Welcome To Harvard comrade! The school where all students are equal! Why, the very idea that one member of the proletariat could afford to have something that another member could not is so infuriating that the school paper, the aptly named Harvard Crimson, has written an editorial denouncing such capitalist practices! Read and learn comrade, read and learn:

"...Dormaid, founded by Michael E. Kopko ’07, is a cleaning service that allows students to avoid the perennial problem of dingy, smutty, questionably-habitable rooms. But as appealing as the thought of a perpetually tidy room may be, (independent of family visits), Dormaid could potentially mess up as many rooms as it cleans. By creating yet another differential between the haves and have-nots on campus, Dormaid threatens our student unity.

...Harvard administrators and House Masters should have known better than to approve Dormaid. While it provides a useful service, Dormaid’s cost to campus life outweighs its positive aspects. Harvard makes strong efforts to open this school to students of all backgrounds. These efforts must not end with a number in a financial aid packet. This openness must be imbued in the atmosphere of this school, which means that unneeded distinctions between the rich and the poor are the last things that Harvard needs to foster. Although Harvard has given its approval, students don’t have to. We urge the student body to boycott Dormaid. Everyone’s certainly busy, but Harvard students shouldn’t choose convenience over healthy relationships with their blockmates. It’s up to each one of us to ensure that our peers feel comfortable on campus, and if that means plugging in a vacuum every two weeks, then so be it."

Remember comrades, Communism is never truly dead as long as it is reflected in your words and deeds. So tremble all you capitalist running dogs and bourgeois pigs who want to take advantage of the savage inequities of capitalism to have your rooms cleaned while the workers cannot afford it, because the Harvard Crimson will bury you!

Hat tip to Tongue Tied for the story.

Update #1: I just wanted to make it clear that I have no idea whether the people who run the Harvard Crimson define themselves as Commies or not. But whether they accept or reject the Communist label, what they're proposing would certainly warm the cockles of Karl Marx's cold, black, and happily no longer beating, Commie heart and that's what I wanted to get across.

This MSNBC story called "Activists fight for electric cars" is fascinating reading because it's an important cautionary tale, although MSNBC doesn't intentionally try to present it that way. But, let's do a bit of reframing and put things into perspective.

Originally, a bunch of environmental activists threw a fit in California and convinced them to press for a new law which led to the creation of the electric car:

"Most automakers experimented with electric power during the 1990s when California threatened to require them to sell zero-emissions vehicles. The state eventually backed off the requirement, and one by one the car companies dropped their electric vehicle programs.

Despite what environmentalists often claim -- that industry puts little effort into developing vehicles powered by alternative fuels -- GM went to great trouble and expense to design these cars:

"The EV1 was widely considered the best of the crop because of its performance and innovative engineering, using a teardrop shape for slick aerodynamics. GM says it gave the EV1 every chance to succeed, spending more than $1 billion on development and dedicating an entire Michigan plant to producing it."

That's billion with a "b," folks. Yet, despite everything GM went through to get this car on the market, they had a basic problem: few people wanted to buy the car...

"But the world's biggest automaker said the car never appealed beyond a core group of technology enthusiasts and environmentalists."

Of course, it was no surprise that the car didn't appeal to the public:

"GM agrees that the car in question, called the EV1, was a rousing feat of engineering that could go from zero to 60 miles per hour in under eight seconds with no harmful emissions. The market just wasn't big enough, the company says, for a car that traveled 140 miles or less on a charge before you had to plug it in like a toaster.

So government regulations in essence forced them to build a car that almost no one wanted. But, then a funny thing happened: the government regulations went away...

"(California) eventually backed off the (zero-emissions) requirement, and one by one the car companies dropped their electric vehicle programs.

Now that GM has dropped the program since there is minimal demand for the cars, the same sort of environmentalist wackos who demanded the regulations in California that led to the creation of the car, are demanding that GM sell them some cars that are left over from the project:

"Enthusiasts discovered a stash of about 77 surviving EV1s behind a GM training center in Burbank and last month decided to take a stand. Mobilized through Internet sites and word of mouth, nearly 100 people pledged $24,000 each for a chance to buy the cars from GM. On Feb. 16 the group set up a homely street-side outpost of folding chairs that they have staffed ever since in rotating shifts, through long nights and torrential rains, trying to draw attention to their cause."

GM however, points out that it's just not practical for them to sell the EV1s:

"The company says it cannot sell the cars because it would have a legal obligation to service them, and it can't provide service because many suppliers quit making the 2,000 unique parts that went into the design.

So, everyone should have learned a lesson from this, right? Wrong:

"Ted Flittner, a vigil participant and Costa Mesa industrial engineer who never owned an EV1 but used to enjoy riding in a friend's. He accepts that the situation doesn't look promising but said the plight of the EV1 has helped bring attention to an innovative environmental project. "It's just so wasteful," he said. "They have such a brilliant solution they've developed. They've put it on the market and proved it works. People still want it and they're taking it away and destroying it."

Ok, they spent more than a billion producing a car because of the threat of government regulation, not market demand, and then because there are a 100 people willing to spend $24,000 each this guy thinks it all worked out OK? GM lost their shirts selling this car.

This is a cautionary tale about environmental extremism & what happens when the government interferes with the market, not some "evil" corporation refusing to sell people cars. Every state and Federal government official should read this and think about the enormous negative impact that their ridiculous regulations can have on the economy. In this case, we had just ONE COMPANY waste a billion dollars because of the threat of government regulations in just ONE STATE. Think about the burden that these government regulations cause across the whole country in all industries and you can easily see how much damage the government can unintentionally do to our economy.

Hat tip to Ravenwood's Universe for the story.

Some of you may have noticed my new advertiser: the United Nations Foundation. Now, I must admit, it seems very odd to me that the UN is advertising on RWN. In fact, it's kind of like the KKK buying an ad at the ADL website. You know -- who would imagine it? But, I am a capitalist and since my taxes are used in part to pay UN dues, I figure I'm getting at least $65 of my own money back by selling them an ad.

Now some of you may be wondering: Hawkins, are you going to be as hard on the UN now that they're buying advertising from you?

Well -- the truth is, folks, they are an advertiser, so I need to show them a little deference and ease up.

For example, it wouldn't be polite of me to point out that despite the fact that the ad on the page is touting how "tough" the UN is on terrorism, the camps the UN runs for the Palestinians are terrorist enclaves. Moreover, it certainly wouldn't be diplomatic of me to point out this excerpt from my interview with Jed Babbin:

Jed Babbin: "Also, I would point you to Page 155 of my book. There’s a picture there of the UN peacekeeping outpost on the Israel-Lebanon border and there are two flags flying side by side. It’s a UN peacekeeping outpost so as you’d expect, hunky dorey, you know, there’s the UN flag. Flying 10 or 15 feet away is the flag of Hizbollah.

It is outrageous to me that the United States would allow the UN to have this go on and it is obscene and an insult to the memory of all of those brave young men who died that day for this to go on. There’s a lot of reasons, oil for food and all the rest of that, to start cutting off the flow of money from the US to the UN but I’ll tell you what; Were it up to me, until that flag came down, those guys wouldn’t get one Yankee dollar.

I would say that I agree with Jed 110% and that the UN is a total joke when it comes to fighting terrorism, but again, I don't want to be unfair to the fine ninnies, incompetents, corrupt bureaucrats, folks at the UN by bringing that up.

Lastly, you shouldn't expect me to bring up any of these quotes from my previous posts about the UN:

-- "Kofi Annan and the rest of the corrupt bureaucrats at the UN, the same guys who ran from Iraq like scalded dogs after they got bombed..."

-- "...the worst thing we could do would be to go back into the UN snakepit."

-- "...without the influence, money, and military might of the United States, the UN will go from being a pathetic & toothless debating society...well to an even more pathetic & toothless debating society."

-- "To be honest, I like the idea of going without UN approval. It'll cost us some short term support, but it'll also cripple the UN which is a huge long term plus in the war on terrorism and in general. In effect, the UN is nothing but the old League of Nations anyway unless we decide to take a stand on something."

-- "I already don't care what the UN thinks, but why should anyone care what they think if the US, or any nation for that matter, can simply and openly buy them off? This, my friends, is what the 'real UN' is like and why no one but the ignorant and the hopelessly naive believe they have any sort of 'moral authority.'"

-- "If the UN is really this dumb, they're going to be making the mistake of a lifetime and I can't say that it bothers me one bit. The only thing that could be better than destroying part of the global terrorist network by putting Saddam out of business would be getting rid of Saddam AND cutting the UN's hamstrings at the same time."

I know that some of you may be disappointed that I'm giving the UN a free ride like this, but what can I say: I feel a need to be fair to be my advertisers, even if they're run by a braying, anti-American jackass like Kofi Annan. So, check out the ad from RWN's new advertiser: the United Nations Foundation and make them feel welcome!

*** Update #1 ***: Here's a post from the comments section from one of RWN's liberal readers that I thought you'd enjoy:

"Hey, folks - I don't care how much you come to Hawkins' defense. He sold out his principles for a buck. It doesn't matter how much or how strongly he criticizes the UN from now on out. The UN is not paying him to kiss up to them. They're paying him for a spot on his website, which amounts to some kind of endorsement. And that is what they got.

Sometimes, you just need to walk away from the money because there are things more important than the almighty dollar. It's called "principle." --huckupchuck

Sounds great, Huck! Click here to buy the ad and then since you're paying double, just chip the rest of the money in via Paypal in the support section.

Personally, my philosophy is that I'm in the business of selling ads and if someone wants to buy one, then they've come to the right place. In general, I'd no more deny them a spot than a hardware salesman would refuse to sell them nails because he disagreed with their political beliefs.

That's not to say I'd take any ad that came down the pike. I actually have turned down two ads: one for a website I thought was racist and another for a gay-bashing website. Someone asked about Planned Parenthood in the comments section...I don't think I could sell them an ad. But the UN? I'm HAPPY to take their money and mock them for it. Same goes for you, Huck. Heck, same goes for the DNC if Howard Dean ever wants to really try to reach out to some Republicans (har, har, har). RWN is open for business and I won't turn you away just because you're a leftist wacko...

In this searing courtroom drama, best-selling author John Grisham probes the savage depths of misunderstood dictator... as he delivers a compelling tale of uncertain justice in a small Middle East country.

Saddam Hussein, a former dictator and unrepentant murderer is now facing a tribunal court to determine his fate. But when a judge and lawyer related to the case are murdered, Hussein knows he must act fast to prove his innocence.

Hussein's brother is suddenly taken captive; can he rescue him while still managing to plead his case? Will Hussein uncover the unseen powers behind the frame-up while maintaining his integrity? The ending will reveal all.

"Mesmerizing... with an authority and originality... and with a grasp of literary complexity that makes Gulf War I look simple by comparison -- Grisham returns." -- San Francisco Chronicle.

"A dark and thoughtful tale pulsing with moral uncertainties and something about WMD... Grisham is at his best." --People.

"Compelling... Powerful... The Tyrant will make readers think long and hard about invading other countries who we think are bad, and probably are, but not really sure, so we go and find out they are sorta bad, so it really probably was the right thing……right?" -- USA Today

"His best yet." -- The Houston Post.

---

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

Although 2008 is a long way away and no one can truly predict what will happen in politics that far out, the race for the presidency is already starting to vaguely take shape.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton already looks to be all but unstoppable. HC is polling well ahead of Kerry and Edwards and the word on the street (passed along by Chris Matthews) is that Al Gore isn't running.

Furthermore, with the Dems still slowly but surely sliding to the left, candidates like Bill Richardson and Mark Warner, who would be tougher opponents for the GOP than Hillary, have little chance of winning. In fact, barring unforeseen events, it's likely that the only thing that can stop Hillary from taking the nomination in 2008 would be if she drives the left wing of the Democratic Party to coalesce around a Howard Dean simulacrum (or possibly even Dean himself) by moving too far to the center. Even then, the smart money would probably still be on Hillary.

On the other hand, on the GOP side, not only is there no 800 pound gorilla in the race, it's entirely possible that none of the current top 4 candidates will even get the nomination. According to a Marist poll:

Giuliani receives the support nationwide of 25% of Republicans and Republican leaning Independents and McCain has 21%. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice follows with 14% and Florida Governor Jeb Bush receives 7%.

But, if you take a hard look at these candidates, you have to wonder if any of them has what it takes to grab the brass ring.

Rudy Giuliani: "America's mayor" is popular with the base right now but very few of them know that he's pro-abortion, in favor of gun control & gay marriage, and has a "Clintonesque" personal life. Once Rudy's flaws become as well known as his strengths, his stock will drop faster than Enron.

John McCain: While McCain does have a small, enthusiastic group of supporters in the GOP, I'd estimate that there are 2-3 Republicans who hate his guts for every fan he has. Furthermore, the right side of the blogosphere and a lot of big name conservative opinion makers (Rush Limbaugh in particular) absolutely loathe McCain and will go after him wilth everything they have in the primaries. McCain is the Lieberman of the GOP. He might have name recognition and a few fans, but he's not going anywhere.

Condi Rice: There's a lot of talk about a Condi Rice run at the presidency. But, Condi is pro-abortion, hasn't been married at 50, and has never run for office before. If she were to run -- and that's a big if -- she'd be hit with savage attacks on her personal life (she could expect to be portrayed either as a lesbian or strange by the left) and her inexperience would be a huge minus in a run at the presidency. It's possible that Condi could be the nominee in 2008, but she's a much weaker candidate that most people think.

Jeb Bush: Although the Bush name would be a negative to some voters who would rather the GOP select someone from outside the Bush family for 2008, it may not be more than a glancing blow to Jeb's chances if another Clinton (Hillary) is running as well. Furthermore, Bush could put together the kind of organization he needs to win, raise money, guarantee Florida, & generally please the base. In fact, were he running, I'd say Jeb would have a 50% or better chance of taking the nomination. However, Bush says he's not running for the Presidency in 2008.

What it all comes down to is that for Republicans, it's going to be wide open in 2008...

Sometimes it's hard to make sense of the decisions the Supreme Court makes. When they cherry-pick foreign legal decisions to cite as the basis for some of their more Left-leaning rulings, for instance, it can make anyone's head spin. Why, I often wonder, do they speak of the "values we share with a wider civilization" when they cite European court rulings, but ignore foreign laws that disagree with the Liberal agenda? For every decision they make citing the European Court of Human Rights, shouldn't there be a ruling based on Shari'a law or Chinese law?

In one instance, the Supreme Court effectively overturned the Tenth Amendment in the Lawrence v. Texas decision when they removed the right of Texas to make its own laws regarding sodomy. The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in the decision that the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts had affirmed the "rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct." He also mentioned that privacy for gay men and women "has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries." Yet the Supreme Court didn't balance this blatant Eurocentrism by ruling that women should be stoned for exposing the upper part of their feet, or that anyone who didn't bow to President Bush's portrait should be sent to a concentration camp to mine coal and make soccer balls for cheap export. If they were taking foreign laws and attitudes regarding homosexuality into account when making their decision, why didn't they rule that, as Shari'a law states, the Texas legal system should "Kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done?" It's obvious that the Supreme Court made a decision not based on the Constitution, but their own prejudices and attitudes, then sought precedents by which to explain it.

In the great tradition of Roe v. Wade and Justice Hugo Black's "separation of Church and State," the Supreme Court recently found yet another part of the Constitution that no one had ever seen before (no doubt written on the back of the third page of the original, in lemon juice). This one said that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death, no matter how heinous the crime. States have now lost the right to mete out justice as they see fit. Justice Kennedy (again) joined Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Kennedy stated that those under 18 should not be subject to the death penalty because the "instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime." Kennedy further blamed "a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility" and the "diminished culpability of juveniles" for their crimes.

Arizona youth Kenneth Laird, for instance, was only 17 when he broke into Wanda Starnes’ home while she was at work. He tied, gagged and locked her in a bathroom when she returned, then choked her with a rope and bashed her skull in. Laird then spent the next few days driving her truck and forging checks from her account. Mere youthful high spirits, no doubt. Nathan Ramirez was 17 when he and a friend broke into the Florida home of 71-year-old Mildred Boroski, tied her to her bed, killed her dog with a crowbar and looted the house. After the friend raped Boroski, Ramirez shot her twice in the head. He was obviously suffering from an underdeveloped sense of responsibility.

Dale Dwayne Craig was 17 when he fired three bullets into the head of Kipp Gullet as Gullet cried and begged for mercy after Craig abducted him. Stephen Virgil McGilberry killed four members of his Mississippi family with a baseball bat when he was 16. Tilmon Golphin and his older brother killed two police officers after committing robbery and grand theft auto, shooting the already-wounded men at point-blank range. Efrain Perez and Raul Villarreal were both 17 when they and three others gang-raped two girls, 16 and 14, before strangling and stomping them to death. One of the girls was strangled with her own shoelaces. Kevin Hughes sexually assaulted and strangled a nine-year-old Pennsylvania girl before setting her body on fire when he was 17. I suppose we should just be thankful he killed her first.

All these animals and more are now free of the death penalty, thanks to the Supreme Court and their reliance on foreign laws. "In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty," Justice Kennedy wrote in the decision, also noting that the practice was banned by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The part that confuses me the most is how the same "children" who are deemed unstable, emotionally unbalanced, immature and lacking a sense of responsibility by this ruling are still somehow responsible and mature enough to get birth control or abortions without parental consent in states like California and Florida.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warned us that "over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, of international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues." Well, what do European court decisions matter to me? I don't live there, nor do I want European judges deciding my laws for me. Any judge who bases his or her decisions on any document other than the US Constitution or on any legal ruling made beyond our borders ought to be impeached. As an American, I insist that my laws be written only by my fellow Americans, and comply with my Constitution. If I want to live under the laws of another country, I know how to buy a ticket for the next plane or boat, believe me -- I don't need the illegal immigration of their judicial rulings.

Content used with permission of CavalierX from Guardian Watchblog. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

We frequently hear about "deadbeat dads" who don't pay child support. However, the patently unfair way fathers are often treated by the family court system in this country is usually ignored because most stories on the subject focus more on vilifying men in child support disputes than pointing out how some of them may be victimized as well. But luckily, this Phyllis Schlafly column gives the sort of stories that often slip under the media's radar the attention that they deserve:

"This injustice to our reservists serving in Iraq should be remedied by Congress and state legislatures before more fathers meet the fate of Bobby Sherrill, a father of two from North Carolina, who worked for Lockheed in Kuwait before being captured and held hostage by Iraq for five terrible months. The night he returned from the Persian Gulf he was arrested for failing to pay $1,425 in child support while he was a captive.

The federal Bradley Amendment, named for the liberal Senator Bill Bradley, takes us back to the cruel days of debtors' prisons. It requires that a child-support debt cannot be retroactively reduced or forgiven, and the states enforce this law no matter what the change in a father's income, no matter if he is sent to war or locked up in prison, no matter if he is unemployed or hospitalized or even dead, no matter if DNA proves the guy is not the father, and no matter if he is never allowed to see his children."

Nobody wants deadbeat parents to be out living it up while their kids are denied the basic necessities. However, it's obvious that the current system we have is draconian and in great need of reform...

To be honest, I'm surprised this sort of incident doesn't happen all the time given the malevolent and crazy rhetoric that's tossed around on the left these days:

"This week, though, a Tampa woman learned that simple Bush-Cheney bumper sticker can bring trouble, if not danger, from a total stranger.

"He's trying to hurt us. Look at this, what a moron," she said. "Look at him! . . . Idiot!"

Before I dig into this, I'd like to emphasize the right is not blameless when it comes to lightly tossing around highly charged words; for example, I think the "T-word" -- treason -- is used much too freely by some people on the right. People who commit treason should be hung, so that's not a word you want to use unless you mean it.

Still, that being said, do you remember when Tom Daschle was accusing Rush Limbaugh and other radio hosts of ginning up death threats against him by calling him "an obstructionist?" Well today, Bush and other Republicans get called a whole hell of a lot worse than "obstructionists."

Today, words like "Nazi" & "Fascist" are routinely used to describe Republicans by the left on the internet. The losing Democratic candidate's wife intimates that the election was rigged. The DNC chairman, Howard Dean, says that, "this is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good." A popular syndicated cartoonist and columnist like Ted Rall tells his readers that, "Lefties just don't seem to get this fundamental truth of politics: Not only has there never been a revolution without violence, but there's never been meaningful social change without violence or at least the threat thereof." Ward Churchill, a professor who referred to the innocent people murdered in the Twin Towers as "little Eichmanns" is slobbered over by the likes of Bill Maher.

Well, if your opponents are evil Nazis, little Eichmanns who are rigging elections and violence is the only way to create meaningful social change, then you don't have to be a rock scientist to figure out what the next logical step is going to be. And this sort of rhetoric is fast becoming, if it's not already, the rule, not the exception on the left.

But if you portray your political adversaries not just as people who disagree with you, but as the devil incarnate, then it shouldn't surprise anyone that some people, like Nathan Alan Winkler, take that rhetoric seriously and act on it. There will be more Nathan Alan Winklers before it's through unless something changes on the left...

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin on the story.

An Ex-Marine claims the official version of the capture of Saddam was staged. You might be surprised... if you aren't smart like me. In wars, stuff is staged or made up all the time. For example:

* The Assassination of President Lincoln: Lincoln was dead from a heroin overdose six days before he supposedly went to Ford Theater. Assassination by John Wilkes Booth was staged to turn public opinion against the political beliefs of actors.

* The Suicide of Hitler: Completely made up when Adolph Hitler wasn't found after the invasion of Germany. Hitler later found vending peanuts at Wrigley Field.

* Raising Flag at Iwo Jima: Picture actually taken on a soundstage in Area 51.

* The Fall of Saigon: Never happened. We actually won the Vietnam War and pretended to lose it to get Commies over-confident.

* The Bombing of Nagasaki: Actually planned ahead of time. Not just done off the cuff.

* The Crusades: Not actaully looking for Holy Land; instead, it was a search for Thai hookers.

* Korean War: North Korea is democratic and South Korea is overrun with Communists. After initial error by a cartographer, the mistake was never corrected to keep up the image of government infallibility.

* The War of 1812: White House burnt down when first lady left oven on. Let Canadians claim credit because we felt so sorry for them.

* Parting of the Red Sea: There were plenty of boats for the Israelites to escape in, but Moses wanted to show off God's awesome might again. Moses is such a wanker.

* Civil War: North never really wanted the South back, but had to pretend they did when the war got too serious.

* Hannibal Crossing the Alps: He actually hang-glided past the Alps. Elephants were sent by freight.

* Mexican-American War: Never happened. West coast stolen from Mexico while they were on siesta.

* Cola Wars: Atlanta was actually set on fire by Coca-Cola to rationalize violent air strike against Pepsi.

* Destruction of the Death Star: For final shot, Luke Skywalker was using the targeting computer.

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

Along with the election in Iraq, we've seen Lebanese protests for Democracy, Assad has agreed to at least partially pull Syrian troops out of Lebanon, & Mubarak agreed to the first ever multi-party elections in Egypt. Combine that with the recent Palestinian elections and Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal's announcement that women may be able to vote in the "next round of municipal elections," and it's clear that even though the region has a long, long way to go, freedom is stirring in the Middle East in a way it never has before.

There seems to be a general consensus among people on the left and the right that SOMETHING is afoot, but while pro-war conservatives are giving a lot of the credit to George Bush for the invasion of Iraq and his determined efforts to help that country become free, not all, but many of our friends on the left are trying to portray what's happening as some sort of "happy accident."

However, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that many of us who are pro-war have been predicting all along that helping Iraq become a Democratic nation would be a pivotal event which would lead to the spread of freedom across the region. Therefore, it's rather difficult to credibly claim that what we're seeing is little more than coincidence given that so many pro-war conservatives predicted what would happen well before the election in Iraq took place.

Here are just a few quotes I managed to pull together that will prove to you what's going on today in the Middle East is no fluke:

"The press coverage and the criticisms of many Democrats seem based on an assumption that Iraq is somehow a rerun of Vietnam. But the facts on the ground in Iraq should not be squeezed into the Vietnam template. Progress is being made in establishing the first rule-of-law democracy in an Arab country-an example with the potential of changing the whole region for the better." -- Michael Barone, 7/03/2003

"In all likelihood, Baghdad will be liberated by April. This may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history--events like the storming of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall--after which everything is different. If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if), it may mark the moment when the powerful antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and began to transform the region for the better." -- Max Boot, 2/10/2003

"A democratic Iraq would give hope to those who toil under the yoke of repressive regimes (e.g., Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia) that breed radicalism and hatred of America. An Iraqi democratic oasis could inspire freedom across the Muslim political desert." -- Peter Brookes, 11/03/2003

"This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." -- George Bush, 11/7/2003

"When Iraqis choose their own government in free elections, it will mark the first time in history when ordinary Arabs can claim to control their own destiny in their own nation. Syria's Assad, the Saudi royal family, even Jordan's Abdullah must be nervous as they watch events unfold. If the Iraqi people are capable of governing themselves, why not the Syrians, the Saudis or the Jordanians?" -- Linda Chavez, 6/02/2004

"No, the opposition never said it was wrong for Saddam to go. Rather, they rejected the notion that America should actually have its way. More than anything else, this desire to thwart America explains the motives of the U.N., the French, the Left, and pretty much everyone else except for the Arab leaders. The Arabs have something even bigger at stake should America succeed in transforming Iraq into a prosperous democracy — their own corrupt kleptocratic torture states might be next." -- Jonah Goldberg, October 20, 2003

"If a beachhead of democracy can be established in Iraq, there's an excellent chance that we'll see Democratic reforms start to sweep across the region where anti-American tyrants are keeping their populations in control by the skin of their teeth. The influence of a free Iraq could in time help lead to a free Iran, a free Syria, a free Lebanon, a free Saudi Arabia, a free Egypt, etc. We're not just shooting for an Iraqi Democracy, we're hoping to see freedom spread across the entire region." -- John Hawkins, 4/14/2004

"The dysfunctional societies of the Middle East will continue to breed terrorists unless Muslims can be shown a better way. A peaceful, democratic Iraq could transform the entire region. The task is difficult. But it is less difficult than was reconstructing Europe, and like the Marshall Plan, the rewards for success — and the penalties for failure — are enormous." -- Jack Kelly, 10/21/2003

"A de-Saddamized Iraq with a decent government would revolutionize the region. It would provide friendly basing not just for the outward projection of American power but also for the outward projection of democratic and modernizing ideas," conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in Time magazine last week." -- Charles Krauthammer is quoted disapprovingly by Alan Elsner on 2/16/2003

"As you see, the Iranians are frantically increasing their efforts to drive Coalition forces out of Iraq, to wreck the Iraqi economy — and especially to inflate oil prices, which the mullahs hope will bring down the Bush presidency — and to destabilize the fragile Karzai government in Afghanistan. They, and their Syrian and Saudi allies, are doing this because the liberation of Iraq is indeed threatening the authority of the remaining terror masters in Tehran, Damascus, and Riadh. The entire region is bubbling from the heat of democratic revolution, and you can see the fears of the terror masters as they steadily increase the repression of their own people." -- Michael Ledeen, 6/29/2004

"For once in the Middle East, the United States has intervened on behalf of the people, not to prop up yet another regional autocrat. This profoundly liberal step could alter the usual anti-Western discourse in the region. It may gradually erode what professor Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins calls the "road rage" of a thwarted Arab world steeped in "a political tradition of belligerent self-pity." Some voices in the Arab world are already clear that freedom in one nation will create pressure for reforms in others. This "could be the beginning of transformation in the Arab region," said Tarek al-Absi, a Yemeni university professor -- a transformation, he added, that can't occur without Western help. Many hope that the first "demonstration effects" will be felt in Iran, where reformers hope for a breakthrough against a repressive regime. Anxiety must be rising among all the dictators in the neighborhood. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak is no Saddam Hussein, but there are pictures of Mubarak all over Egypt, and the destruction of the Saddam statues in Iraq must give him pause. Danielle Pletka, a Middle East expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said the area is full of leaders "who have not had the best interests of their people at heart. They should look at the Iraqi people and worry." -- John Leo, 4/21/2003

"During the last few months the fear has often been expressed in Europe and America that democracy cannot succeed in Iraq. There is another, greater, and more urgent fear in the region--that it will succeed in Iraq, and this could become a mortal threat to the tyrants who rule most of the Middle East. An open and democratic regime in Iraq, inevitably with a Shiite majority, could arouse new hopes among the oppressed peoples of the region, and offer a corresponding threat to their oppressors." -- Bernard Lewis, 8/29/2003

"Iraq is the strategic linchpin in the region and creating a decent pluralistic, pro-Western government there will create a new model for Middle East politics and pressure the surrounding governments. This was always the most compelling geo-strategic reason for the Iraq war, but it was usually overshadowed by others (WMD, U.N. compliance) and has been derided as “the domino theory.” Of course, other Arab governments aren’t just going to collapse if we succeed in Iraq. But if you want just a hint of how U.S. success there could have a subversive effect, consider the way other dictatorial Arab governments — dishonestly, but tellingly — have had to pay lip service to democracy in Iraq. Such words, even if insincere, have consequences..." -- Rich Lowry, 9/8/2003

"Similarly, (Richard) Perle has said that a reformed Iraq "has the potential to transform the thinking of people around the world about the potential for democracy, even in Arab countries where people have been disparaging of their potential." -- Richard Perle is quoted disapprovingly by Greg Miller on 3/14/2003

"(Paul) Wolfowitz has said that Iraq could be the first Arab democracy and that even modest democratic progress in Iraq would "cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world." -- Paul Wolfowitz is quoted disapprovingly by Greg Miller on 3/14/2003

"Foreign policy gurus in the 1960s believed that communism would spread—the infamous “domino theory”—from one country to the next in top-down fashion. The opposite would hold true in the Middle East—bottom-up freedom movements would spread, toppling tyrants in the process. The old social contract—where people allowed the leaders to rule in exchange for basic necessities—is on the brink of collapse. When it does, democracy in Iraq will be the domino that triggers reform elsewhere. Call it the “democracy domino” theory." -- Joel Mowbray, 3/03/2003

"The new regime in Turkey has pledged itself to a democratic policy that supports, but does not impose, Islamic values. They and the traditional Muslims of the world have a clear interest in the liberation of Iraq and the implantation of democracy, or, at least, the first steps toward the achievement of democracy. I will not tell you that Iraq can be turned into Connecticut in 24 hours. But I repeat my belief that Iraqis, and Arabs and Muslims in general, yearn to live in normal, stable, democratic societies. I believe the liberation of Iraq will provide a powerful incentive for the success of the rising democratic movement in Iran, and will lay a foundation for a transition in Saudi Arabia, to a constitutional and parliamentary monarchy on the Malaysian model." -- Stephen Schwartz, 2/03/2003

"Well if (we were to get a functioning democracy going in Iraq), it would be positively transforming and it might well become the linchpin for the kind of reformation I've been saying is necessary. This is I think our great challenge and our great opportunity at the same time. It might not be as easy as we'd like and the people in Iraq might not be as thirsting for Democracy as the President might want or hope, but there's no doubt that if Democracy can succeed there it would be a major challenge to all the Islamic states in area, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran." -- Robert Spencer, 11/19/2003

"Sadly, a U.S. invasion of Iraq ''would threaten the whole stability of the Middle East''--or so Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, told the BBC on Tuesday. Amr's talking points are so Sept. 10: It's supposed to destabilize the Middle East. The stability of the Middle East is unique in the non-democratic world and it's the lack of change in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt that's turned them into a fetid swamp of terrorist bottom-feeders." -- Mark Steyn, 8/05/2002

"A free Iraq is already affecting the political landscape of the Middle East; a democratic Iraq could change the whole Arab world. The goal is worth fighting for. Despite the current difficulties in Iraq, The United States, Britain and other democratic nations should keep their eyes on the big picture." -- Amir Taheri, 9/10/2003

If you want to understand how the left really thinks, read a column called "Tackling the Tyranny of Wal-Mart" by Joel S. Hirschhorn that's currently the featured article on the front page (not the forums) of the Democratic Underground.

In many respects, the column is run-of-the-mill leftist fist shaking at Wal-Mart. Words and phrases like "cancerous growth," "evil incarnate," & "the more you know, the more you hate" get tossed around as the author's seething rage at the inequities of capitalism Wal-Mart ooze out on to the page.

But the one issue that really makes Hirschhorn see red is the Wal-Mart health care "problem." You see, Wal-Mart does provide health care for their employees, but it's not fantastic coverage. Here are some more details on Wal-Mart's health plan from the Wall Street Journal:

"Wal-Mart says part of its philosophy is that the company should pay for catastrophic health expenses -- cancer treatments, organ transplants -- that could financially ruin an employee. It typically pays 100% of medical charges above $1,750 a year in out-of-pocket expenses; in addition to the deductible and premiums, employees pay 20% of medical costs up to $1,750. And Wal-Mart has no lifetime caps on coverage -- a benefit offered by just 42% of retailers and 47% of employers overall, according to Watson Wyatt Worldwide, a Washington-based consulting firm.

...About 60% of the roughly 800,000 employees eligible for coverage at Wal-Mart sign up, compared with 72% for the whole retailing industry, according to a 2003 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation."

So we're talking about relatively high premium catastrophic coverage here and unsurprisingly, some people either aren't eligible or choose not to get their health care through Wal-Mart. Then when misfortune strikes and they become sick, the states pick up the cost of their medical care. The author entirely blames Wal-Mart for this which unfairly takes the onus of responsibility off of the people working there. Consider that these people CHOSE to work at Wal-Mart and either knew they wouldn't work enough hours to allow them to get health care or they simply CHOSE not to get it. Then, they CHOSE to turn to the state to pick up the bill which may be understandable, but certainly isn't a laudable decision.

Furthermore, there are a number of ways you could address this problem, if you decided to address it all. One of them might be asking some people to pay the government back for covering their medical expenses. It could involve letting Wal-Mart keep more of their own money in the form of tax breaks in order to offset changes in their health care program. Heck, you could even push for things like tort reform, promote savings accounts, fight price controls on American drugs in other countries and cut the red tape in order to reduce medical costs overall.

But instead of suggesting any of these things, Hirschhorn unleashes the standard set of liberal answers for every problem in society: Increase taxes, create burdensome new regulations, and increase the power of government. Just read Hirschhorn's "solution" for yourself and you'll see that it would create a problem far worse than the one it purports to solve:

"Consider this thought experiment. Competitors to Wal-Mart buy products made in the U.S., and give their employees decent wages and good enough benefits to keep them from needing government assistance. American manufacturers also offer good jobs with decent wages and benefits. Competitors offer the same type products, but at higher prices.

Naturally, it sounds complicated, but this approach does not impose legal restrictions on Wal-Mart, yet serves the greater public interest by not causing taxpayers in general to pay the price for Wal-Mart's low prices. Other retailers would also be put in the same category, based on a determination of their dependence on imports and whether their wage/benefit structure places burdens on government programs.

Doesn't that sound great? To fix Wal-Mart's "unfair low cost, low price advantage" we're going to implement this byzantine scheme and everything will be all better!

It would be bad enough if liberals just wanted to do this sort of thing to Wal-Mart, but if you boil Hirschhorn's plan down to its root essentials, it's the left-wing answer to so many problems in America. Whether you talk about health care, education, the environment, the economy, the tax system, you name it, the liberals always want to increase taxes, create a morass of new regulations, and make sure the government gains more power over the people. That's not a formula for success, nor is it good for the country...

On Monday, here's what I wrote about the botched Giuliana Sgrena rescue:

"There are a lot of wild claims flying around about American troops firing on the car of rescued journalist Giuliana Sgrena. I could go into detail about them, but I suspect that this is one of those events that has been initially obscured by the "fog of war," like the tale of the Baghdad Museum or the missing explosives story. At first, you see all sorts of conflicting stories, but once everything settles, you find out that there is a lot less to it than many people thought at first.

In this case, we're already starting to hear that the Italians may not have alerted the CIA about the car carrying Sgrena and how confusing checkpoints can be for those who aren't familiar with them. This is not surprising since Occam's Razor suggests that there was some sort of miscommunication or confusion which caused the soldiers to believe they were being threatened which then led to them opening up on the car Sgrena was in."

As I suggested, here we are on Wednesday, rougly 48 hours later, and we know quite a bit more about what happened.

According to a "senior U.S. military official," the car Sgrena was traveling in approached the checkpoint going in excess of 100MPH. While Sgrena's story has been all over the map, that level of speed would seem to be consistent with this statement from Sgrena:

"The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and almost losing control to avoid them. We all incredibly laughed. It was liberating. Losing control of the car in a street full of water in Baghdad and maybe wind up in a bad car accident after all I had been through would really be a tale I would not be able to tell."

So the car is barreling down the highway towards a checkpoint; but surely they knew she was coming, right? That's in dispute, but the US apparently says no:

(Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini) said Calipari, an experienced officer who had negotiated the release of Sgrena and other hostages in Iraq in the past, had contacted U.S. authorities to let them know the car carrying the freed hostage would be on its way to the airport.

But according to the U.S. military official, Italians did not coordinate the transport with U.S. or coalition forces, and, as a result, U.S. soldiers did not know who was in the car. They instead believed the car was carrying a bomb.

Furthermore, Sgrena looks to have been caught in a lie about how many rounds were fired at the car she was in. According to Sgrena, "300-400 bullets were fired & "tanks started to strike against us." Of course, common sense says that if the military unleased that sort of barrage at Sgrena's car, she wouldn't be around to tell the tale. But we don't have to speculate since pictures of the car are now available.

From the available shots (more here), the only places on the car that appear to have been hit are the windshield on the driver's side and possibly the left front tire. Of course, since standard procedure is to fire at the engine block, it's possible shots went through the grill, hit the engine and then rattled out and hit Calipari. From what I've been told by someone who regularly reads reports from the military coming out of Iraq, that's something that has happened before more than a few times.

The only piece of the puzzle left is why Sgrena would lie about what happened and try to paint the US as the bad guys. Well, once you read about a conversation reporter Harald Doornbos had with Sgrena, you'll find that puzzle piece is now in place as well:

"Be careful not to get kidnapped,' I told the female Italian journalist sitting next to me in the small plane that was headed for Baghdad. 'Oh no,' she said. 'That won't happen. We are siding with the oppressed Iraqi people. No Iraqi would kidnap us.'

'You don't understand the situation. We are anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, communists,' they said. The Iraqis only kidnap American sympathizers, the enemies of the Americans have nothing to fear."

So we're talking about a commie who openly describes herself as an enemy "of the Americans" and who believes that "Americans are the biggest enemies of mankind." Obviously in a situation like this, you have to take the word of someone like Sgrena with more than a few grains of salt.

Although we're still awaiting a final report from the military, we now know enough to piece together a pretty good general idea of what happened and it looks as if Sgrena's story doesn't hold water.

I know some people may be disheartened by the size (an estimated 500k) of the Hizbollah sponsored Pro-Syria rally on Monday -- but they shouldn't be.

Fascist thugs like Hizbollah can always use threats, bus in Syrians, and grease palms to make sure they have a big turn-out for their "Please Oppress Us, Syria" pep rally. Of course, Saddam could turn out nice crowds, too. But when you take the gun away from people's heads and let them make real decisions in private at the ballot box, you find that the people's enthusiasm for tyrants is seldom as strong as it appeared to be in the street.

In Lebanon, the pro-democracy forces are the ones risking their lives to turn out while the pro-Syria demonstration was full of Lebanese who may have been risking their lives if they didn't show up. It's fair to say that has a lot to do with why Hizbollah was able to put together a larger turn-out...

There are a number of restrictions to my conceal carry permit, such as I'm not allowed to carry in a school zone, at a post office, or to a polling place. In those situation, I just have to rely on my mad kung fu skillz. That was somewhat acceptable until I found out that Democrats are now pushing to allow felons to vote.

Now, conservatives have been making statement against the effectiveness gun control for a while in the form of "If someone is planning on killing someone, he won't have any compunction about breaking gun laws." Democrats must have finally taken that to heart and expanded the logic to "If someone is capable of murder, he probably won't have any compunction about voting for a Democrat." Now the DNC see violent offenders as an untapped resource to help push close elections to their side. And it works in more ways than just giving them more votes.

Think of what the new Democrat ads would be like:

ANNOUNCER: Now that felons have regained the vote, the Democrats want to see as many as possible at your local polling place. Yes, voting around you will be your newly enfranchised friends like these...

On screen appears mug shots of offenders along with their rap sheets.

Talk about voter intimidation.

It ain't gonna work on me, bub. I say we lobby for us permit holders to now carry into polling places. Alarmists will worry about me running into the room with two guns blazing, but, while I will have two .45s pointed out in front of me, safeties off, fingers on the triggers, shouting, "I'm voting Republican! And, if any of you have a problem with it, make your move!" I will not be firing any rounds unless someone mistakenly thinks I'm bluffing. Yes, it could end in a violent shootout, but that's true democracy for you. If you don't like it, go to some country that doesn't have democracy and we currently don't have any immediate plans to invade (I can't think of any off-hand, but I know there are some).

So, Democrats, go ahead and get felons the vote. Just expect me to come reasonably prepared... and I don't just mean having read up on the issues. And, if one of your new voters causes me any trouble, he'll end up with more holes in him than a punch card ballot.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Voting with Your Conscience and Your Colt" and "Fluffy Puppy Petey’s Wacky Wahhabism Adventure".

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

Garance Franke-Ruta has created quite a firestorm with her American Prospect piece "Blogged Down." Her argument, in a nutshell, is that despite the belief that the bloggers who helped bring down Dan Rather and Eason Jordan (not to mention Trent Lott, a far more significant case that doesn't fit the thesis) are amateurs writing in their pajamas, many of those involved are actually--shudder--politically active individuals, some of whom actually work on the sidelines of the political arena.

Kevin Drum agrees wholeheartedly: "Garance ties four recent blog storms not to citizen bloggers, but to activists who are posing as citizen bloggers in order to provide a 21st century cover for old fashioned dirty tricks campaigns." He cites this excerpt:

At worst, they're the protégés of conservative fund-raiser Richard Viguerie and dirty-tricks master Morton Blackwell, who has tutored conservative activists since 1965....Easongate.com, the blog that served as the clearinghouse for the attack on CNN, was helped along by Virginia-based Republican operative Mike Krempasky. From May 1999 through August 2003, Krempasky worked for Blackwell as the graduate development director of the Leadership Institute, an Arlington, Virginia–based school for conservative leaders founded by Blackwell in 1979. The institute is the organization that had provided “Gannon” with his sole media credential before he became a White House correspondent.

But what of the liberal bloggers who are paid by those with an agenda? Franke-Ruta refers to the most obvious example in passing, mentioning a comment posted on the site owned by "Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, now also a major Democratic fund-raiser." Goodness, Kos is arguably "the most successful blogger in the business." I'm sure Mike Krempasky would take no offense in my noting that his influence in the blogosphere is far less than Kos'. Indeed, the entire impetus of Red State was to create a Republican site that would do what DKos does for the Democrats. He would concede, I'm sure, that he isn't there yet.

Indeed, all of the top liberal bloggers on the Ecosystem are, using Franke-Ruta's standards, Democratic "operatives." Duncan "Atrios" Black is employed by Media Matters. Josh Marshall writes for the Washington Monthly, a magazine backed by major Democratic "operatives." And for that matter, Drum now makes his living blogging for the same magazine.

So what? Their current employers hired them because they were writing passionately about the issues that they held dear and were able to attract sizable audiences doing so. Does anyone think Kos would not want to screw dead mercenaries or Drum would want to give President Bush a medal for his Guard service if someone else were signing their checks? As Krempasky observes in his own defense, "I have a political job, RedState is my hobby." That's true of all the righty bloggers mentioned in the piece and true of all the lefty bloggers I've noted above, with the exception of Drum. But Drum's new site is, as far as I can tell, distinguishable from CalPundit only in the absence of Friday catblogging.

Pejman Yousefzadeh, Krempasky, Matt at Blackfive, Josh Trevino, and others with inside knowledge point out some substantive errors in the piece. Michelle Malkin has a roundup of other commentary on this issue, including an amusing one from Drum's comment section:

They are fellows at the Claremont Institute (meaning, they get to have their names on a masthead somewhere as thanks for their donations). They went to Dartmouth and work as attorneys! Clearly, these are not real "citizens." And they've even been known to publish articles in conservative magazines! Who would have ever thought that a blogger might be the type of person who is interested in writing!

Quite so.

Now, Franke-Ruta could easily have written a piece dispelling the "ordinary folks in their pajamas" mythos around the blogosphere by noting that most of the top bloggers are attorneys, professors, (even attorney-professors!), syndicated columnists, and other highly educated professionals with much more time on their hands than Joe Sixpack. That's a point that needs making from time-to-time. But there's nothing nefarious going on here.

Furthermore, even if all Franke-Ruta says were true, so what? Are Rather's documents any less forged? Eason Jordan less of a nutjob? If not, then the argument is nothing more than an ad hominem.

This content was used with the permission of James Joyner from Outside the Beltway. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

The minimum wage is one of those ideas that sounds good...until you actually consider the ramifications of forcing businesses to pay workers more than they're worth. It costs jobs, it hurts businesses, "fewer than one out of five minimum wage workers has a family to support," and let's face it -- nobody puts a gun to your head and forces you to take a low paying job.

Here's a little more detail from a couple of RWN's readers who posted in the comments section on the sort of problems the minimum wage causes in the real world (does RWN have sharp readers or what?)...

--

"I get a kick out of the assumption that business owners are hiring workers they don't need, because they only have to pay them 5.15 an hour, and will not need them if the minimum wage is raised to 8.00 an hour.

Um. Have you ever worked in business? Do you know what "expanding" is? Do you understand revenue vs. profit? If I hire someone to make me profit, lets say that if she works we can set up another cash register and customers who could not shop before because of the long lines can now shop, the added revenue after subtracting cost of merchandise is about $10 / hr. Well, at a wage of $5/hr this is worth doing. Its only about $50/day extra, but maybe its worth it. But, if we raise the minimum wage and now I have to pay $7.25 an hour, well now my profit is only $28. Is it worth hiring her? I don't know. Certainly there is a wage at which it won't be worth it.

For small businesses, this wage is pretty low. I go into some more detail on the post on my site. But, aside from "optional" workers needed to expand, there are workers needed to remain at the current level.

Small businesses often have to lay off workers after a raise in the minimum wage, but not because they never needed those workers. They now have to cut back on store hours, close a branch if they are bigger and have more branches, sometimes they lay off everyone and go out of business...." -- liberty

--

""business owners are hiring workers they don't need, because they only have to pay them 5.15 an hour, and will not need them if the minimum wage is raised to 8.00 an hour."

I just hired two temporary workers that I could do without, but who will make my life easier for the next few months. I am paying them $7 per hour, which is above minimum wage. I offer a little above minimum wage in order to compete for workers who will do this same job for minimum wage. At $7 per hour, my experience is I get workers who appreciate they are getting more than most people pay for the same job, and so they work harder than most to keep it.

If minimum wage was $8 per hour, I either would not have hired them, or else I would only have hired one. This is not because I couldn't afford $8 per hour, but because I would have had to offer $10 or $11 per hour to find decent help.

And the bottom line is, if either of these two temporary workers show a high level of aptitude for the job, I will keep them on permanently and they will make much more than $11 per hour.

Minimum wage is a floor. It ain't a bed." -- President_Friedman

--

When politicians tamper with the free market for political reasons, it seldom works as expected. In fact, over time, the drawbacks are usually greater than the benefits. That would surely be the case with the minimum wage.

The kookiest member of the Kerry clan, Teresa, is now spinning conspiracy theories to explain how her husband could have lost the election despite his wildly popular "I fought in Vietnam and I'm not George Bush" platform. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has the latest on the election from the woman who almost became the loopiest first lady in American history...

"COUNTING THE VOTES: Heinz Kerry is openly skeptical about results from November's election, particularly in sections of the country where optical scanners were used to record votes.

"I fear for '06," she said. "I don't trust it the way it is right now."

So wait a second, I'm confused. Are the two brothers she's talking about rigging the election or is someone hacking into the "mother machines" and skewing the vote that way? Oh and what the hell is a "mother machine" supposed to be? I doubt if she knows herself.

Let me also add that the "two brothers" she's talking about are Bob Urosevich who's president of Diebold & Todd Urosevich who's a veep at ES&S. So first off, they're not programming these machines in their basement somewhere. So, if there's a big conspiracy going on, there would almost have to be a company full of people in on it which is highly unlikely. Furthermore, as to whether they're "hard right" or even Republicans or not, I've seen that tossed out there on a lot of these nutty "The election was rigged, rigged, I tell you" websites. However, the only evidence I've ever seen presented to support it was that when the brothers put together Data Mark back in the early eighties, a large chunk of their funding was supplied by a conservative. Not that it would matter even if they were Republicans since almost everybody in the country is either a member of the GOP or the Democratic Party, so it's not realistic that you could run a large company without partisans of some stripe on board.

In any case, there are flaws in every system and mistakes that are going to happen in each election no matter what system you use. There just is no magic bullet that's going to satisfy everyone. Consider the following:

-- You want to hand count the ballots? Not only will that take much longer, you bring human error and partisanship into the process.

-- You want to go back to the old punchcard system? Ok, then the percentage of spoiled ballots goes up dramatically and you increase the chances of seeing the sort of debacle we had in Florida in 2000.

-- You want open source coding on the electronic machines? That dramatically increases the chances of tampering -- at least in the sort term -- because anyone who was tempted to do mischief could examine the code for errors to exploit.

-- You want to have the electronic machines print a hard copy of each ballot? Diebold can already do that if it's necessary for a recount although the names of the voters casting the ballots are kept anonymous:

"When a voter casts their ballot using the Diebold touch screen system, the ballot selections are immediately encrypted and stored in multiple locations within the voting station. When stored, the order of cast ballots is scrambled to further insure ballot anonymity. The image of each and every ballot cast on the voting station is captured, and can be anonymously reproduced on standard paper should a hard copy of ballots be required for recount purposes. Once voting concludes at a precinct, a printed election results report is printed as a permanent record of all activity at each voting station. This printed record is used to audit the electronic tabulation of votes conducted during the election canvas process, when final, official election results are reported.

What it comes down to is that no matter which way we go, it's not going to satisfy the people who are complaining. In 2000, the liberals were whinging about punchcard machines and now in 2005, their beef is with optical scanners. The reason it changed is because the real source of their complaints is that their side LOST. What they should do is act like adults, get over it, and move on instead of speculating about bizarre, perfidious plots to rig the election...

Many conservatives haven't bothered to comment on the running battle over how many women are published on the opinion pages of the LA Times...and for good reason.

First off, watching someone as smug as Michael Kinsley go at it with a shrill feminist harpy like Susan Estrich is like watching France and Spain go to war: who cares which side wins?

Number 2: The LA Times, like most big papers in America, has an opinion page that's heavily slanted to the left. So in truth, they're not fighting about how many women will be published at the LA Times, they're really duking it out over how many liberal women will get the nod from Kinsley. Again, why should conservatives care about that?

However, this paragraph in Howard Kurtz's column about the Kinsley v. Estrich feud caught my eye:

"Some papers have made things work. Keven Ann Willey, who runs the Dallas Morning News editorial page, says 41 percent of her contributors last year were women, and that she gets a monthly report broken down by gender, race, ethnicity and age, because "we want lots of diversity on our op-ed page."

I freely admit that I could be totally off base here since I don't read the Dallas Morning News, but why do I suspect "diversity" to Ms. Wiley means getting liberal opinions from different genders, races, ethnicities, and age ranges?

Furthermore, may I suggest that if 41% of Wiley's contributors were of the female persuasion that it's likely that a lot of men who wrote great columns got shafted so Wiley could get enough women columnists to reach some artificial number that in her mind means the editorial page is "diverse?"

Now why do I say that?

It's certainly not because women can't write excellent opinion pieces. Just to name a few examples, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Linda Chavez, Heather Mac Donald, & Mona Charen are some of the best writers in the business.

However, there are talented male writers as well and quite frankly, they outnumber the talented female writers by a considerable margin. As I've pointed out before, there are less women making names for themselves writing about politics because percentage wise, there aren't as many women as men who are interested in writing about politics in the first place.

A couple of quotes from Kurtz's piece support this view:

"Gail Collins, the first woman to run the New York Times editorial page, says, "The pool of available people doing opinion writing is still tilted toward men. There are probably fewer women, in the great cosmic scheme of things, who feel comfortable writing very straight opinion stuff, and they're less comfortable hearing something on the news and batting something out."

Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt says: "There ought to be more women on op-ed pages in general. Over time, I intend to make that happen." Hiatt notes that death has claimed two of his columnists in the past year, Mary McGrory and Marjorie Williams, leaving Anne Applebaum as the only regularly published woman. He says 80 to 90 percent of submissions, especially from such male-dominated bastions as Congress and academia, come from men."

If 80-90% of the submissions are by men is it any wonder that a lot more men get published? Let me again add that it's no surprise that 80-90% of submissions are by men given that a lot more men than women are really into politics. Want proof?

Look at the last blogads demographic survey -- which was filled out by the sort of political junkies who comb blogs to get their daily dose of polls, news, & opinion -- and you'll find that 79% of the "poliblog" readers were men.

Heck, look at the political blogosphere itself. Despite the fact that there are no significant barriers to entry & no editors to determine whether a piece gets published, there are far more successful male bloggers than female bloggers.

Again, I'm not putting down female bloggers or saying that they're less talented than men. There are plenty of excellent & accomplished female writers on the right-side of the blogosphere like Michelle Malkin, Michele Catalano, La Shawn Barber, Ann Althouse, Lorie Byrd from Polipundit / Byrd Droppings, & Betsy Newmark & lots of talented women coming through the pipeline (see here, here, & here). However for every one of these bloggers, I could probably name 4 or 5 male bloggers who've achieved a similar level of success in the blogosphere.

So what's the point?

It's simple: The reason that you see an unequal number of men and women getting published on opinion pages isn't sexism, it's just a consequence of the numbers game. Falsely assuming that sexism is responsible for the difference can to lead to quotas & reverse discrimination against male writers all in the name of combatting a bias against women that just doesn't appear to exist in this particular case.

Bank Longtime Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stunned the worlds of finance and pop music today by announcing that he would leave his post “effective immediately” to become lead singer of the Irish rock band U2.

In filling the key position with the platinum-selling musical act, Mr. Greenspan is replacing U2 lead singer Bono, who is rumored to be heading for the top job at the World Bank.

Mr. Greenspan struck many observers as an unlikely choice to assume such an important role in one of the world’s most influential rock bands, since his convoluted and often cryptic use of the English language seems incompatible with the more straightforward demands of rock music.

Reportedly, the former Fed chairman has already rewritten the lyrics of one of U2’s most famous songs, “With or Without You,” to read, “Going forward, the cost of my living with or without you may exceed my capacity to fulfill any reasonable expectations of success in either or both of those endeavors.”

Dexter Tolan, who monitors the Fed and the recording industry for Credit Suisse First Boston, said that he was “dumbfounded” by the choice of Greenspan to head U2: “I really thought the job was going to go to [former Treasury Secretary] Paul O’Neill.”

But unlike some of Mr.Greenspan’s critics, Mr. Tolan does not believe that, at age 79, the former Fed chief is “too old” to be a rock star: “Being 79 certainly hasn’t hurt Mick Jagger.”

Elsewhere, Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher was forced to resign after an affair with a female employee went $2.4 billion over budget.

This satire was used with the permission of Andy Borowitz from the Borowitz Report. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

Misplaced opposition to GM crops violates poor people’s basic human rights.

The Congress of Racial Equality’s recent conference, video and commentary on agricultural biotechnology* presented personal testimonials from African farmers whose lives have been improved by GM crops, impressive data on progress, and a message of hope for poor, malnourished people in developing countries. The response has been overwhelmingly positive.

But not from all quarters. Predictably, anti-GM zealots continue to offer a steady stream of unsupported and unsupportable invective. To hear them tell it, biotechnology is a “scourge” that will do nothing to save lives or reduce poverty and malnutrition. “Evil multinationals” like Monsanto are determined to impose “a new form of slavery” that will “displace” poor people from their lands.

The fear-mongering would be hilarious, if the hate-GM campaign didn’t have such tragic consequences for a world where 800 million people are chronically malnourished, and 3 billion struggle to survive on less than $700 a year. A healthy dose of facts is in order.

GM crops are created with great care in laboratories, using techniques that are far more precise than anything previously. They are tested repeatedly and are regulated by the EPA, FDA, USDA and other agencies. Americans have collectively eaten over a trillion servings of food containing one or more GM ingredients, without a single case of harm. Indeed, as Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore and others have demonstrated, every single claim of risk to people or the environment – from monarch butterfly deaths to destabilized insect ecology, diminished biodiversity and dangers to human health – has been refuted by scientific studies.

And yet, radical groups like Greenpeace and Sierra Club continue to place ultra-precaution against minor, distant, theoretical risks to healthy, well-fed Westerners above the very real, immediate, life-threatening risks faced by our Earth’s poorest and most malnourished people.

Thankfully, despite all the invectives, farmers the world over are increasingly turning to GM technology, planting 200 million acres last year. They don’t for a minute believe ag biotech is a magic bullet that will make them rich or solve the world’s hunger problems. But they know it dramatically increases crop yields, farm profits and people’s nutrition – while reducing pesticide use, crop losses to drought, insects and disease, and the amount of land that will be needed to feed a world population that is expected to hit 9 billion by 2050, before leveling off.

Bt cotton has let Chinese farmers reduce their pesticide use by 50 to 70 percent – while increasing their yields by 25 to 66 percent, and their incomes by US$300 per hectare (US$120 per acre). Since most of these chemicals were applied via hand spraying, they’ve also slashed accidental pesticide poisoning. Farmers in India, Africa and Latin America have had similar experiences.

If the world had to rely on organic farming or 1960s agricultural technologies to produce as much food as it actually did in 2000, notes Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel Prize laureate for the first Green Revolution, “we would have had to double the amount of land under cultivation.” Millions of acres of forest and grassland habitats would have been slashed, burned and plowed for subsistence farming – or millions more people would have starved. As human populations grow, the problem would only worsen. Instead, thanks to biotechnology, farmers can grow far more from the same acreage, thereby preserving habitats and fostering biodiversity and nutrition.

Bt plants also eliminate pests like corn borers, which chew pathways for dangerous fungal contaminants. They thus reduce rot and waste – and mycotoxins that cause fatal diseases in animals, and cancer, reduced immunity and birth defects in humans. By contrast, organic corn meals purchased right off British supermarket shelves had fumonisin levels up to 50 times higher than conventional or biotech corn – and 20 to 30 times the allowable limits set by UK law. Many organic fruits and vegetables also have e-coli bacterial levels sharply higher than conventionally grown crops.

By reducing the need to cultivate for weed control, herbicide-tolerant crops greatly decrease soil erosion (by nearly a billion tons per year), keeping sediment out of lakes and streams. No-till farming also reduces fuel use (by some 300 million gallons of gasoline a year), and increases carbon dioxide uptake by soils – good news for anyone worried about global warming.

Increased crop yields, in turn, mean African farmers can grow enough crops to feed livestock, so they can regularly include protein in their diets for perhaps the first time in their lives.

But anti-GM activists won’t let anything as silly as facts affect their misplaced resolve to stop biotech progress in its tracks. A typical ploy is to portray Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser as a victim, sued by the villainous Monsanto to enforce its intellectual property rights, after GM crops had “adventitiously appeared” on his land.

It’s a compelling story – if you ignore the facts and court decisions. In affirming Schmeiser’s conviction for patent violation, Canada’s Supreme Court observed that it defied belief that 90 percent of his crop (1,030 acres or 1.5 square miles) was “adventitiously” converted to biotech varieties by seeds or pollen blown in from neighboring fields. As his own field hand testified, Schmeiser had carefully collected and treated seeds from biotech canola grown on a small section of his farm. He then planted those seeds in nine separate fields. He got caught, Monsanto sued, and his phony defense got laughed out of court. “Percy Schmeiser,” the court noted, “was not an innocent bystander.”

Yet another canard is the claim that modern farming practices will displace farmers. In 1780, over 95 percent of Americans were farmers; today about 3 percent are, and they grow many times more food per acre than their ancestors ever dreamed was possible. Those who abandoned farms were “displaced” to cities. But would their descendents – including urban environmentalists – prefer to give up their modern comforts and return to the era of sunup-to-sundown, back-breaking farm labor?

As Grandmother Driessen used to say, the only good thing about the good old days is that they’re gone. Kenya’s Akinye Arunga puts it this way: “Cute indigenous lifestyles simply mean indigenous poverty, indigenous malnutrition, indigenous disease and childhood death. I don’t wish this on my worst enemy, and I wish our so-called friends would stop imposing it on us.”

Unfortunately, radical activists are doing exactly that. They are preventing poor Africans from acquiring modern farming methods, adequate electricity, and pesticides to control malaria. Their callous ideology is certainly an efficient form of “all-natural” population control. But it violates Third World people’s basic human rights to nutrition, and life itself.

As to “enslaving” farmers, ag biotech actually frees them from much of the drudgery of subsistence farming. It cuts the time they have to spend in fields, doubles or triples their yields, feeds their families (and their neighbors’ families), and puts money in their pockets. As an African Patrick Henry might say, If this be slavery, make the most of it.

But the anti-biotech campaigners charge ahead, oblivious to the suffering and malnutrition they are helping to perpetuate, and to the hopes and dreams they are suffocating.

The campaign underscores the adage that nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity – except perhaps deliberate eco-manslaughter. No wonder Dr. Moore says the greens’ opposition to biotechnology “clearly exposes their intellectual and moral bankruptcy.”

___________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power · Black death (http://www.eco-imperialism.com/). Cyril Boynes is CORE’s director of international programs.

* CORE’s biotechnology conference was held in the United Nations General Assembly hall on January 18, 2005; its video, “Voices from Africa: Biotechnology and the subsistence farmer,” is available from CORE by contacting Cyril Boynes at 212-598-4000 or cboynes@core-online.org; the commentary offers the views of African farmers who now plant GM crops, and was posted on websites all over the world.

Yesterday, I finished up Ann Coulter's "How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)". The book is for the most part a compilation of some of Ann's columns (about 80%) mixed in with some new material and previously unpublished columns (about 20%). Like all of Ann's books, it was a blast to read, although if you've been reading Ann's columns regularly since 2001 (like me), you're obviously not going to enjoy it quite as much as someone who is perusing the material for the first time. That being said, I consider the book to be a good read even though it wasn't new to me.

In fact, I enjoyed it so much that I compiled a list of the best quotes from the book for your amusement and edification. You can read them by clicking here.

There are a lot of wild claims flying around about American troops firing on the car of rescued journalist Giuliana Sgrena. I could go into detail about them, but I suspect that this is one of those events that has been initially obscured by the "fog of war," like the tale of the Baghdad Museum or the missing explosives story. At first, you see all sorts of conflicting stories, but once everything settles, you find out that there is a lot less to it than many people thought at first.

In this case, we're already starting to hear that the Italians may not have alerted the CIA about the car carrying Sgrena and how confusing checkpoints can be for those who aren't familiar with them. This is not surprising since Occam's Razor suggests that there was some sort of miscommunication or confusion which caused the soldiers to believe they were being threatened which then led to them opening up on the car Sgrena was in.

Of course, the conspiracy theorists and members of the "America is the center of all evil" crowd are already, as Stephen Bainbridge notes, coming to the forefront:

"Don't believe a word of the U.S. version," said Oliviero Diliberto, secretary of the Italian Communist Party. "There's an attempt to mask what actually happened. The Americans deliberately fired on the Italians." (Link)

The claim is so transparently bogus that one wonders how anyone could believe it, yet anti-Americanism apparently is now so deep in Europe that they are now incapable of thinking logically. First, why would the US have wanted to shoot some obscure Italian journalist? Second, if they did want her dead, why wouldn't they have finished the job instead of ceasing fire when they realized a tragic mistake had been made? It's just nuts.

Exactly.

I am sorry that we did fire on one of our allies and it's tragic that Nicola Calipari, a military intelligence agent, was killed...and I'm not just saying that. Blue on blue killings are by definition tragic and this one is no exception. But, losing allies to friendly fire is also an all too routine event in combat situations. So coming up with wild conspiracy theories to explain a relatively common event is rather foolish. Just give it a few days and I suspect we'll have a fairly good idea of what actually happened...

Are you a man who has been shamed into urinating while sitting down? Well, the the Chicago Tribune has found the perfect product to take with you to and from the toilet! That's right, it's the "murse!"

"Guys are grasping the benefits of carrying, go ahead and say it, a purse

Enter the murse - a masculine version of the purse."

A "masculine version of the purse?" Please! That's like the "masculine version" of mascara or high heel shoes -- there ain't no such animal. Oh, but don't worry, guys; the folks at the Chicago Tribune found the biggest manly man on the planet to assure you that you don't have to be taking estrogen shots to carry a murse around. So who did they get? An NFL offensive lineman? The winner of an ultimate fighting championship? Perhaps former general Tommy Franks? No, even better...

"It's not like you're carrying a teacup poodle," says "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" fashion guru Carson Kressley. "Get over it."

"They can look a little too girly for most guys," Kressley says. "That's a look reserved for the true meterosexual."

Wait a second -- the "true metrosexual?" I know someone who said that he was a "metrosexual:" Howard Dean! Sure, Howard changed his mind later, but a murse would work so well for Howard. Not only would it be great for offsetting his "angry man" image, but it would go so well with the emasculated, wimpy style of foreign policy that he and his backers on the left espouse. Just think about it, Howard! If I'm a conservative Republican who's telling you to wear it because I think it'll look silly, then it must be good idea!

Hat tip to Ravenwood's Universe for the story.

"In a few years’ time, they’ll have it down pat — just like they have with Eastern Europe. Oh, the Soviet bloc [the Middle East thugocracies] was bound to collapse anyway. Nothing to do with that simpleton Ronnie Raygun [Chimpy Bushitler]. In fact, all Raygun [Chimpy] did was delay the inevitable with his ridiculous arms build-up [illegal unprovoked Halliburton oil-grab], as many of us argued at the time: see my 1984 column ‘Yuri Andropov, The Young, Smart, Sexy New Face Of Soviet Communism’ [see the April 2004 Spectator column ‘Things Were Better Under Saddam: The coalition has destroyed Baathism, says Rod Liddle, and with it all hopes of the emergence of secular democracy’ — and yes, that really ran in these pages, on 17 April, not 1 April.]" -- Mark Steyn

Iowahawk Special Commentary
by Aaron Headley
MoveOn.org Special Deputy Assistant for Grassroots Direct E-Marketing

Do you feel what's in the air?

Whether you're a protester in the streets of Beirut, or a grassroots American citizen activist speaking your mind on the SmirkyVonChimpHitler.com UBB forum, you can't escape it -- that unmistakeable stirring of something new, something big, something poised to change our very world. What is it? That, my friend, is the Wind of Freedom -- and where ever you find it, MoveOn.org will be blowing.

Since its inception, MoveOn.org has championed the cause of People Power, harnessing the mighty force of millions of ordinary Americans from Park Slope to Williamsburg, from Los Feliz to Santa Monica, from Wicker Park to West Wicker Park and everywhere in between. Through our organization and fundraising efforts, we have inspired countless millions of everday Americans to log off of Craig's List, get up out of their Aeron chairs, and work together to change the world. And now this prairie fire of activist People Power, first kindled by MoveOn, is spreading across the globe.

Case in point: witness the street protests that took place in Lebanon this week. No doubt inspired by the election year example of MoveOn and other vital progressive organizations in America and Europe, thousands of young Lebanese people marched through the streets of their cities. The parallels to our 2004 anti-war actions were almost eerie: here was a spontaneous march of courageous young people saying NO to violence, and demanding things. Also, many of them were carrying signs. If you squint your eyes just right, and mentally PhotoShop in a jpeg of Madison Square Garden and a few "No Blood For Oil" banners, you can almost see the MoveOn protest at the GOP National Convention.

Beirut is not the only place where MoveOn is having an impact. Throughout the Middle East, from Egypt to Iran, there is a rumble of freedom that can be directly traced back to MoveOn's earliest Flash Animation Against Bush film contest. When Al-Jazeera and Iraqi State Television broadcast these films, I can only imagine how many normal Muslim citizens were heartened by our principled stance with the international community against the illegal US invasion of Iraq. Later, they drew encouragement from our online petition to end US military occupation, our fund drive raves to Re-Reject Bush, our courageous suit to overturn the stolen election in Ohio, and our steadfast opposition to the Administration's dangerous push for early Iraqi elections. Make no mistake: these efforts created a rich loamy fertilizer of inspiration from which the flower of Mideast freedom is just starting to emerge.

To be sure, the revival of People Power in the Middle East is not all due to MoveOn. We must give credit where credit is due. The people of the region have also drawn courage from other role models, like visionary filmmaker Michael Moore; respected intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill; political trailblazer Dr. Howard Dean; and elected leaders like Ted Kennedy and Maurice Hinchey. These are just some of the fearless dreamers and tireless doers who show, by example, how ordinary folks can speak out up to corrupt fundamentalist dictators.

In closing, I would like to tell the young people of the Mideast that they shouldn't worry about thanking MoveOn and others in the US anti-war community; you have already paid us back, with interest. Your courageous movement for freedom and democracy has inspired us in turn. At MoveOn, we have embarked on a new $15 million ad campaign calling for the immediately withdrawal of US troops from the region, so that your countries can hold elections without the taint of American-style corruption and crony capitalism.

Good luck, and drop an email to us sometime.

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

I had the distinct privilege of doing my 2nd interview via email with Michelle Malkin. If you've been living under a rock for the last few years and haven't heard of Malkin, she has a syndicated column, a controversial (and excellent) book that stirred up a lot of controversy (In Defense of Internment), and she runs one of the best blogs on the net.

You can read my interview with her by clicking here. Enjoy!