?" -- karensp9

Answer: I don't play the lottery so I haven't thought about this in too much detail. However, here are my initial thoughts about what I'd do if I won a cool, tax-free $50 million in the lottery.

1) I'd give $10,000 to every half-way decent friend I had in high school, college, and since then. Let's just set aside -- oh, $500,000 to a mil for this.

2) I'd take a million and split it among my relatives.

3) 10% of the money total, 5 million (including #1 & #2) would be set-aside for charity. That money, I'd go ahead and give away. (I might decide to give away more than that, but this is all I'd contribute right off the bat).

4) I'd quit my job and buy a nice, but not too ostentatious of a house at the beach. Maybe something in the 500,000 - mil range.

5) Then I'd set aside some money for furnishings, a new car (maybe something in the $20,000 range).

6) The rest of the money goes in investments.

7) I'd add an assistant to do work on RWN and work full time on the blog and doing a book (I enjoy working on RWN so much that I'd do it even if I didn't need the money).

That's it. Nothing too splashy or exciting, no grand plans to change the world, just the basics. From there on out, I'd just play it by ear...

Remember when the environmentalists, liberals, & Euro-weenies were originally touting Kyoto back in the nineties? Back then they essentially sold it like so,

"Either we all get on board with Kyoto man or it's game over! It's the only thing that can save us all from burning like a puppy on a hotplate, man! Do you hate puppies, man? Do you want them to die? Then you tell the corporate machine to make their political puppets in Washington sign up for Kyoto, man! You understand what I'm saying here? We do Kyoto, we live. We don't do Kyoto, we all die! How clear do I have to say it, man!"

Surprisingly enough, this message worked well, especially in Europe. However, once it looked as if Kyoto was ready to go into effect, there was a 180 degree shift in how its backers described it. Suddenly the "fix" for our climate problems was nothing but a band-aid -- and not even an expensive band-aid -- it's one of those band-aids that doesn't stick really well and is about to fall off the scab it's covering. This article from Reuters does an adequate job showing you today's line of attack...

"Defying repeated premature reports of its death, the Kyoto Protocol will come into force in a few days. But doubts are already growing over the long-term future of the world's most ambitious environmental agreement.

"If that doesn't happen ... other countries will lose faith in the multilateral approach to climate change."

So despite the fact that Europe is predictably having great difficulty meeting its emissions targets as it is, the goalposts have been moved and instead of aiming for "5.2 percent (off) of 1990 levels," the new goal is to cut greenhouse gas levels by 60% of 1990 levels. Of course, there is currently no way to cut greenhouse gasses that much without let's say banning cars, slaughtering half the world's population, or without utterly & completely destroying the world economy.

Given that, there's an obvious question that not enough people are asking: Even if man is causing global warming and global warming is going to be a big problem in the future (and those are two huge ifs), what's accomplished by signing on to Kyoto if it's not going to stave off global warming and the "next step" is currently unreachable?

Sure, you could argue that we need to work on technological solutions that would give the world the ability to make those 60% cuts, but what's the rationale for signing up for an expensive, inefficient, growth limiting treaty when even its own backers admit that it serves no practical purpose? Kyoto is pointless and steering clear of it was a smart decision for our country...

Matt Yglesias demonstrates what he doesn't understand about finance:

A lot of people, including George W. Bush himself, seem unduly impressed by the fact that the trust fund does not consist of a "a pile of money being accumulated somewhere." . . . Here in the United States . . . nobody accumulates literal piles of money. Instead they buy stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. The Social Security Trust Fund is, like most of Bush's money, invested in bonds issued by the U.S. government.

Changing the law so as to no longer honor the commitment made by Ronald Reagan and the congressional leadership in 1983 would be a dangerous indication that today's president and Congress don't take such commitments seriously. That would be a poor signal to send at the exact same time the president asks the central banks of China and Japan to loan him a few trillion more dollars to cover the costs of the transition. After all, if bonds are "just IOUs," who's going to pay perfectly good yen for them?

(Emphasis added). Look, there are perfectly good arguments to be made about Social Security, but this ain't one of them. Let's say you can invest in two companies. Both are identical except that, for a third of their assets, they hold a portfolio of corporate bonds. Company A holds corporate bonds issued by, say, General Motors. Company B holds corporate bonds issued by . . . Company B. Wouldn't you be just a bit skeptical about the value of Company B's investment? Don't you think Company B would get into some trouble with its investors if it just said "a third of our assets are invested in corporate bonds" and didn't bother to disclose that they were buying their own bonds? There is a very big difference between buying bonds issued by somebody else and buying bonds you issued yourself.

Now, all of us make mistakes, and I'm certainly no expert on all the economic issues here - there's a reason I haven't delved too deeply into the Social Security debate - but if Yglesias can't grasp that simple distinction, he really should not be writing about this issue

Content used with the permission of Dan McLaughlin from Baseball Crank. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

And now for a public service announcement from Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

"Before you put your health, or the health of your loved ones, into the hands of a physician, make sure you get references, check with your state's medical board, and don't be afraid to ask questions. After all, there are people who want you around for a long, long, time. I'm Senator John Kerry, and now you know."

This has been a public service announcement...

"You know, even if you do ask questions, you still might get screwed. I mean, 'Are you sure I shouldn't start with a little injection first, and see how it works out?' sounds like a simple question to me, but no, Mr. Big-Shot DC Plastic Surgeon says he's "Done this thousands of times," and then pumps my forehead full of enough Botox to flatten out the coat on a Sharpei. What the hell does he care? He doesn't have to walk around looking like a d@mned freak the middle of a presidential campaign!"

This has been a public...

"And it's not just doctors, either. Watch your @ss if you ever go into one of those high-priced tanning salons. Sure, they'll tell you they know how to make you look "Like you've been at the beach for a couple of days," and the next thing you know, your face is on a pumpkin on the cover of Mad Magazine, only you've got bolts in your neck, a gap between your front teeth, and you're the only pumpkin in the world with a perfectly smooth forehead. Lot of d@mned good an attorney will do you then. Public figure my @ss."

This has been a public service announcement from Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Satire used with permission of John From Wuzzadem. You can read more of his work by clicking here. Full Disclosure: Wuzzadem is currently an advertiser with RWN.

The left on the net is all atwitter over the "Jeff Gannon controversy". This is a hot story on the left side of the blogosphere, Media Matters has written multiple articles about him, Salon is talking Gannon, and the DU is on fire over the story....

"JohnnyCougar (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-10-05 02:04 AM
Original message
20 out of 40 threads are on Gannon on this first page!!!!

Now there's 21, I guess.

I know this is a joyous occasion, but Jesus!"

This brings to mind an important question: "Who is Jeff Gannon and why should anyone care?"

Jeff Gannon was a reporter for Talon News, a very small conservative news site, and he somehow managed to get a press pass for White House press conferences where he asked **gasp** questions with a conservative slant!

This shocked the left because as we all know, White House press conferences should only be attended by unbiased, non-partisan, newshounds who care only for the truth -- ya know, like Helen Thomas -- hahahah -- sorry, I couldn't write that with a straight face. Believe it or not, this story captured the attention of the left (perhaps because they believe it may have a Valerie Plame tie-in).

But, the interest level roared up to "Memogate levels" on the left side of the blogosphere when Gannon was accused of being a closeted homosexual who owns some non-active gay porn sites.

Of course, this would be a big story -- if it involved let's say Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, or G. Gordon Liddy instead of a guy who's so obscure that I don't recall ever hearing his name until this story started to break. Why dragging a no-name conservative who may be gay through the mud is producing such glee on the left is beyond me, but they haven't had an opportunity to do any gay bashing since Mary Cheney left the national stage after the election, so maybe they feel that they're due.

But in any case, this molehill has been built up to such a mountain on the left that the Duers are actually speculating that Bush may have Gannon killed =D. It just has to be seen to be believed...

hector459: "He is a major embarrassment for the administration now and of no use to them. There is always the chance that a person like him might tell all that he knows. The Rovian-neocons are very capable of bumping him off and making it look like suicide, blaming his "suicide" on the liberal bloggers who drove him to such action because they exposed him.

Rovians always look for maximizing their attacks. This would kill three birds with one stone...or however they planned on doing it. It would get rid of Gannon, prevent any further revelations by him, and make "liberals" look like insensitive attackers. Nevermind the truth."

BiggJawn: They've done it before...Suicides and accidents...Oh, and sudden terminal illnesses, too, like Jack Ruby's Cancer...
Carnahan
Hatfield
Wellstone
and many, many more..."

bloodyjack: "Wouldn't it be easier to just suppress any information he might reveal his suicide would more likely than not just draw unwanted attention to circumstances surrounding his death as well as his brief career as a reporter."

RBHam: "He's as good as dead, unless...He better get his @ss to Elliot Spitzer's office like yesterday...Spitzer might be the only guy who can protect him..."

GarySeven: "Who CARES? one less of them is one more step toward freedom and democracy for the rest of us. As paradoxical as it may seem, the only way to have a tolerant, inclusive society is to be Intolerent of intolerence and exclude the exclusives."

mitchum What he said! The less of them, the better."

quisp: "just don't get on a small plane like. Paul Wellstoned did."

burn the bush: "would it be wrong to do a poll on which way he gets suicided?

ok, I know, I crosse the line. very bad"

Can I inject a bit of much needed sanity after reading those delightfully insane posts? Republicans don't care about this story, the White House doesn't care about this story, the general public doesn't care about this story, and it's actually a little bizarre that so many people on the left seem to be in a frenzy over it...

This telling quotation you're about to read from Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of the Daily Kos is worth reading and analyzing because it exposes some of the underlying ideological beliefs that make today's liberals incapable of handling foreign policy. From Kos...

"Here's the deal -- a war is worth fighting if you would sacrifice everything you hold dear to fight it.

It's that simple. The 101st Fighting Keyboarded and their bretheren in the Republican Corporate Media fail this very easy test of the sincerity of their convictions."

On the surface, this would simply seem to be a combination of the chickenhawk "argument" (and I used the word "argument" very loosely here) and Michael Moore's "would (you) sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah" comment to Bill O'Reilly and hence, is rather silly.

If you wanted to be as ridiculous as the people who take those sorts of positions, you could just as easily say that if you're serious about preventing war, then you should go to Iraq and be a human shield for Al-Zarqawi. You could also apply that sort of shallow "reasoning" to firemen or policemen just as easily as it can be applied to soldiers...

"Oh, well if you're not willing to charge into a burning building to try to put out a fire, then you shouldn't expect a fireman to do it. Same goes for cops. How can you ask a policeman to risk his life enforcing the law if you're not willing to grab a shotgun, kick in the door of a crackhouse, and start making citizens arrests?"

Put another way, these are frivolous tactics that are designed to cut off a debate about the war that the left has been losing from day 1.

That being said, the first part of what Kos said deserves more attention,

"Here's the deal -- a war is worth fighting if you would sacrifice everything you hold dear to fight it."

So, if you support a war, you should be willing to "sacrifice everything you hold dear to fight it?" Gee, I thought the point of going to war was to protect "everything you hold dear," not destroy it.

In any case, let's consider what the phrase "everything you hold dear" would entail. Your house? Sure. Your bank account & everything you own? Certainly. Your family? What could be dearer to people than their family?

Everybody reading this blog remembers the war in Afghanistan, correct? Would there have been a war if every American who supported it had to go fight in Afghanistan, take their kids with them, and come back to an empty bank account, a burned down house, and dead wives and parents? Of course there wouldn't have been a war.

As a matter of fact, there's no war that the United States has ever fought that we could have fielded an army for if the Americans fighting the war and everyone who supported the war was asked to "sacrifice everything (they held) dear to fight it." Yet, that is the standard Kos thinks we should apply to every war...at least when there's a Republican in the White House and Kos doesn't support the war that we're currently fighting.

All Kos is doing here is artfully rephrasing slogans like "Better red than dead," "Peace at any cost," & "Better to live on your knees than die on your feet," in a way that's more palatable. In other words,

"It's not that we liberals are pacifists or won't support any war, it's just that there's no justification for war that we've heard that meets our high moral standards."

How can you trust people with this mentality to make vitally important decisions that will have an impact on our national security? You can't...

Hat tip to Lori Byrd from PoliPundit for finding this post at the Daily Kos.

Mark Dubbin, the author of "Shadow Patriot" bought another main page ad on RWN to get the word out about his book. Here's the description of it from Barnes & Noble...

"The events of 9/11 affected many things in New York and the Mafia was no exception. Business suffered for Don Remondini after the attack, but he wasn't about to let it go. The cowards who cost him would receive a message from the Family if he had anything to say about it. They would think twice about their actions in the future. That much was certain.

Jim Pearce is Don Remondini's chief of security. As an Ex-Special Forces sniper, discharged from duty with diabetes, he is assigned to send al-Qaeda a powerful message from the Family. Operating outside the law, and using his CIA contacts, Shadow Patriot is a web of action and intrigue where the guilty will be made to pay, and payback can be a b*tch!"

I've done ads for this book before and one of RWN's readers had actually read the book. Jay said the following,

"I bought it after seeing the link to it on Amazon posted on here last time. The book itself is very short, only about 110 pages I believe. It was a little far fetched, but all in all a very good read."

Here's what a couple of intelligent people on Amazon had to say about the book,

Reviewer: A reader from Las Cruces, NM United States

A wonderful story taking a different approach to the effects of 9/11, and how it was dealt with. Rather than sit back and complain about what happened on that eventful day, a plan was set to take out a terrorist cell. Neat idea and easy flowing writing. Makes for a good, sunny afternoon read.

Reviewer: nicothefabulous from Littleton, CO United States

In a world where justice can be hard to come by, sometimes you have to make your own. Reminds me a bit of The Rocketeer, with the FBI agents and Mafia guys fighting the Nazis side-by-side. Maybe more people with the financial means to do so should take note of this story! I want to see the movie. A classic tale of good old-fashioned American payback.

Mark is a long time advertiser. How back paying him back for his support for RWN by at least checking out the book? You can take a look at Shadow Patriot by clicking here.

I was, am, and likely always will be a staunch opponent of the Medicare Prescription drug plan. It was an enormous boondoggle that no one who truly cared about fiscal responsibility could have supported, particularly given that we were -- and are still -- running an enormous deficit. Here are some of the things I wrote about the program back in 2002 and 2003...

July 24, 2003: Where's The Responsibility?

"How can we possibly justify creating a massive program like this when we're in the red especially when we know the costs of the program are going to explode when they hit the real world? Why don't we have ANYONE in our government who's responsible enough to stand up for the American taxpayers?"

Aug 9, 2002: Welfare For Seniors

"Keep in mind that we're talking about legislation that will probably cost something like 50-60 BILLION dollars a year right off the bat. Furthermore, we know from experience with Medicare and Social Security that costs and the number of people covered by the program will explode in coming years. There is absolutely no one who can truthfully say that they're for financial responsibility and keeping the deficit under control if they want this program to come to pass."

June 30, 2003: Poll Numbers Show The Medicare Drug Benefit Is Great Politics, Even If It's Terrible Policy

I could not be more opposed to the bloated, elephantine, prescription drug benefit that the GOP is gleefully helping to shove through Congress. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who votes for that monstrosity has lost the right to ever be taken seriously when they claim that they're serious about reducing the deficit.

"...A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll over the weekend found that 76% of adults favor Congress' move to spend $400 billion over 10 years to help seniors get insurance coverage for their prescriptions. Just 19% oppose the idea."

Of course, there is a reason why I'm bringing all of this up. From the AP,

"Medicare's new prescription drug program will cost taxpayers $720 billion over its first 10 years, with costs reaching $100 billion a year by the middle of the next decade, according to a new estimate by the Bush administration.

The new number is far higher than any previous estimate produced by the administration or Congress, but it reflects what lawmakers and health care analysts have known all along: As baby boomers turn 65 and swell Medicare's rolls, the government's tab for their health care is expected to rise substantially."

Originally, the numbers for the Republican plan that were being tossed around put the total cost of the program at around $340 billion. Then, by the time it was done, the number was up to $400 billion. A couple of months later, the price had gone up to $534 billion. Today, we're at $720 billion dollars (although that estimate runs from 2006 to 2015 instead of 2004 to 2013). My guess is that we'll find that even that number is a low ball estimate within a few years.

Two things...

#1) Nothing that is happening with the Medicare Prescription drug plan is going to be a surprise to anyone who pays attention to how the government works. Government programs cost much more than expected, deliver less than advertised, and after they're implemented, the public's support for them is generally lukewarm at best...until you try to get rid of said program, at which time all hell breaks loose.

#2) What did the "small government" conservatives, who claim to be concerned about the deficit, get for selling out their principles to vote for this budget busting, big government welfare program for seniors?

Has this massive expenditure of our taxes actually lessened the concern Americans have about the cost of prescription drugs? No, in fact, politicians are already falling all over themselves to implement the next dumb idea that won't solve the problem: importing drugs from Canada. Was the base happy about the Medicare Prescription drug plan? No. Has there been any great shift in the public's view of who they trust on health care issues? No (These numbers vary, but for example: In a Newsweek poll from last October, the public preferred Kerry (56%) to Bush (34%) on "health care (issues), including Medicare".

So what was the upside? An issue the Democrats could use against the GOP in 2004 was taken off the table. That's it. Was that worth letting the Federal government sink its talons much deeper into our health care system and 700+ billion dollars? Hell no, it wasn't...unless you're a politician who cares less about doing what's right for America than keeping your cushy job on the Hill...

PS: Given the tendency of Democrats to try to falsely portray themselves as budget hawks using this issue and others, it's worth noting that although few Democrats supported the Medicare Prescription drug plan, their primary beef with it was that it wasn't BIG ENOUGH. While the original GOP proposal was at $340 billion, the Democrats were lobbying for a $594 billion bill. Had they gotten their way, we'd likely be at trillion dollar plus over 10 years on the program right now.

The comments you're about to read came not from the Democratic Underground, IndyMedia or some other leftist wacko pit on the web, but from the Democratic Mayor of Baltimore, Martin O'Malley...

"Back on September 11, terrorists attacked our metropolitan cores, two of America's great cities. They did that because they knew that was where they could do the most damage and weaken us the most. Years later, we are given a budget proposal by our commander in chief, the president of the United States. And with a budget ax, he is attacking America's cities. He is attacking our metropolitan core."

So O'Malley is comparing Bush's budget cuts to 9/11 and Bush wielding a "budget" ax to Al-Qaeda flying planes into the WTC & Pentagon? So now we have to question whether O'Malley is having a titanic overreaction to some minor budget cuts or does he actually consider 9/11 to be such a trivial event that he'd compare it to having less taxpayer money to fritter away? Maybe this is just how O'Malley talks in private to his other liberal buddies and he figured that if it doesn't upset them, the comments wouldn't cause a big stir.

Whatever the case may be, outlandish sentiments of this sort have become commonplace in Michael Moore's Democratic Party these days, which is part of the reason why so many voters have lost confidence in the Dems over the last few years.

Spurred by CNN executive Eason Jordan's accusations that U.S. troops have targetted journalists in Iraq, the Pentagon today issued revised rules of engagement for encounters between U.S. forces and the members of the news media.

Under the new guidelines, U.S. troops will first offer journalists an opportunity to throw down their cameras and notebooks and approach with hands raised.

"We're there to kill terrorists, not journalists," said an unnamed Pentagon official. "The new rules are designed to make it easier for our personnel to distinguish between the two, since they're often found together and have similar objectives."

Once in captivity, the so-called Prisoners Of Undetermined Loyalty Embedded with Terrorists (POULET), will be treated according to the Geneva Conventions, although the Justice Department has yet to rule on their official status.

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

Futurama is one of my favorite TV shows (I actually own the first 4 seasons on DVD) and I thought it would be fun to put together some of my favorite quotes from the show. Enjoy!

Amazon: You will see our leader.
Fry: Is she hot?
Amazon: That not important. She all knowing.
Fry: In other words, no.

Auctioneer: Are there no further bids for this exquisite galaxy? Sold! To the being of inconceivable horror!
Being of Inconceivable Horror: Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
(Pause)
Being of Inconceivable Horror: Will a money order be OK?
Auctioneer: Yes.
Being of Inconceivable Horror: MWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Basketball Commentator: Ladies and gentlemen, something very strange has just occurred, in this basketball match between space clowns and atomic monsters.

Beach Bully: "Huhu, err, sir. You don't understand. I'm a professional beach bully. I pretend to steal your girl, you punch me, I go down, she swoons, you slip me 50 bucks."
Fry: "50 bucks?! Not even if she was my girlfriend. You take her!"
Leela: "Fry!"

Bender: And so I ask you this one question. Have you ever tried simply turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?

Bender: Now normally I charge $500, but since I know you...I'll have to ask you to pay in advance.

Bender: You're watching Futurama: the show that does not advocate the cool crime of robbery

Fry: "Its just like the story of the grasshopper and the octopus. All year long the grasshopper kept burying acorns for winter while the octopus mooched off his girlfriend and watched TV. Then the winter came, and the grasshopper died, and the octopus ate all his acorns and also he got a racecar. Is any of this getting through to you?"

Gay Hippie: They called me crazy for building this ark.
Old Hippie: You ARE crazy. You filled it with same sex animal couples.
Gay Hippie: Hey, there are parts of the bible I like and parts I don't like.

Fry: This was our storage closet. My Dad spent years turning it into a bomb shelter.
Leela: And yet you guys never had a single nuclear war.
Bender: What a waste.

Lawyer: "To my loyal butler, "You There", for his decades of service, I leave a pittance to be paid in 20 equal installments of one twentieth of a pittance each. To my lazy spoiled son Tandy, who never learned the value of a dollar, I leave my entire million dollar fortune."
Tandy: "Is that a lot?"
Lawyer: "And to my loving nephew Bender, assuming he's not responsible for my death, I leave my castle."
Bender: "Let's stay there tonight!"
Lawyer: "On condition he stays there one night."
Bender: "Aw, there's always a catch!"

Leela: This is Fry's decision. And he made it wrong, so it's time for us to interfere in his life.

Leela: wow, aren't you Zapp Brannigan? you stopped the fleet of kill bots, right? how did you do it?
Zapp Brannigan: it was simple really. Kill-bots have a preset "kill limit", once they reach this limit, they shut down. knowing their weakness, i just sent wave after wave of our own men into battle against them, once they killed them all, they were effectively shut down.

Leela: Fry, we have a crate to deliver.
Fry: Well let's just dump it in the sewer and say we delivered it.
Bender: Too much work. Let's we burn it and *say* we dumped it in the sewer.

Leela: I'll find Fry's coffin, get his corpse, and keep it under my mattress to remind me that he's really dead. That'll prove I'm not insane!

Leela: Bees communicate by dancing.
Fry: Just like my parents! Oh wait, that was hitting.

Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Everyone's always in favour of saving Hitler's brain. But when you put it in the body of a great white shark, ooohh! Suddenly you've gone too far!

Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Now that you're our new employees, I'd like you to have a look at our commercial. I paid to have it aired during the Super Bowl.
Fry: Wow.
Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Not on the same channel, of course...

Professor Hubert Farnsworth: You must take him to his ancient home world, which will soon erupt in an orgy of invertebrate sex.
Fry: Oh baby. I'm THERE.
Leela: Fry, do you even understand the word "invertebrate"?
Fry: Nope, but that's not the word I'm interested in.

Professor Hubert Farnsworth (on the phone): Oh how awful. Did he at least die peacefully?
(Pause)
Professor Hubert Farnsworth (on the phone): To shreds you say, tsk tsk tsk. Well, how's his wife holding up?
(Pause)
Professor Hubert Farnsworth (on the phone): To shreds, you say.

Reporter (At a homeless robot shelter): Is there anything sadder? Only drowning puppies. And there'd have to be a lot of them.

Soldier: This is the worst part. The calm before the battle.
Fry: And then the battle is not so bad?
Soldier: Oh, right. I forgot about the battle.

Zapp Brannigan: Mmm... Welcome to my humble chamber or as I call it, "The Lovenasium".

Zapp Brannigan: Kif, I have made it with a woman. Inform the men.

Zapp Brannigan (To Fry who's pretending to be dating Leela): But as a gentleman, I must warn you, if you so much as glance at another woman, I'll be on Leela like a fly on a pile of very seductive manure.

The story of young Devin Brown should be a cautionary tale about what happens when you fall in the wrong crowd, but is instead being used as a way to attack the police. Brown, a 13 year-old "eighth-grader at a magnet school for gifted youth," started hanging out with gang bangers,

"Friends and neighbors said the teen had recently begun skipping school and spending time with gang members after his father's death last year. They insisted, however, that he wasn't in a gang.

"He was headed that way soon," he said. "God called him before the gang bangers called him."

"...On Sunday, Brown and a friend stole a car and led the police on a 3 1/2 chase. Then, when Brown was cornered against a fence, he backed into a police cruiser and officer Steven Garcia, who was "standing outside his police car," shot Brown to death when he "allegedly backed the Toyota toward the patrol unit."

Obviously, if you're deliberately trying to knock a police cruiser out of the way with your car and backing towards an officer, you are putting the lives of the cops involved in danger and they may very well have to, and in my opinion SHOULD, respond with deadly force. The kid driving the car may have been 13, but being plowed over by a car driven by a 13 year-old will kill you just as stone dead as being run down by anybody else.

But of course, in these days and times, we have people rallying behind the potential cop killer, not the police. From the LA Times (Registration Required)...

"The residents are very disturbed over this tragic and needless shooting," said John Mack, president of the Los Angeles Urban League. "We have a pattern here where some police officers don't value the lives of young African American males. There's a frustration here that's building up and makes it difficult to build a partnership with police."

Geraldine Washington, president of the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP, said that "the community is outraged. But I think this is going to bring the total community together. They're supposed to protect and serve, and they got it wrong."

Instead of carping about the police, who's asking what this kid's parent was doing while he was hanging out with gang members? Why aren't we hearing calls for the police to crack down on the gangs? Actually, at this point, I'd settle for hearing less from people like Maxine Waters, who apparently places a higher value on the life of a 13 year-old car thief/potential copkiller than on the lives of the police who are putting their necks on the line every night to protect LA...

Thousandth verse, same as the first:

SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt – Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas declared Tuesday that their people would stop all military or violent activity, pledging to break the four-year cycle of bloodshed and get peace talks back on track.

With the flags of their countries whipping in the wind, Sharon and Abbas met face-to-face at a Mideast summit Tuesday. In one sign the talks went well, Egypt and Jordan announced immediately afterward that they would return their ambassadors to Israel after a four-year absence — possibly within days.

Aww, how nice. Unsurprisingly, I just heard some dweeb on NPR waxing darkly prophetic on what might happen if the cease-fire was violated “by either side,” as if it was quite likely that the Israelis would just suddenly decide to attack some random Palestinians for no reason. But then, that’s just how these NPR types see it; no moral distance whatever between attacker and attackee—as long as Israel has the common decency to remain in its long-accustomed attackee role, that is. And here’s the most unsurprising thing of all: someone apparently forgot to tell Hamas, also as usual:

But the Palestinian militant group Hamas immediately called the deal into question. The group’s representative in Lebanon, Osama Hamdan, told The Associated Press it would not be bound by the Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire declarations.

When were they ever, pray tell? Not that the blockheads at NPR will ever notice that Hamas is to blame for the inevitable collapse of yet another 3R ceasefire (rest, recruit, re-equip), of course. Or the blockheads in Europe, or the blockheads at the UN, or several other blockhead agglomerations you could name. Nope, when Hamas makes another attack later this week or early next and it all comes tumbling down, it’ll be because Israel didn’t let enough Palestinian terrorists Minutemen out of jail or something. You wait.

Content used with the permission of Mike Hendrix from Cold Fury. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

Democrats are fond of blaming their political death spiral in the South on ignorance, racism, homophobia & fundamentalist Christians who long to turn America into "Jesusland," but there's actually a much simpler explanation: the Democrats in the South have always been relatively moderate and the Democratic Party is run by radical liberals. This article from U.S. News & World Report Helps Explain..

"DURHAM, N.C.--The hundred or so Democratic activists gathered in an auditorium at North Carolina Central University on a January weeknight to meet with state party bigwigs have each been given two paper flags--one green, one red. When someone says something they agree with, attendees are supposed to wave green flags; if they disagree, they wave the red. Plenty of the proposals elicit green flags, like withdrawing from Iraq. Then a member of the state party's executive committee suggests reaching out to NASCAR dads. "We have churches and values," she says, "and we have to make that clear." A wave of red flags ripples across the room. Grumbles activist Don Esterling, 62: "We don't need to be Republican light."

Can Democrats produce a nominee in '08 who wins over southerners without bringing on "Republican light" charges from party activists? Easley says recent history isn't reassuring. "Too often, we're cheering the candidate at the convention," he says, "while looking around at one another saying, 'Hmmm . . . he's not gonna do well at home.'"

So there's the paradox the Democrats have to deal with in the South. A lot of Southerners will vote for "moderate" Democrats, but would rather pull the lever for a Republican than a "liberal" Democrat. However, because the money, ideas, and power players on the Democratic side are dominated by the left, "moderate" Democrats have great difficulty getting nominated or generating any enthusiasm among the party faithful. Unless Democrats can break that cycle, expect them to continue to lose in the South.

This is on Hollywood Blvd, about 4 blocks from where the Academy Awards will be taking place =D

Hat tip to Cinemocracy for the pic and Citizens United for the billboard.

The following monstrous sentiments you are about to read are from Eric Alterman's blog on MSNBC. Alterman is commenting on the despicable boycott by many British Muslims of "(the) commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz"....

"Look, unlike[ Andrew Sullivan], I'm a Jew, but I don't expect Arabs to pay tribute to my people's suffering while Jews, in the form of Israel and its supporters -— and in this I include myself — are causing much of theirs. Would Andrew want to go to a service in honor of the suffering of gay bashing bigots? . . . Anyway, I'm sure what I'm saying will be twisted beyond recognition, and so I suppose that makes it stupid to do, but I'm sorry. The Palestinians have also suffered because of the Holocaust. They lost their homeland as the world — in the form of the United Nations — reacted to European crimes by awarding half of Palestine to the Zionists. They call this the "Nakba" or the "Catastrophe." To ask Arabs to participate in a ceremony that does not recognize their own suffering but implicitly endorses the view that caused their catastrophe is morally idiotic — which is why, I guess, I'm not surprised Andrew's doing it."

Yes, you're reading that right, Eric Alterman is comparing the Jews who died at Auschwitz to "gay bashing bigots." It's great that Alterman lets us know that he's a Jew because otherwise we may have confused him for a Nazi, holocaust denier, or anti-semitic Muslim Imam -- ya know, the other people who seem to share his views on the subject. To speak of the innocents who were slaughtered at Auschwitz as if they're culpable for the endless grievances of the Arab world today is grotesque & depraved. Alterman should be ashamed...

Hat tip to Eugene Volokh for the scoop on the Alterman post.