"Team America: World Police" is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen and it was put together by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of "South Park". After watching the movie on DVD last night, I decided to put together the best quotes from the movie. Do keep in mind that this wasn't exactly a PG Movie. So if you're easily offended, don't take a look at these quotes.

When there's an election coming up, you hear a lot of talk about how liberals "support the troops" and in some cases, it's true. There are certainly liberals out there who respect the bravery, sacrifice, and risks our troops take to keep this country protected from its enemies.

However, the ugly truth is that there are a lot of liberals in this country, perhaps a majority of them, who don't support the troops, who -- as one poster on the Democratic Underground put it -- look at the our troops as "Cannon fodder and killers doing what they're told to do".

Of course, since most Americans have a very high opinion of our soldiers, liberals would face enormous political ramifications if they were honest about what they thought. So instead, we get surreptitious assaults on our military.

For example, part of the reason Abu Ghraib has gotten so much attention & the press keeps churning out 2 and a 1/2 year old stories about soldiers working over prisoners is because liberals can use it to smear the troops. "See? That's what they're all like behind closed doors! Sadistic savages."

Here are some other examples that have come to light over the last couple of days that might not seem to be connected, but they're all products of the same liberal mentality when it comes to the military:

Yesterday was the first day military recruiters have been on campus since the Garfield High School PTSA passed a resolution seeking to oust them from public-school campuses. The resolution, first of its kind in the state, passed May 9.

"Given the seriousness of what they are requesting people to participate in, we'd just prefer they not be on school grounds, which are supposed to be protected space for students," said Hagopian.

...Other anti-recruiting movements are also picking up steam.

In recent months, college students in California and New York have forced recruiters off campus, and in Boston, activists dumped 5 gallons of fake blood on the doorstep of a recruiting center.

In the Puget Sound area, a group of students and parents stopped a Blackhawk helicopter from landing on fields at Bainbridge Island High School in April. The students said the helicopter, used for Army National Guard recruiting tours, was war propaganda.

Earlier this month, a student at Foss High School in Tacoma sent e-mails to thousands of activists across the country, urging them to call school officials after plans for an anti-recruitment "teach-in" hit administrative roadblocks.

Some students at Garfield are planning a walkout Monday and a march on Army recruiting headquarters down the street.

Oh yeah, the liberals harassing military recruiters really "support the troops." So much so that they don't believe the military should even be able to recruit on their campuses. Here's more:

NBC's "Today" show aired unsubstantiated claims on Tuesday that U.S. troops had desecrated the Quran on at least two occasions, in a report that echoed a now retracted Newsweek story that has inflamed the Muslim world and led to deadly riots.

...The NBC newsman then sourced an allegation by a female terrorist suspect who had been detained at Abu Ghraib, who aired her claim in an Iraqi newspaper.

"[She said] she was raped every night by six American soldiers," Engel reported, before adding that U.S. officials deny the claim.

Here's a question: you think the "Today" show would air unsubstantiated allegations that the ACLU desecrated the Bible at board meetings? If someone with the same level of credibility as a "female terrorist suspect," like let's say an escaped mental patient, claimed that she was gang raped at DNC headquarters, you think the "Today" show would report that? Not a chance in hell. But any old charge aimed at the military, no matter what it is, just gets tossed out there. Here's another story:

The president of a group representing reporters worldwide is accusing U.S. soldiers of committing atrocities without offering any evidence to back the charge up.

Appearing in St. Louis on Friday, Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley complained:

"What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there’s not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq."

In case anyone missed the point, Foley restated her allegation:

"They target and kill journalists ... uh, from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like Arab news services like Al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios with impunity. ..."

To believe that the troops are deliberately murdering journalists, you must have a very low opinion of them and apparently this belief is quite widespread in the media because we keep hearing it again & again. Does anyone believe that the military is going to be treated fairly by journalists who think the military has marked them for death?

Sure, there are always going a few bad apples in the bunch. But, the work our troops are doing in Iraq and across the world is valiant, honorable, and should be praised, not constantly derided and treated with suspicion.

Unfortunately, when we get to the point where ridiculous & unsubstantiated allegations against our military are constantly being hurled about and military recruiters aren't even welcome in American high schools, then liberal hostility to the military has gone too far and it's time for more people to call it what it is and speak up for the troops.

Because of the battle over judicial filibusters, there has been a lot of talk about Abe Fortas, who is commonly considered to have been the only judge ever filibustered prior to 2003.

But when you actually examine the Fortas debate in the Senate back in 1968, what you find is that it bears very little resemblance to what the Democrats are doing today. This is not an insignificant point because it shows that what the Democrats have been doing for the last two years is unprecedented in the history of the Senate.

Here's Bob Dole to give us the rundown on what actually happened with Fortas and why it bears little resemblance to the situation today:

In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson sought to elevate his longtime personal lawyer, then-Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, to be chief justice. I would not be elected a senator for a few more months, but followed the news surrounding this nomination closely.

...The claim Fortas was not confirmed due to a "filibuster" is off-base. A filibuster, commonly understood, occurs when a minority of senators prevents a majority from voting up-or-down on a matter by use or threat of permanent debate.

That simply did not happen with Fortas, where the Senate debated the nomination's merits quite vigorously. Senators exposed the ethical issues involved and the widespread belief the vacancy had been manufactured for political purposes. They sought to use debate to persuade other senators the nomination should be defeated.

After less than a week, the Senate leadership tried to shut down debate. At that time, two-thirds of the senators voting were needed to do so, yet only 45 senators supported the motion. Of the 43 senators who still wished to debate the nomination, 24 were Republicans and 19 were Democrats.

President Johnson saw the writing on the wall -- that Fortas did not have 51 senators in support of his nomination -- so he withdrew the nomination before debate could be completed.

The events of 37 years ago contrast markedly with those the Senate faces today:

(1) Fortas lacked majority support when President Johnson withdrew his nomination. Today, Senate Democrats block up-or-down votes on judicial nominees who are supported by a majority of senators.

(2) Justice Fortas was politically associated with President Johnson and eventually resigned from the Supreme Court under an ethical cloud. No such charges have been made against President Bush's nominees.

(3) The Senate debated the Fortas nomination only for several days before Johnson withdrew the nomination, versus the four years some of President Bush's nominees have been pending. It's clear the Democrats today have no desire to persuade, and have even complained further debate is a "waste of time."

(4) Fortas' support and opposition were bipartisan, with Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the question. Today, the controversy is purely partisan -- with only Democratic senators, led by their leader Harry Reid, opposing an up-or-down vote.

Nothing could be more foolish than for the Republicans to stand by and watch as 200+ years of Senate precedent are thrown out the window so that in essence, the Democrats can veto any of Bush's judges that they like. The nuclear option is not about taking a longstanding privilege away from the minority in the Senate, it's about stopping the Democrats from creating a powerful, new privilege for themselves now that they're in the minority. The Republican Senators up on the hill should remember that and so should the American people.

Tom Delay's prosecutor gives a public speech in which he calls his quarry a bully. The speech raised money for local Democrats. Details:

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who denies partisan motives for his investigation of a political group founded by Republican leader Tom DeLay, was the featured speaker last week at a Democratic fund-raiser where he spoke directly about the congressman.
A newly formed Democratic political action committee, Texas Values in Action Coalition, hosted the May 12 event in Dallas to raise campaign money to take control of the state Legislature from the GOP, organizers said.

Earle, an elected Democrat, helped generate $102,000 for the organization.

In his remarks, Earle likened DeLay to a bully and spoke about political corruption and the investigation involving DeLay, the House majority leader from Sugar Land, according to a transcript supplied by Earle.

"This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it isn't this Tom DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the one before," Earle said.

That last line is very interesting. What does Mr. Earle mean by "another one?" Speaking before a crowd of partisan Democrats, one must assume "another one" means another Republican. Any old Republican will do--you put 'em in office and Earle will prosecute 'em, whether they have done anything wrong or not.

Tell me, Delay accusers, that this prosecution isn't political now. If it wasn't before, it surely is now.

It also seems to me that prosecutor Earle has overstepped the bounds of ethics and propriety, and should be investigated. He should not have spoken about a case he is currently litigating as though he had already won it. His comments, floated in the press, could taint prospective jurors. Delay deserves his day in court if it comes to that, not some half-cocked politician armed with the power to prosecute smearing him in a public forum.

This content was used with the permission of Bryan Preston from JunkYardBlog.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Bush is hopeful the recent Darth Vader comparisons he's experienced during the past month will soon overtake previous comparisons to Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and other ruthless dictators known for murder, genocide, torture and oppression.

"The President is hopeful that his image will continue to soften during and after the premiere of the final Star Wars movie," White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said at a press conference Tuesday. "President Bush is well aware that Darth Vader is considered a villain in most parts of the world, but deep inside the robotic exterior of the sadistic leader of the Dark Side, lurks a man who was not only a Jedi warrior but also the object of Natalie Portman's affection. The President can live with that."

Bush, who has seen all the Star Wars movies, denies ever actually rooting for the Dark Side, and has stated on multple occasions that as the leader of the free world he needs to remain fair and impartial and not seem like he's taking sides. He uses the same approach during the Super Bowl.

"All I know is I'm not like Hitler at all," Bush said at the White House Rose Garden Tuesday. "For starters Hitler was German and had a mustache. I'm American and I've never had a mustache. I had long sideburns during the seventies, but so did everyone else. That doesn't make me like Hitler and I'm sick and tired of the unfair comparisons. As for Darth Vader, well, we're both tall and have good jobs, so I guess you'll just have to judge for yourself."

Bush went on to say that he's optimistic that people would rather see him as the cool-as-a cucumber leader Darth Vader than the former Nazi dictator responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people.

"Darth Vader was a guy who thought he was doing the right thing," Bush said. "He had a lot of responsibility and had to be tough sometimes. Maybe he made some bad decisions along the way, but I think he did the best he could."

Added Bush, "The history books will show my legacy differently. And in fifty years, Darth Vader will probably be considered a genius."

This satire was used with the permission of Bob From Accounting. You can read more of their work by clicking here.

"Mace Rumsfeld, how can you justify the attack on Geonosis when there was no attack by them against us first?" asked a reporter.

A low rumbling was heard, and all the press grasped at their throats and fell dead to the ground.

"These press conferences take too long," Mace Rumsfeld grumbled.

* * * *

In a world of betrayal...

"We can only defeat the evil Anti-Trade Federation if we have a united front at home," Dubya Skywalker said, "That means getting good judges into the galactic judiciary."

"Uh-oh," Obi Wan Cheney grumbled, "Just look at the holo-television."

On screen was Jar-Jar Hagel talking to the press. "Meesa not so sure meesa support Skywalker. Meesa thinks the 'thermal-detonator' option is too harsh. Meesa maverick."

Dubya Skywalker drew his lightsaber. "I'LL MURDER HIM DEAD!"

* * * *

...in a world of doubt...

Obi Wan Cheney heard the sound of jetpack behind him and turned just in time to draw his lightsaber and block multiple laser blasts. Floating above him was the infamous liberal reporter, Jango Fett. "You will answer questions about how this war is all about your tibanna gas interests."

"Go to hell," Obi Wan Cheney responded, "and you can quote me on that."

Jango Fett shot out a cord that wrapped around Cheney and then fired his jetpack, dragging Cheney along the ground.

"This can't be good for my heart..."

* * * *

...in a world of growing darkness...

"I don't know who I can trust, Master Yoda," Dubya Skywalker pleaded.

"Mmm, fallen to the Democrat side many have," Yoda answered, "Weak and whiny its powers are, but with it much favorable press attention does come."

* * * *

...in a world of enemies...

"I know you've fallen to the Democrat side, Count Reid," Dubya Skywalker declared, "and are helping the Anti-Trade Federation. You better turn now before you end up like Darth Daschle."

"Perhaps we can make some sort of compromise," Count Reid offered.

"I'll compromise..." Bush drew his lightsaber, "after I MURDER YOU DEAD!"

* * * *

...a hero must step forth.

"I am ready, Yoda," Dubya Skywalker said. "Make me a Jedi Master,"

"Too perilous for you to face the Sith Witch, Darth Rodham," Yoda answered, "And ready you are not. Too impulsive you are. Stupid you be. Even worse with grammar than I is you. Plus, too emotional you are."

"Emotional!" Dubya Skywalker screamed, "I'LL MURDER ALL YOU JEDI DEAD!"

* * * *

"Kill them! Kill them all!" the hooded figure of Darth Rove screamed.

"I dunno; I have a bad feeling about this," Dubya Skywalker said. "And there's a question I've been meaning to ask you for a while: Are you evil?"

"No, young Jedi," Darth Rove answered, smiling a jagged smile, "Why would you think such a thing?"

"Because you're always plotting and advising me to slaughter everyone."

Darth Rove let out a bone-chilling laugh. "I only have your best interests in mind." A cute little puppy walked by, and Darth Rove shot out lighting from his finger tips and fried it, laughing insanely the whole time.

"Well, as long as we're clear on you not being evil," Dubya Skywalker said as he walked off.

* * * *

"This is it!" Dubya Skywalker yelled, "Obi Wan Cheney, you fight the Jedi fallen to the Democrat side. Mace Rumsfeld, you hold off the droid armies. I'll take on Darth Rodham."

Dubya Skywalker and Obi Wan Cheney drew their lightsabers, but Mace Rumsfeld just stood there. "Back when I was young, Jedi didn't have these fancy little glow sticks," Mace Rumsfeld grumbled, "We did fine beating off evil with a stick."

"Just fight the droids, Mace Rumsfeld," Obi Wan Cheney pleaded.

"Bah! I'm tired and I'm taking a nap."

* * * *

"Foolish Jedi!" screeched Darth Rodham, "You cannot stop me! Soon I’ll manipulate the public to accept me as their leader, and the galaxy will be under my control!"

Dubya Skywalker stood his ground, holding his lightsaber ready. "Not if I MURDER YOU DEAD!"

A low rumbling was heard, and then a lamp flew threw the air and struck Dubya Skywalker in the face.

"Son of a..."

* * * *

STAR OPERATION FREEDOMS - COMING SOON TO A THEATER NEAR YOU!

* * * *

"Now, I'll answer questions for Dubya Skywalker," C3P-McClellan said, "and, I remind you, I'm fluent in over 6 million forms of communication."

"How does Dubya Skywalker give comfort to the families of the clone troopers sent out in this deadly and unneeded war?" asked one reporter.

"Well, since they're clones, they don't have families. Next question."

"Rarrrrgerrwar!" asked the reporter from the Kashyyyk Daily.

"I don't think there is any reason to bring up Abu Grahib again," C3P-McClellan answered, "Anyway, those were dismantled droid troopers in those photos."

"Currently, planet Usa is in violation of a number of provisions laid out by the United Planets by it having more than one distinct climate. Are there any plans to address that?"

"It is being discussed at this time," C3P-McClellan replied, "Any other questions?"

"How do you respond to charges that the previous two administrations really sucked in comparison to the next three administrations?"

"Huh?"

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

Variations of this lame "we think Bush is a liar so the media should get a pass when it screws up" defense of Newsweek have been showing up all over place. Here's the general thrust of this "argument" from Bill Press at the Huffington Post:

"Newsweek relied on faulty intelligence to write a magazine article. George W. Bush relied on faulty intelligence to start a war which has cost over $200 billion, and which has taken the lives of over 1600 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis."

It's tempting to punch up a few paragraphs here defending Bush's decision to go to war, but that would shift the burden off of Newsweek, which is where it belongs. So let me just say that we were right to go to war, we were right to stay and help the Iraqis build a Democracy, I'm proud of the fantastic job our troops have done under difficult circumstances in Iraq, and if you judge how things have gone by any sort of comparable situation in history, you'll find that although it has certainly been a "long, hard, slog," it has also been a tremendous success. What we're doing today in Iraq is helping to break the back of international terrorism and it may also lead to hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East becoming free at last. Iraq was the right war in the right place at the right time.

But back to Newsweek: so just because Press doesn't like Bush, that means Newsweek should get a free pass for their abysmal journalism? Yes, there had been previous claims made by former prisoners that the Qu’ran had been flushed down the toilet, but come on, who takes somebody who was locked up in Gitmo at their word besides naive liberals? But, Newsweek didn't just repeat those claims, they said that according to internal US Government reports, it actually happened. No hedging, no rumors, no maybes, they said it was real.

As a result, there were riots and a lot of people died. Does that absolve the rioters of their responsibility or mean that they weren't incited by Islamic radicals who were looking to make trouble? No, not in the least. But let's also remember that if Newsweek had gotten their facts right, there would have been no riots and no deaths.

Moreover, responsible journalists should not run controversial stories based on nothing more than the word of a single anonymous source. Newsweek tried to cover themselves by saying that they ran the story by an anonymous defense official, but they also admit that same official "lacked detailed knowledge of the SouthCom report." That means that person couldn't have confirmed or denied the story. In any case, it wasn't that person's job to be Newsweek's fact-checker.

So summing it all up, Newsweek acted irresponsibly and it led to deaths. To try to shrug that off and put the onus on the Bush administration for Newsweek's horrible mistake is absurd and you'd think a professional journalist like Bill Press would understand that better than most people.

Newsweek should be apologizing profusely and firing people while being roundly condemned by the rest of the media. Instead, they're being defended. That tells you a lot about why the mainstream media is quite correctly held in such low regard by much of the American public...

Howard Dean in 2004, on Osama bin Laden:

I’ve resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.

Howard Dean in 2005, on Tom DeLay:

I think he’s guilty . . . of taking trips paid for by lobbyists, and of campaign-finance violations during his manipulation of the Texas election process..

He couldn’t say Osama was guilty before a trial — but he can say a powerful Republican is.

That’s the guy whom Democrats have chosen to be the face of their party, folks. And a finer representative you won’t find.

Content used with the permission of Patterico from Patterico's Pontifications.

Say what you want about Donald Trump, the man made a name for himself (and a fortune) building snazzy skyscrapers and he has the right idea about rebuilding the Twin Towers:

"New York property tycoon Donald Trump unveiled his design for "bigger, stronger and better" twin towers to replace the World Trade Center originals destroyed on September 11, 2001.

..."It's bigger, it's stronger and it's better than the previous World Trade Center, and it sets the right tone and the right attitude," Trump said, adding that some members of the public who had seen the model had been moved to tears."

The Twin Towers should be "bigger," "stronger," and "bolder" to send a message not just to the terrorists, but the rest of the world. You may knock America down, but we'll just be back bigger and better than ever. One day, probably right after that craptacular pile of artsy garbage posing as a replacement for the WTC is actually built, they'll figure out that Trump was right all along.

From a conversation I had yesterday morning with another blogger on instant messenger, the chat was edited just a bit for clarity's sake and to clean up the grammar:

Blogger X: Remind me again why we want to change the Senate rules in a way that would prevent Republicans from blocking liberal nominees in a future, Democrat-majority, Senate. I'm not being facetious...just trying to think through the long-term ramifications.

John Hawkins: Sure! 1) Whether we do the nuclear option or not, they can still do it in the future 2) Republicans would never filibuster anyway (there has been 1 done by us ever) 3) The liberals who get confirmed -- like Ruth Bader Ginsberg -- are already such radical libs that it wouldn't make any difference if they put Ted Kennedy in there.

Blogger X: Ok. Isn't it frightening that the defense of this option is that Republicans are the only party that has the dignity and character to follow the Constitution. I mean, we're pretty much saying that Democrats are slimeballs who will do anything to get their way.

John Hawkins: Yeah, basically.

Blogger X: Are you sure we aren't just "demonizing" the left and justifying ourselves?

John Hawkins: Yes. The Senate tradition is not to have filibusters of judges. (The GOP is) preserving the constitutional role proscribed for the Senate and 200 years of Senate tradition, not getting rid of it with the nuclear option.

"Almost twenty years ago President Bush declared the War on Drugs. I was present at a high level strategy meeting between representatives of Federal Law Enforcement, DOD, and the State Department regarding the urgency of sealing the Mexican border to stop drug smuggling. When DOD stated that they were capable of detecting and interdicting any intrusion, but could not distinguish between groups of migrants from drug smugglers until interdiction, the dialogue became difficult. When DOD refused to entertain the idea that they should only detain drug smugglers upon interdiction, the meeting was abruptly terminated. The safety valve that illegal immigration provided toward the stability of Mexico seemed to be a more compelling national security priority than drug smuggling." -- "Former INS official Mark Reed at a Senate hearing Tuesday on immigration" via Mark Krikorian at the Corner

As many as 25 people died and dozens more were injured during riots in Afghanistan today which erupted over what one Muslim cleric called "the U.S. media's desecration-by-mispelling" of the name of Islam's most holy book.

Indeed, American editors have failed to reach consensus on how to render the holy book's name. Some spell it with a 'K' others with a 'Q' and -- perhaps most offensive to Muslim sensibilities -- some insert a meaningless apostrophe in the middle of the word.

"They're mocking our religion and our God by using a wide variety of spellings for the holy book," said the unnamed imam. "Journalists and editors are the stormtroopers of America's war on Islam. They're trying to humiliate and intimidate us with alternate and phonetic spellings, sowing seeds of doubt about the book Allah gave to the Prophet. We will fill the streets with the blood of the infidels and anyone else who gets in the way."

The latest casualities followed the deaths of 17 people in weekend riots over an inaccurate story in Newsweek magazine about a report that U.S. military guards had flushed a Koran down a toilet at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

The cleric, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue, denied that the latest uprising on the Arab street was simply part of the 'regularly-scheduled annual riot season'.

"Our previously-scheduled generic riots have been preempted by these special, issue-oriented violent mobs," he said. "Americans have nobody to blame but themselves for inflaming the passions of these peaceful religious people."

This satire was used with the permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface. You can read more of his work here.

So, first we had the Jayson Blair scandal over at the New York Times.

And then cBS had no choice but to fire a bunch of senior drones over the memo-gate scandal.

While all that was going on, the ratings (circulation) for the liberal newspapers were crumbling, as they have been for over a generation.

cBS just cancelled “60 Minutes II,” ostensibly because of its ghastly ratings.

The remaining audience for the liberal media’s flagship program – “60 Minutes” – is burning out and fading away.

And, of course, another major, biased-media story, in recent days, has been that of Newsweek having to retract their toilet bowl of a toilet bowl story.

And with the foregoing trends and events as the backdrop, I felt I had no choice but to laugh out loud at the way in which Knight Ridder* headlined its self-therapy session, er, news report, about the fallout from Newsweek’s “special moment:”

"White House, media in struggle for credibility.”

So, the White House is struggling for credibility right along with the media, huh?

Okaaaaaaaay, then.

You see, folks, the liberal media is unraveling.

Over the past 25 years, the media’s Democratic Party has disintegrated. And that does not even tell the full story of their plight.

Whereas liberal drones in public schools and governments used to openly employ strict racial quotas, they’ve now been reduced to “celebrating diversity,” in the liberal sense, by watching MTV.

Whereas “rehabilitation,” deferral programs, probation, and even “furlough programs” used to be en vogue, today virtually all 50 states have adoped brass-knuckled, get-tough-on-crime measures. In addition, prison populations are soaring (’cause criminals are being sent there, Chomsky), crime rates are plunging, and even “blue states,” like Connecticut, are going ahead and flicking the switch and putting crime-bots to death.

Tax rates are coming down. Oil drilling is about to bubble up. Logging rights are and have been expanded. Welfare rolls are shrinking. Medi-caid is being scaled back. International trade is being freed up. Faith-based initiatives are expanding. And last I checked, and despite the angry protestations of young liberals and old hippies, the Bush Doctrine is being practiced, each and every day, out there in the real world.

In short, those trust-fund liberals in the media are suffering.

Cratering.

Melting.

And, now, they’re also “projecting.”

And believe you me, things will get far worse for them as time moves on.

Note:* FYI, Knight Ridder publishes such fair and balanced newspapers {cough, cough} as the Philly Inquirer.

This content was used with the permission of Polipundit."

There are a variety of reasons that I don't read Andrew Sullivan anymore including the fact that he's a pretend conservative who voted for John Kerry, is inconsistent, confused, intellectually dishonest, obsessed with gay marriage, & loathes religious people.

But today, via via Glenn Reynolds ("SULLIVAN seems to think that I should be blogging more about Abu Ghraib,") I learned that there's a new reason to dislike Andrew Sullivan: he's still blathering on about Abu Ghraib.

After heading over to the Daily Dish, I found references to Abu Ghraib in 5 different posts. This is for a wildly overblown story that broke more than a year ago.

In my experience, people who go on and on about Abu Ghraib -- which fits Sullivan to a T -- almost universally either detest George Bush, the war in Iraq, the military, America, or some combination thereof and love to use Abu Ghraib as a club to hammer away at the targets of their wrath.

Here's the truth: Abu Ghraib wasn't very important. In my opinion, it shouldn't even merit a line in the history books. In fact, the only reason the whole story didn't immediately disappear right down the memory hole is because the out-of-control yahoos abusing prisoners there were dumb enough to take pictures.

Back in May of 2004, I pointed out how incredibly out of proportion the reaction was to what actually happened:

"That being said, the media's general reaction to this situation has been staggeringly overwrought & monstrously overblown. This week, because of what went on at Abu Ghraib prison, I've heard us compared to Hitler & Saddam, calls for Rumsfeld to resign, heard that our reputations will never recover, comparisons to concentration camps & Mai Lai....

Please, what a load of sanctimonious hyperbole that is.

...The reason what happened at Abu Ghraib has been such a big sensation is because it is such an aberration and so out of line with American values. So the apologies and changes we've made were appropriate, but so is a little perspective...

A year later, all of that is truer than ever.

You know what else is true? Aside from a few liberals & long-time American haters, very few people think less of the Bush administration, the military, or the US because of Abu Ghraib. In short, most people just don't care very much.

And the pundits like Sullivan who are still fixated on it? They come across like diehard fans of some eighties hair band -- and they just won't shut up about how they once had a 5 minute long conversation with the lead singer in a Philadelphia Waffle House -- which is part of the reason so many people are telling them, "Sorry to cut you short, but I have somewhere else to be"...

There are a lot of ridiculous boondoggles that our Federal tax dollars have been wasted on in the past like pork projects in West Virginia named after Robert Byrd & "art" that consists of a crucifix dipped in urine.

However, in terms of ridiculous things our tax dollars may be spent on, there's going to be a new contender for the top slot starting in 2006:

"The federal government will spend nearly $2 billion in the next decade on male impotence drugs under its Medicare program, according to a new cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office that is fueling some lawmakers' efforts to end that spending.

...."It's a number that's just shocking," (Rep. Steve King) said. "When you're looking at it starting out at $90 million a year [in fiscal year 2006] and goes up [by 2015] to $280 million -- that's not loose change. That's a huge pile of recreational drug bills."

The federal body that runs Medicare ruled earlier this year that drugs to treat male impotence such as Viagra, Cialis and Levitra will be covered as of Jan. 1, 2006, when the full drug coverage program created by Congress two years ago takes effect.

Jeff Trewhitt, a spokesman for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said his group was still looking at the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) estimate and would not comment. But he said the organization is opposed to Mr. King's bill.

"Products that treat erectile dysfunction are part of the overall treatment of patients. Medicare and Medicaid patients should not be like second-class citizens when their diseases are treated," he said.

The CBO estimated that Medicare spending on impotence drugs would be $1.93 billion over 10 years, with $730 million being spent in the first five years. After 2010, the CBO estimate shows spending increasing by $20 million a year and figures that the government will be spending $280 million a year by 2015.

In announcing their decision to include the medications, Medicare officials said the law required them to cover drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration that are medically necessary."

Yes, you're reading that right, folks. Billions of taxpayer dollars -- that's billions with a "b" -- are going to be used to make sure that grandpa can still get aroused when grandma is in the mood. Sorry, but that's a personal problem, not a problem for society. If you want those drugs, buy them yourself. If you don't have the money, tough luck, the rest of society shouldn't be asked to fork over their tax dollars to pay for your Viagra & Cialis. So let's hope Steve King and company are successful so the taxpayers don't end up picking up the tab for a few people's "uplifting experiences"...

"At least Dan Rather's forged documents didn't get anybody killed, as the phony Newsweek story did. What is even more revealing -- and appalling -- about the mainstream media is that they are now circling the wagons around Newsweek, to protect it from criticism, just as they circled the wagons around Dan Rather last year, and now give him an award this year to put the frosting on the cake.

If the forged documents at CBS and the phony story at Newsweek were just isolated mistakes, that would be one thing. But media liberals have made themselves accessories after the fact, by springing to the defense of such indefensible misconduct.

In a sense, that is good. It makes it easier for the public to see that the forged documents and the fake story were not just odd things that happened to a couple of people but were symptomatic of a mindset among many others who sprang to their defense." -- Thomas Sowell

"Still, the majority of the news professionals don't believe bloggers deserve to be called journalists." Why not? Because there's no filter? They didn't go to University of Missouri J School, didn't go to Harvard, didn't go to Columbia, they don't have a degree? Why shouldn't they be called journalists? They're just sitting around telling people what's happening. That's what journalism is supposed to do. They're offering their opinions just like everybody else in journalism does. Public polling today is just the latest arm of opinion journalism. The editorial page is indistinguishable from the front page at the New York Times, in terms of content. Why aren't these guys journalists? Because they wear pajamas? They don't go to a big building with a printing press in it? Why aren't they journalists? Why is the press so afraid of bloggers when less than 10% of the American people read blogs? Why are they so afraid of bloggers? ...(It's) because the bloggers and all of their other critics are getting it right -- and that causes fear..." -- Rush Limbaugh

Decorah, IA - The debris-strewn streets of this remote Midwestern hamlet remain under a tense 24-hour curfew tonight, following weekend demonstrations by rock- and figurine-throwing Lutheran farm wives that left over 200 people injured and leveled the Whippy Dip dairy freeze. The rioting appeared to be prompted, in part, by a report in Newsweek magazine claiming military guards at Spirit Lake’s notorious Okoboji internment center had flushed lutefisk down prison toilets. Newsweek’s late announcement of a retraction seems to have done little to quell the inflamed passions of Lutheran insurgents in the region, as outbreaks of violent mailbox bashings and cow tippings have been reported from Bowbells, North Dakota to Pekin, Illinois.

Whether the violence was triggered by Newsweek’s report of lutefisk desecration or frustration over chronic shortages of Beanie Babies and Old Style, one thing seems certain – occupying U.S. troops face a steep road to reestablish trust in this tinderbox of ancient hatreds and delicious dairy products. Some analysts say the latest outbreak represents the most vexing challenge to US strategy since its invasion the region three years ago.

“It could be months before we get the area back under control,” said Brigadier Gen. Glen Hastings of the US Army’s Southern Minnesota Command. “We’re hoping the tractor pull and swap meet seasons will help calm down some of the violent elements.”

‘Campground of Evil’

Military efforts to stabilize the violent ethnic Protestantism of the region have had a mixed record of success. U.S. paratroopers first landed along the Iowa/Minnesota border in early 2002 to root out extremist Uff Da militants, followers of the charismatic Lutheran cleric Pastor Duane Gunderson. Despite fears of being bogged down in the harsh Mankato winter, troops encountered little resistance, save sporadic eggings from ill-equipped insurgents atop the grain elevators of local cornlords. U.S. forces achieved swift success, taking as many as 1,500 Lutheran rebels into custody and bringing a momentary measure of stability to what has long been considered a dangerous Scandinavian backwater.

The initial battlefield victories, however, have since proven to be only the beginning of the American struggle here. The subsequent occupation created a number of difficult challenges critics claim were overlooked by the White House’s top Midwest war planners. The tipping point seems to have been a 2004 incident at the now notorious Okoboji.

First constructed as a boredom punishment camp for Midwest dissident youth, the US Military Command converted the sprawling Arnold’s Park / Lake Okoboji area into an internment facility to house insurgent detainees. Almost immediately stories began to surface of prisoner mistreatment, including vivisections, anal probes by extraterrestrial strippers, and blackouts of Viking games.

American military spokesmen initially dismissed the stories, but several news organizations – led by Newsweek – obtained a series of shocking photos of a Texas Army Reservist, Tyffanie Cruddup, laughing as she humiliates a naked inmate by putting a Dallas Cowboys stocking hat on his head.

The photos sent the Lutheran street into riots as far as Rheinlander, Wisconsin, and sent shockwaves throughout the media world. The incident received heavy play on network and cable news, the New York Times, Washington Post, Le Monde, the Guardian, Packers Illustrated, and was the subject of over a dozen off-Broadway dramas during the 2004 season. For its part, Newsweek ran a record eight consecutive covers on Okoboji, along with a special commemorative November 3 collector’s issue with pull-out humiliation poster.

Luting and Looting

In the wake of the incident, American military spokespeople have taken pains to defend handling of prisoners at Okoboji. A series of new guidelines instruct guards to “respect the rituals and traditions of our valued Lutheran prison guests,” including “dietary needs, Wednesday Nite Bingo, and twice daily viewing of Wheel of Fortune.”

“It is important that we remember that Lutheranism is a religion of peace,” said Army spokesman Maj. Richard Lehrman. “And we need to remember to avoid insensitive behavior and remarks that will cause these peaceful Lutherans to go on another bloody killing rampage.”

Despite officials’ claims of intensified sensitivity, rumors have persisted of continued prisoner abuse at Okoboji, including lutefisk desecration – an especially heinous crime under Lutheran doctrine. Some analysts have viewed the rumors skeptically, pointing to the Uff Da insurgent training manual “How To Lie About Lutefisk Desecration By Infidels.” Still, dozens of news organizations continue to investigate the charges.

In its May 6 “Midwest Quagmire Wire” section, Newsweek appeared to have confirmed the lutefisk rumors. Bylined by Senior Correspondent Michael Isikoff, the magazine cited an unidentified source claiming that Okoboji guards had deliberately flushed an entire batch of the pungent cod-and-lye concoction that prisoners had been aging in a specially prepared commode. “The guard smelled it and thought it was prison burrito night,” the source was quoted as saying.

News of the desecration spread quickly from Iowa to the Dakotas to Minnesota and Wisconsin, fanned by radio soybean reports and Lutheran clerics in fiery pancake breakfast sermons. Soon, enraged farm wives, clad in their traditional sweater vests and Disney jackets, had taken to the streets and begun a wild spree of destruction, overturning hundreds of rusty Blazers and Pontiac Grand Ams and hurling flaming Lladro porcelain figurines. Decorah was particularly hard-hit, as a frenzied throng of ululating Iowa women were seen looting needlepoint geese and rabbit tchotchkes from a Victorian craft shop. In a chilling moment caught on Army night vision cameras, their plus-size leader urges the mob to attack the near-by Pamida.

“Ya, you betcha!” came the chant of her enraged coreligionist.

After battling back the women with volleys of teargas and Land’s End catalogs, a detachment of California reservists finally quelled the riot early Sunday morning, and attended to the injured.

Fake But Not Completely Implausible

As soldiers patrolled the streets of Decorah, Faribault and La Crosse Sunday, Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker issued a surprising, terse clarification of the original story, saying that the magazine could “no longer vouch for every detail of the story, including the brand of lye used, the number of soldiers and prisoners present, or possibly whether any of it actually happened.”

Whitaker, however, declined to retract the story, saying that the magazine was “standing behind its essential plausibility.”

“Obviously, if it causes thousands of native gals go on a berserk looting rampage, there’s got to be something believable in there somewhere,” said Whitaker. “Obviously, it’s now up to the Administration and the DoD to disprove these charges, once they finish cleaning up the carnage.”

In a later and terser clarification, Whitaker said that the magazine’s anonymous source could no longer remember whether he had ever been to Iowa, was in the military, or knew how to pronounce ‘lutefisk.’ In a still-later, and yet-terser clarification, Whitaker finally retracted the story after revealing that its anonymous source was Kippy, Michael Isikoff’s imaginary childhood friend.

“This is a really unfortunate accident for everybody,” said Whitaker. “But let’s not forget the real victims here – Newsweek, Mike Isikoff, and especially Kippy.”

While retracting the Okoboji accusations, Whitaker said Newsweek stood by the original article’s final two sentences, “Boo-yah! In your FACE, Chimpy!”

Despite the Newsweek’s humiliating public retraction of the controversial lutefisk abuse charges, tensions remain high across the upper Midwest. Many here discount the retraction as being coerced by White House “crusaders,” and believe that other abuses are being covered up at Okoboji.

“Oh yahh, I tell ya what, dere’s a lotta bad stuff goin’ on in dat outfit over dere,” said a young Decorah cleric who identified himself only as ‘Pastor Doug.’ “I heard dem infidels are switchin’ da prisoner’s Leinies with Schlitz.”

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

Jonathan V. Last wrote a fascinating article called, “The Case For Empire.” Last is the online editor for the The Weekly Standard and a blogger at Galley Slaves.

[Note: I didn’t realize the article was written in 2002. I wondered why it was spoiler-free.]

I’d forgotten how much I enjoyed Sci-Fi speculation, analysis, and present-day analogies. Last turns the “Star Wars” morality play on its head, arguing that the Empire, not the Republic or the Rebel Alliance, is the best way to run a galaxy. He acknowledges that it’s a difficult case to make, given the Empire-in-black theme and apparently murderous activities of Darth Vader and his “Dark Side” minions. His argument is convincing, though.

At the beginning of the saga in 1977, we see a young Luke Skywalker, restless on his uncle’s farm, suddenly thrown into a galactic adventure. Episodes I-III (which I didn’t see) provide the back story, which is where Last begins. He discusses the ineffectiveness of the Senate and compares the Republic itself to our own ineffectual United Nations. The only “armed” protectors of the galaxy, run by the Republic, are Jedi Knights, whose power (The Force) is inherited. Separatists, who “seem genuinely to want to make a fresh start with a government that isn’t bloated and dysfunctional,” want to break away from the Republic and control their own destinies. Sound familiar?

Darth Vader’s “evil” Empire seizes control of the galaxy some time between “Attack of the Clones” and the 1977 movie. Last writes:

Lucas wants the Empire to stand for evil, so he tells us that the Emperor and Darth Vader have gone over to the Dark Side and dresses them in black.

But look closer. When Palpatine is still a senator, he says, “The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good.” At one point he laments that “the bureaucrats are in charge now.” [Sound familiar?]….Make no mistake, as emperor, Palpatine is a dictator–but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet. It’s a dictatorship people can do business with. They collect taxes and patrol the skies. They try to stop organized crime (in the form of the smuggling rings run by the Hutts). The Empire has virtually no effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen.

Also, unlike the divine-right Jedi, the Empire is a meritocracy. The Empire runs academies throughout the galaxy (Han Solo begins his career at an Imperial academy), and those who show promise are promoted, often rapidly.

Last presents evidence that the Empire isn’t the evil beast it’s made out to be, while acknowledging that it certainly appears so. For example, when the Empire destroyed Princess Leia’s planet, I remember gasping at the sight of it blowing up (80s-era special effects weren’t bad). A whole planet vaporized. Everyone on it, including those you loved, gone in an instant. But Leia was a rebel, liar, and lawbreaker who hid other rebels. And she was a spy.

About all the other killings, Last says, “Whatever the case, the important thing to recognize is that the Empire is not committing random acts of terror. It is engaged in a fight for the survival of its regime against a violent group of rebels who are committed to its destruction.” Good stuff.

After the Jedi prevail and the Empire is crushed, the galaxy is back to square one: Run by a disparate group of regional authorities who answer to no one. At least under Darth Vader, they had to answer to him (or suffer unpleasant consequences). Like it or not, he provided order and stability.

Last concludes with perhaps an unintentional comparison to present-day politicians who fancy themselves rebels — Democrats (the way I see it, anyway):

In all of the time we spend observing the Rebel Alliance, we never hear of their governing strategy or their plans for a post-Imperial universe…Their victory over the Empire doesn’t liberate the galaxy–it turns the galaxy into Somalia writ large: dominated by local warlords who are answerable to no one.

Isn’t order preferable to chaos even when scores of people (rebels) are killed in the name of “Empire?” The rule-of-law concept has proven to be liberating and better than any other system of government. Agree or disagree?

I could tell Last was really into writing this article, which made it all the more fun to read. Does that make me a Sci-Fi nerd? I can live with that.

This content was used with the permission of La Shawn Barber. You can read more of her work by clicking here.

*** Update #1 ***: Make sure to read the original column by Johnathan Last which is located here.

Also, let me add this bit of dialogue from Kevin Smith's classic movie "Clerks" to the debate:

Randal: So they build another Death Star, right?

Dante: Yeah.

Randal: Now the first one they built was completed and fully operational before the Rebels destroyed it.

Dante: Luke blew it up. Give credit where it's due.

Randal: And the second one was still being built when they blew it up.

Dante: Compliments of Lando Calrissian.

Randal: Something just never sat right with me the second time they destroyed it. I could never put my finger on it-something just wasn't right.

Dante: And you figured it out?

Randal: Well, the thing is, the first Death Star was manned by the Imperial army-storm troopers, dignitaries- the only people onboard were Imperials.

Dante: Basically.

Randal: So when they blew it up, no prob. Evil is punished.

Dante: And the second time around...?

Randal: The second time around, it wasn't even finished yet. They were still under construction.

Dante: So?

Randal: A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I'll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers.

Dante: Not just Imperials, is what you're getting at.

Randal: Exactly. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they'd hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms.

Dante: All right, so even if independent contractors are working on the Death Star, why are you uneasy with its destruction?

Randal: All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed- casualties of a war they had nothing to do with. (notices Dante's confusion) All right, look-you're a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife and kids and the two-story in suburbia-this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius. You didn't ask for that. You have no personal politics. You're just trying to scrape out a living.

*** Update #2 ***: Of course, this is basically an impossible case to make because the Jedis are supposed to be the good guys, but I think it's an intriguing argument once you get into it a little more. Here's a summary of what I think Last & La Shawn were trying to get across:

1) The Republic may have been a democracy, but it wasn't squeaky clean and it was so weak that it was non-functional. (Think about the United Nations as a world government).

2) The Empire may have been a dictatorship, but they also ran a functional government that was much more efficient and beneficial to the average citizen than the Republic was. (Think about replacing the United Nations as a world government with the government of China).

3) When the Rebellion defeated the empire, they didn't make the galaxy safe for Democracy, they created galaxy wide anarchy which wasn't beneficial to the average citizen of the government. (Think about replacing the government of China with the sort of governmental situation we see in Somalia).

Believe it or not, you can make a similar sort of argument about "The Scorpion King" and the movie "Hero." In both movies the "bad guy" is a tyrannical ruler who wants to take over the region to bring order and stop the fighting between smaller kingdoms. But, in the "The Scorpion King," the "hero" does what we expect: he stops the "bad guy." In "Hero," the "hero" is portrayed as a "hero" because he choses to let the "bad guy" take over the region in the name of the "greater good" (I.E. It will end the fighting and save a lot of lives).

Personally, I come down on the side of "The Rock" and the "Rebellion," but still, Last & La Shawn have a captivating take on Star Wars that's worth considering...

The Huffington Post is the gift that keeps on giving to the rest of the blogosphere! Just take a look at this blog entry from "business futurist" Steven G. Brant, the man with the real scoop on the Newsweek "Qu’ran in the toilet" fiasco. Some people might chalk up Newsweek's mistake to sloppy reporting or liberal bias, but Brant explains that Karl Rove is actually the one to blame:

I may have missed someone else making this point, so if this is repetitive please accept my apology. But here's my point: Newsweek getting "caught" like this has Karl Rove's stink all over it. Am I the only one who sees this pattern at work?...one that is destroying the credibility of the press?

...Come on, folks...who's going to benefit most from living in a country where when CBS or Newsweek says the people in power have done something bad those people can do their best Ronald Reagan imitation and say "There they go again."

The solution? Full disclosure of all sources when it comes to stories like this? I'm not sure.

...We need a press that the people trust! Therefore, we need a press that avoids the traps being set for them by (in my humble opinion) Rove & Co.

What a fascinating theory Mr. Brant has! Who benefits most from Newsweek damaging their own credibility with this sort of shoddy reporting? Why, it's the Republicans and therefore "Rove and Co." must be behind it!

Of course, using that same logic, we could conclude that Ted Kennedy and Co. were responsible for Enron, that Harry Reid & Co. made Alan Keyes say all those dumb things in his Senate race against Barrack Obama last year, & that Hillary Clinton was behind the prostate cancer that kept Rudy Guiliani from running against her in 2000. For shame, you Democrats!

Oh wait...is this another one of those wacky concepts that only applies to Republicans because liberals think we're Eeeeeevvvvviiilllll? You know, if something happens that's perceived to negatively impact a Republican, it's the Republican's fault, but if a Democrat catches the brunt of it, the Republicans made him do it? That's usually how it works with these wacky Karl Rove conspiracy theories.

Wait just one second -- I just realized: since this is a kooky & embarrassing kook post by Steven G. Brant, Karl Rove must be the one who's really responsible! Good grief, Rove is an even trickier devil than any of us could have ever suspected!

"Muslims from Jalalabad to Indonesia are agitated because of a rumor the Qu’ran landed in a toilet. Fair enough. But the real problem is that the collective reaction of the West has been to prostrate ourselves apologizing for something that, even if true, did not result in anything worse than clogged plumbing.

Has our perspective become so skewed that when we see people clearly deranged as a result of their religious beliefs go on a murderous rampage we’re solicitous of their hurt feelings? If you think about it, we are being remarkably patronizing. What we should say is "Yes, this is an unfortunate incident. But have you godly types considered that perhaps killing people over a wet book is something of an overreaction? Just asking.”

Of course, this suggests the possibility of rational exchange when any “dialogue” between the Islamists and the West is entirely spurious. We would like them to accept a pluralistic world. They want to live in the eighth century only with cell phones." -- Seth Greenland

This decision may lead to more short term dollars for the New York Times, but it's a mistake that will cost them money and influence in the long-term:

"NEW YORK The New York Times announced today that it will start charging for some online content, beginning in September.

• TimesNewstracker: E-mail alerts to track important news topics. This service is currently sold separately but will be included as part of the TimesSelect benefits."

The problem with this is that once you stick all the columnists behind a $49.95 subscription wall, the number of people reading those writers will drop like an anvil out of a helicopter. The reality is that there is so much free content out there -- and free content of high quality -- that most people just aren't going to pay for what they can get for free. Even if the Times does make money off of the deal, they'll probably end up trading 90% of their online audience to get 10% of their readers to fork over dough. That 90% will include journalists, bloggers, and countless other people who would otherwise have read and been influenced by those writers.

Columnists like David Brooks and John Tierney? I'm certainly not going to pay money to read them or link to them, since my readers aren't going to fork over $49.95 to see what they have say. But the people who'll really be hurt will be liberal columnists like Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, Frank Rich and Paul Krugman who all made the Favorite Columnists Of Left-Of-Center Bloggers. A year from now, assuming the New York Times goes through with it, none of them will make the list because most of their current readers will lose access to them rather than purchase a New York Times membership.

Now, if your #1 selling feature for a membership (by far) is your popular columnists, then long-term, how are you going to continue to rake in the loot if you're killing off their fanbase by requiring a subscription to read them?

If the goal here is make a one time killing at a price of severely cutting into the New York Times online audience while also markedly reducing the popularity of the Times columnists, this makes sense. Otherwise, somebody at the New York Times should think twice about whether this is a good idea or not.

Traffic wise, blogs certainly aren't competitive yet with cable news, radio talk shows, or even bigger websites like the Drudge Report.

Given that, why have blogs been able to break huge stories and how is it that they seem to be getting so much attention from the mainstream media?

My theory has always been that "blogger influence comes mostly from 'the who,' not the 'how many.'"

That certainly seemed to be the case when I polled conservative opinion makers and found that 68% of them read blogs. Of course, that was almost a year ago, back at the beginning of June, 2004. Today, the numbers would probably be even higher.

A poll done by the University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy certainly seems to confirm that.

According to them: "8 in 10 journalists said they read blogs, while less than 1 in 10 others do so."

Blogs may not have readerships large enough to influence the public -- yet -- but the people who do have those kind of audiences are reading blogs. Put another way, bloggers are household names to the people who are household names in the news business, but not to the American public. That's a good way for us bloggers to think of our place in the media food chain right now.

Pajamas Media, the brainchild of Marc Danziger, Charles Johnson, & Roger L. Simon, has got the blogosphere talking.

There are lots of big name bloggers involved, blogger syndication is in the works, and then there's the ad revenue.

In order to find out a little bit more about the hottest project in the blogosphere before it goes live, I did an interview via instant messenger with one of the Pajamas Media partners, Marc Danziger.

You can read what Marc had to say by clicking here.

While there has been an enormous amount of discussion about the nuclear option and judicial filibusters, one thing that hasn't been discussed is the poor political strategy of the Democrats throughout this whole fight.

This hasn't come into clear focus because the nuclear option hasn't been used as of yet. But, given that Frist is going to get the process started this week, you can bet that he's sure that he has the votes he needs to make it happen. So when the dust clears, what are the Democrats going to have gained for their filibusters?

Nothing.

All the judges that Bush renominated? They're going to be confirmed. If Bush gets an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, the Democrats will be powerless to stop him. Furthermore, because the Democrats have been openly threatening to shut down the Senate if they lose this vote, they have helped to prove to the public that Republicans are right to call them "obstructionists" -- a charge that helped sink Tom Daschle's Senate campaign in 2004. Moreover, the Democratic base will be demanding that Harry Reid follow through on his threat to shut down the Senate which will only hurt the Democrats even more with the American public.

Maybe the Democratic leadership thought it was worth the gamble, but with 55 Republicans in the Senate and Cheney as a potential tiebreaker, it just wasn't a smart move to go for broke on judges.

Consider some of the other political options Democrats could have gone with.

1) Had the Democrats chosen to do so, they probably could have killed several of the current nominees in exchange for an ironclad, public promise to cease filibustering judges. Republican Senators wouldn't have liked that deal, but the RINOS would have jumped at the opportunity to avoid the nuclear option.

2) Given that the furor over judges took almost two years to build, the Democrats may have been able to get away with saving the filibuster for a Supreme Court Justice. With Rehnquist likely to retire, the Dems could have probably gotten away with filibustering a couple of Bush's appointees and forced him to send another Anthony Kennedy or Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court in the place of a real conservative judge.

3) Frist's deal -- which included up to 100 hours of debate for every nominee and a guarantee that every nominee would get out of the judiciary committee and get an up or down vote -- was actually a pretty good deal for Democrats considering the current political lay-of-the-land.

For one thing, if Democrats actually forced 100 hours of debate on every nominee they considered "controversial," they would probably manage to kill a few of them because Republicans wouldn't want to waste that much floor time.

Furthermore, although it's impossible to say for sure at this point, the numbers game looks to favor the GOP in 2006 and we will probably be able to add Republican seats in the Senate. So even if a Democrat becomes President in 2008, he or she is likely to face a heavily Republican Senate and a Judiciary Committee where the GOP has a large edge.

Quite frankly, Democratic nominees stand a better chance on the floor where there are several RINOs who might vote for them, rather than in the Judiciary Committee. So getting every nominee to the floor for a vote would have been very beneficial to the Democrats.

Now maybe the Democrats will compromise at the last minute or perhaps they are still holding out hope that they're going to pull victory from the jaws of defeat and will be allowed to continue to filibuster judges. But, it looks much more likely that they're going to lose the vote and then they're going to further hurt themselves politically by bringing the people's business before the Senate to a halt.

Not only is what the Democrats are doing not allowed by the Constitution and contrary to 200+ years of Senate tradition, it's poor political strategy. Harry Reid and company would have been wise to go in a different direction.

Hat tip to WILLisms & DANEgerus for the graphic.

"The media does in fact have an impressive fact-checking system.

If a quote or purported fact portrays Republicans, the military, or America generally in a positive light, they check it to death to make sure they're not spreading propaganda.

But... if the quote or purported fact portrays those things in a negative light, it pretty much gets into print with only the most cursory once-over by the editors. If it agrees with their basic world-view -- if it feels "right" in their gut -- then it runs.

Fact-checking comes later..." -- Ace on Newsweek retracting their claim that the Koran was defiled at Guantanamo.

Given that Europe's streak of economic underperformance can now be measured in decades, perhaps a better question to ask is: Why does anyone think that a system of generous welfare benefits, high taxes and harsh restrictions on hiring and firing would ever produce anything like a dynamic, growing economy? Why does anyone assume that there is such a thing as a "European model," rather than just a collection of ill-conceived policies having a predictably depressing effect on the economy and job creation?

...In 1965, government spending as a percentage of GDP averaged 28% in Western Europe, just slightly above the U.S. level of 25%. In 2002, U.S. taxes ate 26% of the economy, but in Europe spending had climbed to 42%, a 50% increase. Over the same period, unemployment in Western Europe has risen from less than 3% to 8% today, and to nearly 9% for the 12 countries in the euro zone. These two phenomena are related; in a country with generous welfare benefits, rising unemployment increases government spending rapidly.

...Western Europe jumped the track and fell into an economic ditch in the 1970s along with the rest of the world. But the Thatcher and Reagan reforms that pushed Britain and the U.S. back onto the rails were never tried on the Continent, and most of those countries have been spinning their wheels ever since.

Rather than ask whether the "model" is doomed, it would be better to question how it ever attained the status of a model at all. The welfare state worked in Europe for two decades because so few people needed it; growth was strong, employment high and actual benefits paid were low. When the world economy hit a speed bump following the collapse of the Bretton Woods arrangement in 1971, both government spending and unemployment went up, and the system of incentives and benefits now enshrined as the "European model" was tested and found wanting. The result is permanently higher unemployment and taxes, a nasty mix. -- Brian M. Carney

An overnight poll of Maverick voters shows widespread support for Maverick Sen. George Voinovich's opposition to President Bush's nominee for U.N. Ambassador.

Maverick voters, those who support Republican candidates in hopes that they'll scuttle Republican initiatives, universally praised Mr. Voinovich for bucking the White House on John Bolton's nomination.

"This is why we sent Voinovich to the Senate," said one unnamed Maverick voter. "We elect Republicans to limit the power of Republicans. It's the heart of our Constitutional system of checks and balances."

This satire was used with the permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface.