Alex's Blog

Conservababes: Right from New Fallujah

De Equitus Non Est Disputandum

Erik with a "K"

Jiblog

Jihad Watch

Joe Gringo

The Nose On Your Face

Radaractive

ThoughtsOnline

Questions: "Now that Hamas is in control of the Palestinian government, what are the chances that a major conflict will break out between Israel and Palestine?" -- Son_of_Toejam on 2006-01-26 07:17:20

"Hamas v Fatah. Is there a difference? Will the US State Department continue to throw money at them?" -- BIG

"Now that the Palestinian people have elected Hamas and chosen a course of violence against Israel, is there such a thing as collateral damage from Israel's forthcoming response?

(What I mean is, do the people of Palestine now deserve to suffer the consequences for the choice that they have made?)" -- bjlillo

"Can Israel accept a Gaza strip governed by what is effectively an Iranian controlled organization, Hamas?

Or, are we likely to see Israel pull the plug on the idea of an emerging Palestinian state and reoccupy Gaza City?" -- CoolCzech

Answer: Overall, the fact that Hamas won is probably a positive overall because it's going to help kill so many of the myths about the Palestinians that have become, "common knowledge."

Myth #1: The Palestinians want peace & there's a peace agreement right around the corner. Obviously, that's not true because the Pals just came out at the polls and handed a big victory to a bunch of genocidal terrorists whose openly stated goal is to wipe out Israel.

Myth #2: The Palestinian government is trying to stop terrorism. There have been temporary ceasefires where the terrorists catch a breather and rearm, but neither Arafat nor Abbas made any genuine effort to stop terrorism and Hamas certainly isn't going to do it.

Myth #3: The Palestinian government shouldn't be held responsible for terrorist attacks. If a government of a country allows a group of terrorists to make attacks on another country, without making a good faith effort to stop them, then they are as responsible for those attacks as if they'd ordered them. Now that Hamas is actually in the government, the Israelis can treat acts of terrorism as acts of war, as they should have all along.

Granted, anti-semites and some of the people, whose capacity for self-delusion is practically endless, are still not going to wake up, even with Hamas in charge, but a lot of people will.

Hopefully, having Hamas in charge will be such a jolt to the international community, Israel, and the US, that they'll stop giving the bloodthirsty savages in the disputed territories a free pass and start requiring them to act like civilized human beings in order to get aid, political support, and sympathy.

Furthermore, this is probably good news for Israel. They have new options available to them militarily since the Palestinian government can now be held directly responsible for terrorist attacks. There will be less international support for the Palestinians, Hamas will be put under considerable pressure to moderate their stand against Israel, and maybe support for transferring the Palestinians to the surrounding countries will pick up, even if that's still not likely at this point.

Now, in order:

"Now that Hamas is in control of the Palestinian government, what are the chances that a major conflict will break out between Israel and Palestine?"

Not much higher than they were with Fatah in charge.

"Hamas v Fatah. Is there a difference? Will the US State Department continue to throw money at them?"

I tend to think we'll find ways to give them money that doesn't go through the government. Sort of like what we did with Afghanistan back when the Taliban was in charge.

"Now that the Palestinian people have elected Hamas and chosen a course of violence against Israel, is there such a thing as collateral damage from Israel's forthcoming response?

(What I mean is, do the people of Palestine now deserve to suffer the consequences for the choice that they have made?)"

Yes, the Palestinians deserve what they get.

"Can Israel accept a Gaza strip governed by what is effectively an Iranian controlled organization, Hamas?

Or, are we likely to see Israel pull the plug on the idea of an emerging Palestinian state and reoccupy Gaza City?"

Netanyahu was a big opponent of moving out of the strip and if he gets in during the next election, they might reverse course in some form or fashion, but the genie is out of the bottle now. What, are they going to take all the people they just moved and set them back up? Somehow, I doubt the Israeli people would go for that.

Question: "There has been more and more talk of trying to impeach the President. Is this an election tactic for November or are the democrats seriously going to pursue this?" -- France_Sucks

Answer: The Democrats are eaten up with hatred for Bush and they want to get payback for Clinton, so if they think they can impeach Bush, they'll go for it, no matter how flimsy the charges are. I mean, if they can impeach him for wearing white after Labor Day, they'll do it.

Unfortunately for them, the GOP controls the Senate and is almost assured of continuing to do so after the 2006 elections. And since the fact that Bush beats Democrats in elections and is serious about fighting terrorism doesn't aggravate conservatives the way it does a lot of lefties, the liberals aren't going to get anywhere trying to impeach him.

Still, expect a few Democrats in office to talk about it anyway to try to curry favor with the Kos crowd on the left side of the blogosphere.

Question: "Dick Morris continues to insist that the only person who could beat Hillary in '08 is Condi. He also says that someone like Giuliani would never get nominated by the GOP and someone like George Allen would drive away too many independents. What do you think about all of that?" -- WSOwen02

Answer: I think Dick has a book to sell because that is complete and utter bunkum.

Even a lot of the Democrats don't believe that. Heck, she doesn't even have Murtha on her side. According to the AP, Ole Cut and Run had this to say about her:

"He also said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., could win the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, but that she would lose in the general election."

Hillary is not invincible, she's not a great candidate, she's not even a good candidate. She probably ranges somewhere between average and slightly below average and if the Republicans run a halfway decent candidate, chances are, they'll beat her -- if she even gets the nomination -- which is not assured, although she's still the favorite.

For more on Hillary from RWN:

Told You So On Hillary Clinton
Before Hillary Starts To Move The White House Furniture Back In, She Better Do Something About Those Poll Numbers
Is Hillary's Star Fading?

Question: "Although you are obviously very conservative, do you think such partisanship should exist between the two main parties?" -- Schwartzenheimer2

Answer: We'd absolutely be better off if things were less partisan, especially when it comes to foreign policy where I think things have gotten so out of hand that it has actually helped our enemies.

As it is, we've gotten to the point, particularly when it comes to much of the left (and yes, I think they're much worse than even conservatives were during the Clinton years), where they're just into knee jerk opposition. If Bush is for it, they're against it, even if they'd be for exactly the same thing if a Democrat proposed it.

However, keep in mind that politics runs in cycles and eventually voters will force politicians to stop being so adversarial at the ballot box. In fact, I'd argue that they already have done so -- at least to a certain extent.

You ever heard someone say that every time a bell rings, a fairy gets its wings? I figure that every time a Democrat compares Bush to Hitler or talks about impeachment, another few voters decide to vote Republican. Because so many Democrats have been so partisan and so vicious, it has definitely helped the GOP at the ballot box.

Anyway, if our elected officials could cooperate with each other better on issues that don't involve shoveling pork into their districts, we'd all be better off.

Question: "What books are on your wish list for this year?" -- President_Friedman

Peter Collier: The Anti-Chomsky Reader

Mona Charen: Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (and the Rest of Us)

Barry Goldwater: The Conscience Of A Conservative

Victor Davis Hanson: Why the West Has Won: Nine Landmark Battles in the Brutal History of Western Victory

Dean Koontz: Frankenstein, Book Two: City of Night (Paperback)

Mark Levin: Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America

Kate O'Beirne: Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports

Charles Pickering: Supreme Chaos: The Politics of Judicial Confirmation & the Culture War

R. D. Reynolds, Bryan Alvarez: The Death of WCW

Mark Steyn: America Alone: Our Country's Future as a Lone Warrior

Question: "Let's pretend for a minute that you're Russia or China. You don't like the United States. You think they're a bunch of ugly, imperialistic, capitalist hegemons who get their kicks by throwing their weight around the world, encroaching onto your sovereignty, and embarrassing you in front of your regional allies.

Suppose that somewhere down the road, let's say 15 years from now, those same hegemonic Americans are going to have an impenetrable missile defense system that is essentially going to render all your nuclear weapons irrelevant. You will lose your main bargaining chip on the global stage, and they will be as close to unstoppable as any country has ever been. Now, are you just gonna sit around and say "Gee, I wish I had an impenetrable shield, too", or are you going to take steps to ensure that it doesn't come to that?

I say "suppose" because I'm not familiar with the current status of our missile defense systems, but doesn't this scenario strike you as a probable if not likely scenario for a nuclear war somewhere down the line? Wouldn't the Chinese and the Russians view the prospect of a U.S. with an impenetrable missile defense system in much the same light as we view the prospect of Iran getting their hands on a nuke?" -- maledicta

Answer: Actually, we've already seen this scenario play out with the Soviet Union. From my interview with Peter Schweizer:

John Hawkins: Can you tell us a little bit about why the Soviets felt so threatened by the Star Wars Defense Initiative?

Peter Schweizer: I think they felt so threatened by it because it was their key vulnerability. I mean, under communism you lack initiative and incentive for technological innovation and they always respected American technological prowess. With Reagan they had somebody who not only wanted to harness that technological progress but somebody who, they were convinced, was determined to squeeze their arteries, so to speak. He was determined to try to win; so the two of those together, I think, are what made it in their minds such a lethal combination.

John Hawkins: Was there a fear that, let's say, a couple of decades down the road, they'd be in a position where we could do a first nuclear strike on them and they wouldn't be able to respond?

Peter Schweizer: Yes, there certainly were some elements in the Soviet leadership who feared that the United States could do that, and these were generally paranoid people, the KGB in particular, but there were a lot of Soviet leaders, the Foreign Minister Gromyko, Dobrynin the ambassador, people like Gorbachev, who knew that the United States was not a threat in that way.

Their fear was that it would take away really the only thing that made them a superpower. The United States was a superpower because of its economy, its cultural influence, its political example to the world. The only thing that made the Soviet Union a superpower was its nuclear arsenal and if you took that away, if you took the fear of that away, they basically would lose all their superpower status and they would become sort of a large third world country. So I think that's what they were most concerned about, the fact that they were going to lose all the power and influence that came from their nuclear capability.

I'd also add that even 15 years from now, it's unlikely that a missile defense shield would be able to stop the sort of massive barrage of nukes Russia would be capable of delivering. The same probably goes for China. That far out, the missile shield will probably only be good for stopping countries with smaller arsenals. But, give us enough time working on it and hopefully we'll be able to block 'em all.

In any case, I tend to doubt that it would lead to a nuclear war. You fire a nuclear weapon at the US, shield or no, and every population center in your country will be molten glass 30 minutes later. So, China and Russia, although they're not run by very nice people, are at least rational actors and would understand the consequences of firing a nuke at the US. That makes it still possible, but highly unlikely that they'd risk firing nukes at us.

The nations we need to worry about on that front are the ones that might just be kooky enough to launch a nuke despite the consequences. Right now, I'd put North Korea, Iran (if they get the bomb), and maybe Pakistan if Musharraf were overthrown in that category. They're much more of a danger on the nuclear front than China or Russia.

Question: "Are Republicans doomed by demography? By 2050 whites will be a minority. With the same voting patterns among African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians the right will get 40% or less.

Even if they vote Republican, will small-government philosophy survive?" -- Tellerkhan

Answer: Even if whites were a minority in 2050, there's no reason to assume that any racial block would be voting the same way then that they are now. Republicans are already getting about 35-40% of the Hispanic vote and given that many Hispanics are religious, socially conservative, and more likely to become more affluent in coming years, there's no reason that percentage couldn't increase over time.

Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if 30%-40% or even 50% of blacks were voting Republican in 2050. Probably 1/3 of all blacks should be voting Republican NOW based on their views and young, black voters are even further to the right. According to research done in the journal Soul, "25% of young black voters are self-described conservatives, while 31% are moderates." That's a potential block of 56% of the black vote that the GOP has a shot at and with Republicans like Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, Janice Rogers Brown, making a splash on the national scene, don't be surprised when the GOP starts to make significant gains among black Americans.

Last but not least, you can't assume that whites will continue to vote for the GOP in such heavy numbers. If the Democrats were to stop veering so far to the left and genuinely move back to the center, there's no reason why they couldn't take a significantly larger share of the white vote right now.

What it all comes down to is race and ideology may appear to be connected at times, but there are a lot of other factors involved, and there's no reason why dramatic shifts in the voting patterns of any racial group can't occur over the long haul.

The Man Who Served As The No. 2 Official In Saddam Hussein's Air Force Says Iraq Moved Weapons Of Mass Destruction Into Syria Before The War

Hamas Wins Landslide Victory: 76 Seats Vs. 43 Seats

Israel Won't Talk To Government Including Hamas

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll: 57% Back A Hit On Iran If Defiance Persists (Free LA Times Reg Req)

Mexico Nixes Border Maps For Migrants

Harper Rebukes U.S. Envoy Over Arctic Dispute (The More Things Change, The More Things Stay The Same Up In Canuckistan)

Democatic Sen. Johnson to Back Alito

John Kerry Calls For A Filibuster Of Alito From Switzerland

Bush Sees No Need For Law To Approve Eavesdropping (Free New York Times Reg Req)

CBS News/New York Times Poll: Bush Approval 42%

The Olathe City Council On Tuesday Started The Eminent Domain Process To Acquire The Butternut Bread Building Owned By Councilman Bob Montgomery

A Gubernatorial Candidate Challenging Pro Football Hall Of Famer Lynn Swann In The Republican Primary Fired His Campaign Manager After The Man Told A Televised Call-In Show: "The Rich White Guy In This Campaign Is Lynn Swann."

Vt. Judge Increases Child Molester's Penalty

The New York Daily News: Palestinian Vote Is Suicide Pact

David Limbaugh: Enough With The Distortions

Mark Tooley: Episcopalians Gone Wild

Bernard Chapin: The Radical Feminist Plague

Dog Accidentally Strangles Little Girl

Video: Ultimate Showdown

7 Minute Funny Video: Stevens Vs. Byrd -- A Coot-Off

Website Of The Day: Conservababes: Right from New Fallujah

Todai is Q&A Friday #32 at RWN.

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

So ask away!

Please Link To My Lame New Blog: I get emails all the time asking me to take a look at people's new blogs -- and I do. There are plenty of "websites of the day" that have come as a result of those emails. But, you know what I really hate, so much so that it's practically a pet peeve? Getting an email asking me to look at a piece-of-crap blog that either has 2-3 posts on it a few days apart or one that doesn't even have all the links working yet. If you want me to link your site, at least you could do me the courtesy of having it finished and putting up a few days worth of posts first. After all, the point isn't to get people to look at your blog, it's getting people to look at your blog and decide there's something worth coming back for.

The Same Old, Same Old: There are already plenty of generic conservative bloggers out there and since they got into the blogosphere first, you're probably not going to ever top them in traffic. That's why new bloggers should strive to be unique in some way. If you can't answer the question, "What do I do differently or better than almost everyone else on my side of the blogosphere," then you should come up with an answer to that question or just accept that blogging probably isn't for you.

Thin Skin: I've seen more than a few promising bloggers or bloggerettes work themselves up into a tizzy over hate mail or harsh words in their comments sections. I've even seen bloggers quit because they couldn't take the abuse.

That's too bad, but it's also what the internet is like. People are partisan, they can remain anonymous, and their noses are well out of distance of your fist. Because of that, they tend to be several orders of magnitude ruder than most people are in real life. If you can't learn to just let it all roll off your back, you won't last.

Getting Bogged Down In The Little Things: There's nothing wrong with answering a lot of email, doing podcasts, spending time in your comments section, etc. But remember, if you only have so many hours a day to write, then you should be writing for the biggest audience possible. That "biggest audience" isn't the single person you're responding to in an email or the tiny subsets of your audience that read the comments section or listen to a podcast, it's the people who read your blog. The more time you spend sweating the small stuff (email, comments, podcasts), the less time you have for what's really important (your blog posts).

Link Spamming: If you do an exceptional post, there's nothing wrong with sending out a promo email to other bloggers about it. But see -- there were some key words in there -- "an exceptional post." Please don't send out an email on a blase post that you spent five minutes on. Worse yet, don't send out an email on a blase post that you spent five minutes on 3 or 4 times a week. Most bloggers get enough junk mail as it is.

You Just Don't Post Enough: For 90% of the people in the blogosphere, even those with real talent and potential to get big, this is the biggest problem they have. They just don't pump out enough content. How much content is enough? Well, here's a word and post count from five successful bloggers (including RWN) for yesterday:

Instapundit: 19 Posts & 1057 words
Right Wing News: 6 Posts & 2496 words
Michelle Malkin: 7 Posts & 2419 words
Captain's Quarters 4 Posts & 1861 words
Polipundit: 18 Posts & 3698 words

Your fault, your job's fault, whatever the reason, if you're not doing this kind of work day in and day out, your blog probably isn't ever going to take off.

*** Update #1 *** Just to clear something up.

A few bloggers in the comments section seemed to be a bit offended by this piece, mainly because they say their goal really isn't to get traffic. Well, they shouldn't be offended, because this is a post aimed at the vast majority of bloggers who want to build an audience. If you're one of the rare breed of bloggers who couldn't care less whether 5 or 5000 people read your blog, then don't sweat it, because this piece isn't meant for you. If you enjoy blogging for therapeutic reasons, to pass the time, for a close circle of friends, etc, etc, have a good time and feel free to completely ignore this post.

Back when John McCain betrayed his party to form the Gang of Fourteen, the seven Democrat Gang members pledged not to filibuster judicial nominees, except under “extraordinary circumstances.”

But Democrats’ promises aren’t worth the ink they’re written with; so we have to take a headcount to see how many Democrats really won’t filibuster.

Assuming all 55 Republican senators vote for cloture, breaking a filibuster still requires the votes of five Democrats. Currently, there are three Democrat senators who have already declared that they will not support a filibuster - Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Mary Landrieu (D-LA). If two more Democrats join them, liberals can finally give up banging their heads against the wall to stop Judge Alito from becoming Justice Alito. It may drive them to drink (or, in Barbara Boxer’s case, Haagen-Dazs.) But it will do wonders for their sanity.

UPDATE: Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO), another member of the Gang, has decided to keep his promise. Just one more vote is needed to rule out the possibility of a filibuster.

UPDATE 2: And we have it, thanks to Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), who probably doesn’t want to be Daschled.

This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.

From a New York Times editorial on Alito

"Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.

...A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court."

Here's a reality check for the liberals at the New York Times and their counterparts in the blogosphere.

Whether you like it or not, Presidents get to select judges and even liberals should be willing to admit that George openly promised in 2000 and 2004 to appoint judges exactly like Samuel Alito.

Before Alito was sent up to the Senate, even some Republicans did not understand that he was predestined to be confirmed. However, with 55 Republicans in the Senate, a GOP base that was (and still is) rabid about judges, and 50 votes needed to confirm and/or pull the trigger on the nuclear option, the Democrats' only chance was to turn the American people against Alito -- and that was a tall order.

Not only had Alito been vetted to make sure he didn't have any skeletons in his closet, there were a number of other factors that kept the Democratic campaign from getting any traction. The American people aren't that interested in judicial apointments, they give the President a great deal of leeway in his selections, the conservative media and interest groups fought for Alito, the Ginsburg standard meant Alito didn't have to talk much about anything of substance, and most importantly, liberals have been, "crying wolf," since George Bush got into office, so why should the public believe them now when they claim Alito is such a rotten guy?

That's why Alito is going to be confirmed and it's why if another justice retires during Bush's term, he'll be able to appoint another textualist -- just like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas -- to the court in his/her place.

So, get used to the idea, you libs...

One of Senator Tom Coburn's people sent me an email letting me know that the following "letter from Senators Coburn and McCain was hand-delivered yesterday to the office of each United States Senator.

In short, Senators McCain and Coburn announced their commitment to challenge each and every earmark on the floor of the Senate. In addition to challenging each and every pork project, Senators Coburn and McCain will also oppose the inclusion in conference reports of any earmarks that did not pass either the House or Senate."

Here's the letter in its entirety:

Dear Senator __________,

As you know, the American people are currently engaged in a vigorous debate about our country’s spending priorities. Many are openly discussing the propriety of earmarks and legislative policy provisions inserted into appropriations bills at the direction of individual lawmakers. We believe that the process of earmarking undermines the confidence of the American public in Congress because the practice is not open, fair, or competitive and tends to reward the politically well-connected.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the number of earmarks has skyrocketed over the past decade, from 4,126 in 1994 to 15,268 in 2005. We are committed to doing all we can to halt this egregious earmarking practice and plan to challenge future legislative earmarks that come to the Senate floor. This will give all Senators the opportunity to learn the merits of proposed earmarked projects and affirm or reject them. Even though votes on earmarks will undoubtedly be quite time-consuming, we sincerely believe that American taxpayers are entitled to a more thorough debate and disclosure about how their money is being spent.

We also believe that it is wrong to violate Senate Rules by inserting new provisions that are not included in either a Senate or House bill into conference reports at the last minute. The unsavory practice of inserting such provisions at the last minute stifles debate and empowers well-heeled lobbyists at the expense of those who cannot afford access to power. Decisions about how taxpayer dollars are spent should not be made in the dark, behind closed doors. Therefore, we also plan to challenge future violations of Senate Rules, and, as necessary, we will offer proposals to strengthen current Senate Rules in order to increase transparency and accountability in the expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

While we know that this course of action may not be popular in Washington, D.C., we believe that it is the right thing to do. We look forward to working with you over the next year, and we hope that you will join us in a spirited debate about the direction of our country.

Earmarks are a plague on the budgeting process and quite frankly, the rules of the US Congress should be written to put an end to the practice. But, in the interim, challenging "each and every earmark on the floor of the Senate" is a great idea, even if that grandstanding blowhard John McCain is involved, and it would be fantastic if more Republicans (and even Democratic Senators if they're so inclined) publicly stood with McCain and Coburn on this.

What they're doing here is important, it will take a bite out of spending, and they should be applauded for their efforts.

It's a shame that people in Evergreen Park, Illinois just haven't received the message about how overwhelmingly evil Wal-Mart is and how working there is really a form of slave labor.

The new Wal-Mart Stores Inc. location opening Friday in suburban Evergreen Park received a record 25,000 applications for 325 positions, the highest for any one location in the retailer’s history, a company official says.

Despite the fact the company says these numbers underscore demand for Wal—Mart jobs in the community, critics wonder how many of these positions are lower—paying part—time work.

So what if many of these positions are part-time work? Maybe people would like those jobs. Maybe they're mothers or senior citizens who don't want to work full time. Maybe they're students who want to work after school. Why don't we grant these people the respect to expect that they know if they want these jobs and if the jobs fit their working needs?

It's clear that Wal-Mart haters have their standard criticisms to make whenever they're approached by a reporter and that facts don't really matter to them. So, they'll just cast aspersions without any basis.

“We just think them coming out and telling the press that they have 25,000 applications is disingenuous,” says Tim Drea, legislative director for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881. “I think it’s a PR stunt.”

Mr. Drea says he’d like to see the applications himself before putting faith in that number.

Plus, he says overall he worries that the store will hire more part-time workers rather than full-time employees with benefits.

“Wal-Mart is lowering the bar in retail from what wages once were,” he said.

Does he really think that Wal-Mart, knowing that the jackals are circling around everything they do would risk putting out a fraudulent announcement of how many people applied for a job? And, of course, the allegations that they're hiring more part-time workers just happens not to be true.

He [the Wal-Mart manager in the Chicago area] said the 325 jobs include cashier, stocking, sales and back office positions. The average pay for non-management full-time positions is $10.99 an hour.

Wal-Mart said more than 70% of the new positions will be full-time.

So, what the union spokesman is reduced to claiming is that Wal-Mart is planning some time in the future to change these full-time jobs over to part-time jobs and the unions are on to this nefarious plan.

But, go back to that original statistic: "25,000 applications for 325 positions." That means that only 1.3% of the applicants will get jobs. Applicants have a better chance of getting into Harvard (10.3% admission rate in 2004) or Yale (9.9% admission rate in 2004) than you do of getting a job at this Wal-Mart store. Ponder that.

This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.

If you're interested in being a moderator on RWN, please leave a comment here or shoot me an email. Only long time posters on RWN or people that I've had contact with before will be considered.

I'll probably add 4-5 moderators and although there isn't any pay, there won't be much to do either. Your only job will be to delete offensive posts and then, if you think someone merits it, suggest them to me for banning.

Hope to hear from a few of you soon.

Palestinian Government Resigns In Wake Of Hamas Win. Hamas Appears To Have Won Elections

Iran: We'll Put Israel In 'Eternal Coma' (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

A Texas Border Sheriff Yesterday Demanded That The U.S. And Mexican Governments Investigate Incursions Into The United States By Heavily Armed Drug Escorts Dressed In Mexican Military Uniforms "Before Someone Gets Killed."

A Mexican Government Agency Is To Issue Some 70,000 Maps Marking Main Roads And Water Tanks For People Wanting To Cross Illegally Into The US (Outrageous)

Rumsfeld Says Military Not Overextended

Bush, Visiting NSA, Defends Surveillance

A Last-Minute Decision By The U.S. Supreme Court To Stop The Execution Of A Florida Inmate Could Temporarily Halt Lethal Injections Throughout The Country Until April (Ludicrous)

Shadegg Wins Key Backing To Succeed DeLay

Democrats In MD. Try To Limit Fallout Of Gay Union Case (Free Wapo Reg Req)

Utah's Republican Senators Trying To Pass Legislation That Would Allow Legislators To Pick Senate Candidates, As Long As The Political Parties Agreed (Dumb And Arrogant)

Ann Coulter: Abortion Stops A Bleeding Heart

Debbie Schlussel: George Costanza, Brad Pitt Team W/ Islamic Terrorist

Larry Elder: Iran -- A Ticking Nuclear Bomb

Josh Gerstein: Democrats Are Worrying Over Clinton In 2008

James Lileks: Simple Rules For Making A Fool Of Yourself On The Internet

Victor Davis Hanson: Deconstructing Bin Laden

Walter Perry Johnson Award: Blogs Most Deserving Of Wider Recognition

As Reynolds Explains Decision Not To Host Comments, Reuters* Provides Case In Point

25 Ways To Ignore Joel Stein And Support Our Troops

Fairies Stop Developers' Bulldozers In Their Tracks

Website Of The Day: Villainous Company

"The way they talk about Hillary -- you'd almost think she was destined to be President. The mainstream press dotes on her, Republicans fear her, and any cleverly crafted poll that makes her look good gets press for days.

However, she has a critical flaw that certainly makes me unlikely to support her candidacy were I a Democrat: her poll numbers stink.

...Hillary isn't another Dukakis or Mondale, but she's not looking like a particularly good candidate either at this point." -- John Hawkins on June 7, 2005

"Hillary is widely assumed to be the Democrats "chosen one" for 2008, a candidate who will easily take the nomination and will be a tough opponent Republicans will be lucky to beat. But, as the days have worn on, I have become convinced that she is a significantly weaker candidate than most think. In fact, not only would I go so far as to say that she probably won't beat a moderate to strong GOP candidate in 2008, but I'm becoming less and less sure she will even be the nominee for the Democrats." -- John Hawkins on Nov 22, 2005

From Newsmax:

"By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would "definitely" vote against Hillary Clinton for president, a CNN/Gallup poll released Tuesday has found.

While just 16 percent say they had made up their minds to back Clinton when she seeks the presidency in 2008, 51 percent say there's no way they want to see the former first lady back in the White House.

Men are the most vehement when it comes to the prospect of another Clinton presidency, with 60 percent telling Gallup they would vote against Hillary for sure."

Given that Hillary is already well known to most of the American people, those are just atrocious numbers. In fact, I'm almost to the point now where I'm rooting for Hillary to be the Democrats' candidate in 2008 almost as strongly as I was rooting for Howard Dean in 2004.

But, some of the Democrats are already starting to have second thoughts about her and if her "Joementum" keeps going the way it is now, the Democrats may wise up and abandon her in droves at crunch time just like they did to ole, "Mad How." Time will tell....

Over at the Democratic Underground, there's an eye catching thread called Is America even worth saving?

On the upside, apparently even the majority of the people at the DU aren't so far gone that they agree that the world would be a better place without America in it. On the other hand, there was a significant minority that...well, I think the posts speak for themselves.

Starting with the original post:

mikelewis: Is America even worth saving? The world economy is struggling back on its feet after a century of war both hot and cold and we are now drowning in debt. Our products are too expensive for world consumption and our people are too ignorant and divided to lead in the new world economy. The only thing we really have left to protect our place in the world is the reliance on the dollar and an indestructible army, both of which are becoming less reliable and less indestructible everyday.

Our Constitution is not only openly ignored by our own President but it has been usurped by millions of sub-laws and statutes. The average American person probably violates at least 1 law a day and We hardly have to leave our homes to do so. Our sense of morality is so twisted that even our spiritual leaders are nothing more than two-bit con-men.

Our addiction to oil has turned us into junkies. Our addiction to television has turned us into zombies. Our addiction to fear has turned us into slaves. So is America even worth saving? Wouldn't it be better to let her die than to continue to be some grotesque malignancy on the world? Is it even realistic to believe we can fix a country so broken and depraved?

PVK: We should start over. It obviously is a huge failure.

greyhound1966: Look out your window... see? There it is...the lifeless carcass covered in vultures...America 'died' in the 80's after suffering a long illness, resurrected as amerika by the ignorant, the short-sighted, the greedy, the evil.

Hardrada: What's one "superpower" more or less in the greater flow of human history. Who misses the Russian and Ottoman empires, for instance? Or The French or British? Maybe we have to devolve into smaller states like what might happen with Iraq. I think many of us in the UPPER Midwest would be glad to severe connections with Jesusland.

Ksec: These idiots voted the disaster in. They look past his torture, spying on us, saying outsourcing is good for Americans, cheating on everything he does, backroom deals with corporate powers , etc.

Are the people who say this is fine worth saving? I say no.

mike_c: you know mike, the more I learn about recent American history...and by that I mean post-WWII history, the more I find myself asking the same question. The moral bankruptcy of America did not begin on January 20, 2001. It got worse then, but America has been an imperial power since the 1960s, at least. It has been ruled by greed throughout that time-- its political history is largely the history of greedy exploitation of the rest of the world. Ordinary Americans are notably ignorant about the rest of the world, yet they depend on global exploitation of cheap labor, cheap food, cheap energy, cheap plastic crap, and the cheap lives of poor brown people to a remarkable degree, and even more remarkable, the rest of world has born them upon its bent backs for generations. There's not a whole lot to be proud of in American foreign policy since the end of WWII. At home the democratic republic has gradually been eroded by corporate greed, making America a rich nation with a high infant mortality rate, one of the most advanced medical technologies in the world, but one that many citizens do not have affordable access to, and so on. Our worship of the worst excesses of capitalism, just because they're "not socialist," makes the rich richer and the poor more destitute every year.

Anyone who thinks these problems originated during the last five years hasn't been paying attention. Every American administration since Roosevelt has contributed toward the demise of the Republic, IMO, regardless of political affiliation. The best that can be said about the democrats is that they haven't been as bad as the republicans, generally. That's not a ringing endorsement.

The more I learn about the America I've lived in for the last 50 years, the less pride I have in my country.

MN ChimpH8R: Well said, mike_c. America's imperial ambitions go all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt. The only countries in the world worth emulating are the Scandinavian countries - yes, there can be a successful welfare state - but Americans are, as a whole, so addicted to cheap oil, being told what to think, mindless consumerism and being oblivious to the world that they will tolerate any government policies that maintain the status quo. The American populace is, collecitvely, possessed of the mentality of a selfish 4-year-old.

Zech Marquis: this isn't America anymore same place, but the people are so much indifferent to what's realy going on--for me I think I'll probably say farewell to Jesusland and relocate to Europe or Japan.

chimpymustgo: It's not just the last 50 years - America has been f*cked up since Day 1. Sure, it was founded on some lofty principles and noble ideas, but we had to MURDER the indigenous people here so set up our little "democratic republic", then we built it on the backs of ENSLAVED human beings.

The 20th Century began our terrorization of the rest of the world. And here at home, the elites have the money, the power, the VOTING MACHINES. The Presidency, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, the Media, the new Patriot Act.

What is left to save? And just exactly how do you do it?

Over at TCS daily, Glenn Reynolds is expounding on the wonders of podcasting:

"If the past few years have been the Years of the Blogs, this year is shaping up to be the Year of the Podcast, as I sort of predicted last year.

Sure, podcasts have been around for a while. (I even experimented with a sort of proto-podcast some years ago, but gave it up as not ready for primetime yet.) But the development of RSS (which makes it easy to subscribe to podcasts in an automated fashion), and, most importantly, Apple's decision to support audio and video podcasts with its iTunes software, has led the field to explode, and I've started up again with more success -- you can see an archive of recent efforts here."

While that sounds pretty optimistic, Reynolds didn't go whole hog and predict podcasting would replace talk radio or anything -- which is good, because podcasting just isn't ready for prime time yet.

The big problem is that, as of yet, no one has figured out how to build an audience for podcasting. Sure, there are some bloggers out there, like Reynolds, like IMAO, that do podcasts (I've heard one of the IMAO podcasts and thought it was pretty good, too).

However, their audiences for those podcasts surely can't be anything more than a fraction of their blogging audiences, which, since this is an alternative medium, are small compared to the mainstream media.

So, numbers wise, these podcasts are reaching teeny, tiny audiences and if they were actually able to somehow pull significant audiences, they'd be almost guaranteed to move over to radio. That's because as Reynolds said in the article:

"Of course, for podcasts to really take off -- and threaten talk radio -- people will have to figure out ways to count them accurately (not there yet) and to sell advertisements (not there yet, either)."

Certainly podcasting isn't ever going to reach a critical mass with no money involved & no way of counting traffic.

Furthermore, since you have so many local markets, all featuring enormous numbers of stations with airtime to fill, the barriers to entry aren't as high as they are in the media. That means a popular podcaster would be much more likely to be picked up by a radio station than a successful blogger would be of being hired by CNN, Fox, or even National Review. Again, that's another factor that will likely retard the growth of podcasting.

The point of all this isn't that political podcasting can never work, because it may -- many years down the road. The point is that podcasting for the next few years probably isn't going to be much more than a vanity project or a way to make a demo tape to pitch to a talk radio station. Bloggers should be well aware of that before they start buying equipment and taking time away from building their audiences to prep a show for a much smaller audience than they already have.

Jerry Bowyer of NRO compares the cost of the Iraq war to date with this handy chart of the costs of America's previous wars as a percent of GDP.

The chart was prepared by Robert Whaples, professor of economics at Wake Forest University. Bowyer then calculates the cost of the Iraq war as a percentage of America's GDP and finds it to be the second cheapest war we've ever fought -- 2% GDP cost-to-date versus 1% GDP for the 1st Iraq war. You remember that one - the one we didn't finish.

This content was used with the permission of Mark in Mexico.

"It's not that the Democrats aren't trying to engage the Republicans on the issue of national security, it is that their positions are so nonsensical that normal people (defined as outside the beltway non-partisan types) just can't make sense of whatever it is the Democrats are talking about.

It's possible that a majority of Americans might actually prefer some of what the Democrats are for... if we could ever figure out what it is they are for.

For example, the Democrats oppose the NSA monitoring programs but want to keep the country vigilent. They criticize the Administration for being mean to terrorist suspects but want the US to be tough against our enemies. They want the United States to act in unison with the 'international community' but don't want to appear as if they're holding the United States hostage to the whims of the corrupt and incompetent Kofi Annans of the world.... again, whatever that means. They complain about Bush acting unilaterally, except when they complain about Bush acting in unison with other countries. They complain when Bush takes the lead, but also complain when Bush takes a back seat and lets others take the lead. They complain they were lied to in order to gain their support for the war but they refuse to say they would have voted against the war. They justify increases in domestic spending by pointing out the money being spent to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan but don't want to appear cheap and unwilling to bear the costs of stabilizing those two countries. And they hate the war but support the troops... whatever that means.

Why should an unaligned voter ever vote Democratic when the voter would have no idea what he'd be getting in return?" -- Steve at ThoughtsOnline

US Iraq Force At 136,000, Lowest Since Last Summer

Palestinians Begin Voting; Security Tight

Canada's Conservatives Back After Decade In Cold

Iraqi Insurgents Unite Against Al-Qa'ida

Men In Apparent Mexican Army Uniforms Confront Texas Lawmen

Cubans Protest U.S. Ticker Flashing Anti-Castro Messages (Applause)

Cindy Sheehan On Venezuela's Anti-American President Hugo Chavez: "I Admire Him For His Resolve Against My Government And Its Meddling."

Alito Clears The Senate Judiciary Committee On A Party Line Vote

Alito Has Enough Support for Confirmation

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Has $25 Million In The Bank And Raised $44 Million In 2005. The National Republican Senatorial Committee Has $10.5 Million In The Bank After Raising $35.5 Million Last Year

Insight Mag.: Bush Impeachment Probe Possible

2005 Was Warmest Year On Record: NASA

Ted K. Camp Denies ‘Love Child’s’ E-Mail Confession

Jane Galt: Healthcare Savings Accounts

Mark Steyn: The Celtic Canary In The UK's Coal Mine

Dick Meyer: Dems In '06 Need To Face The Facts

Jeff Jacoby: Don't Go Wobbly On Iran

The World’s 10 Worst Dictators

NBC Cancels "The Book of Daniel"

Kayne West Poses As Jesus for Rolling Stone. Admits Porn Addiction

Website Of The Day: Newsbump

From Joel Stein in the LA Times:

"I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

...But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition.

...But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam."

Stein's sentiments may be reprehensible, but they're also honest unlike those of so many other liberals who don't have the stomach to fight the war on terrorism.

The truth is that a lot (but, not all) of the people on the left, have a deep antipathy towards the military that they refuse to reveal because it's considered politically taboo, particularly after the way many liberals behaved after Vietnam.

So, they nibble around the issue without coming out and saying it. Hollywood makes movies that portray members of the military in the worse light possible. The media reveals secret plans that may put the troops' lives in danger and hypes things like Abu Ghraib far out of proportion to their importance. Lefties protest military recruiters. We hear liberals comparing Bush to Hitler and comparing our actions to those of Al-Qaeda, which makes the troops what? Nazis? Terrorists?

But, of course, they never carry their arguments to their logical conclusions and admit that they don't support the troops. Joel Stein did and unlike many of his compatriots on the left, that at least makes him intellectually consistent.

It's bad enough that Brokeback Mountain has been relentlessly overhyped like no movie in recent memory, so much so that even George Bush is getting questioned about it.

But, last night, I actually had someone, who was completely puzzled, say to me that she'd been watching the coverage of Brokeback Mountain and didn't understand how it could be such an enormous blockbuster hit. Maybe that's a small thing, but for me, it was the last straw.

Let me interject a little reality into the tsunami of ballyhoo that surrounds Brokeback Mountain. Let me take just a moment to counter the overbearing wave of condescending media hucksters and Hollywood high pressure salesmen that have almost been berating the public into watching this film.

First of all, Brokeback Mountain isn't even close to a mega-hit. In fact, numerous movies that are considered mediocrities are topping it at the box office. If you look at the top 50 grossing movies in the theaters right now, here's where Brokeback Mountain, which has been out 9 weeks now, ranks in total gross:

1) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: $285.5M
2) The Chronicles of Narnia: $271.9 M
3) King Kong: $209.9M
4) Polar Express: $173.6M
5) Chicken Little: $133.4M
6) Walk the Line: $102.1M
7) Fun with Dick and Jane: $101.4M
8) Flightplan: $89.5M
9) Cheaper by The Dozen 2: $78.1M
10) The Family Stone: $58.6
11) Yours, Mine, & Ours: $52.6
12) Memoirs of a Geisha: $51.2M
13) Syriana: $45.4M
14) Hostel: $42.7M
15) Brokeback Mountain: $42.1 M

Wow. It even lost to Cheaper by the Dozen 2 which featured a dog attacking Steve Martin's crotch in the promos. That is impressive. On the other hand, forty million dollars is a lot of dough for a movie about gay cowboys / sheep herders. I mean, you should be able to make a movie like that for about $2000 bucks. What do you need a lot of cash for? Cowboy hats? Chaps? Sheep? Still, given that Brokeback Mountain got 10 times more free publicity than even the most successful movies on this list, the fact that it's in 15th place is stunningly unimpressive.

For that matter, so are all the Golden Globes that it won because let's face it, it didn't win 4 Golden Globe prizes because it's a good movie, it won 4 Golden Globes because it's about gay cowboys. And Hollywood thinks more prudish, conservative Americans should be exposed to movies featuring gay cowboys, so they're using the awards to send a message. They do this same thing every year. This year it's gay cowboys, next year it'll be handicapped lesbian Eskimos, and two years from now it'll be Latino union activists fighting Republicans to save the rainforest.

So, if the movie can't be all that good, who's going to see it?

Gay men, women who want to see a movie about relationships, men who want to prove they're not homophobic, guys who got tricked by the hype, and the same sort of people who go to art galleries, look at a pile of crap that looks like a construction accident, and pretentiously rave about the symmetry and use of color because they think it makes them sound sophisticated.

After all, why would a normal man want to go see this film? Men don't even want to go see relationship movies that feature men and women, so why would they want to see a movie about two gay cowboys hopping in the saddle together?

Maybe if the gay cowboys were secretly ninjas sworn to avenge their masters or kill crazy ex-seals out to stop a team of Al-Qaeda terrorists from blowing up school buses full of kids, it might be a movie that could appeal to most guys -- assuming they didn't get all touchy-feely and start grabbing each other like the Hobbits did at the end of "Return of the King."

Whatever the case may be, if people watched the movie and enjoyed it, fantastic, more power to them. But, understand that it's not a classic, it's not a must-see movie, it's just another film that will fade into semi-obscurity like all other lefty cause du jour movies that were promoted before it. The sooner, the better as far as I'm concerned.

Over at the Young America's Foundation, they're selling Ann Coulter posters:

That's not just a splendid picture, it's a splendid idea -- except -- they're thinking too small. What we actually need is a -- let's call it a Conservababe calender. May I make some suggestions? Why, of course I can (and yes, each link goes to a pic)!

January: The Bush Twins
February: Pam from Atlas Shrugs
March: Laura Ingraham
April: Moxie
May: Dr. Helen
June: Tammy Bruce
July: Michelle Malkin
August: Namrata Singh Gujral
September: Emma Caufield
October: Laurie Dhue
November: Ann Coulter
December: Erika Harold

Now that's a calender any Republican man would be proud to have on his wall!

William Rivers Pitt, one of the favorite liberal loonies of the Democratic Underground crowd, has a great -- if by great, you mean cracked -- ideas for the Democrats:

I have a wild and crazy idea.

George W. Bush's delivery of the State of the Union address will take place on Tuesday, January 31, a little more than a week from now. It is my strong belief that every single Democrat present in the House chamber for the speech should, at a predetermined moment, stand up and walk out. No yelling. No heated words. Every Democrat should simply stand silently and leave.

Crazy, I know. Crazy, and possibly the best idea ever put before a body of Democrats since the New Deal.

See, that's what's wrong with the Democratic Party in a nutshell.

They're losing election after election, not just because they're largely bereft of appealing policies that will win over the American people and because they're so weak and vacillating on national security, but because of wild eyed fanatics like -- well -- William Rivers Pitt.

Meanwhile, Pitt thinks a political stunt, which is the equivalent to a bunch of third graders turning their desks around when a teacher walks out of the room is the greatest idea since the New Deal -- and believe it or not, he's probably closer to the political mainsteam in the Democratic Party than Senators like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson who're roundly despised by much of the Democratic party for not being complete frothing-at-the-mouth libs like Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy.

Here's a "wild and crazy idea" I'd like to share with the Democrats: move your party back to the right, come up with your own contract with America, that's full of specific policy proposals, not vague generalities, and start treating the kooks in your party like --- well -- kooks, instead of rock stars. That'll do more for the Democratic Party than a couple of dozen political stunts.

9) Family Guy
8) Twilight Zone (Originals
7) Sealab 2021
6) Supernatural
5) Surface
4) CSI
3) South Park
2) 24
1) House

* I'm considering adding Battlestar Galactica to the rotation. Is it any good?

Canadians Awarded Conservative Leader Stephen Harper With A Minority Government Monday, Putting An End To More Than 12 Years Of Liberal Rule

Bolton: Bush Won't Tolerate Nuclear Iran (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Claim: Israel Has Identified 60 Targets In Iran

Three Iraqis, Two Americans Die In Attacks

John McCain: "We Better Understand The Vulnerabilities That Our Economy, And Our Very Lives, Have When We're Dependent On Iranian Mullahs And Wackos In Venezuela."

Jury Orders Reprimand, No Jail for Soldier Who Accidentally Killed Iraqi General During Questioning

British Agents Caught Red-Handed By Russia

U.S. Navy Seizes Pirate Ship Off Somalia

CNN / USA Today / Gallup Poll: 54% Support Alito's Confirmation. 30% Oppose

Gen. Michael Hayden, The Former NSA Director, On The NSA Surveillance Program: "Had This Program Been In Effect Prior To 9/11, It Is My Professional Judgment That We Would Have Detected Some Of The Al-Qaida Operatives In The United States."

George Bush On NSA Surveillance: "If I Wanted To Break The Law, Why Was I Briefing Congress?"

For The Year Just Passed, The RNC Brought In Nearly $102 Million — Give Or Take A Few Hundred Thousand — And Had $34 Million In The Bank. The Democratic National Committee Raised $51 Million In 2005 But Showed $5.5 Million On Hand At The End Of The Year

Hillary 'Talks' Right, Still Votes Left

An Anti-War Activist Gets Six Months In Federal Prison For Splattering His Blood At A Military Recruiting Station (Applause)

Governor Announces Independent Review Of Poutre Case Aka Schiavo Part 2

Greg Gutfeld: Child Free

David Limbaugh: Alito Is Unacceptably Mainstream

James Lileks: Iraq, Iran And The Undermining Tendencies Of The Left

Brendan Miniter: If President Bush Were Really Abusing Power, He Would Pay A Price

Grotesque Brass Knuckles Implants

How Mainers Greet Troops: Hugs, Fudge And 41 Cellphones

Website Of The Day: The Hill

Hugh Hewitt highlights the wacky comments that Harry Belafonte said on CNN today.

HB: Mr. Blitzer, let me say this to you. Perhaps, just perhaps, if the Jews of Germany and people spoken out much earlier and had resisted the tyranny that was on the horizon, perhaps we would never have had Adolph Hitler and the Gestapo.

Gee, if the Jews had just spoken out against Hitler, none of the Holocaust would have happened? Hasn't this guy ever read anything about World War II and the Holocaust? The first groups of people taken to concentration camps in the 1930s were political opponents of Hitler and those who criticized him. Public criticism of Hitler wouldn't have done anything to stop Hitler. And the implication of Belafonte's remarks is that it is, somehow, the Holcaust happened because the Jews and others simply neglected to speak out.

Belafonte thinks the Homeland Security Department is like the Gestapo.

WB: And you think that what the Department of Homeland Security is doing to some US citizens suspected of terrorism is similar to what the Nazis did to the Jews?

HB: Well, if you are taking people out of the country, and spiriting them someplace else, and they are being tortured, and they are being charged or not being charged so they will know what it is that they have done, it may not have been directly inside the, inside the Deaprtment of Homeland Security, but the pattern, the system, it is what the system does, it is what all thses different divisions have begun to reveal in their collective. I mean, my phones are tapped, my mail can be opened. They don't even need a court warrant to come and do that as we once were required to do.

The guy is delusional. Who are the people who have been spirited out of this country? How does he know that his phone is tapped? How can his mail be opened without a court order? Is he talking to Al Qaeda? Then he doesn't need to worry.

The mere fact that this guy can go on TV and spout this nonsense is proof that he's wrong. Do you think that someone could have gone public with such criticism of Hitler and not have been arrested by the Gestapo? Not only isn't he not arrested, but he wins an award from AARP and gets to be all over the TV. (Though, AARP has issued a press notice that they want to disassociate themselves with some of Belafonte's more asinine statements. The funny thing is that before they gave him that award Belafonte had already made his offensive comments to call Colin Powell a house slave, but that, apparently, wasn't enough to stop them from recognizing him with an award.)

The question is why a respectable journalist like Wolf Blitzer would take the time to interview this guy. I mean, what has he done to rate public attention? The only reason he's getting attention is because he says nutty things. If he were halfway rational, no one would care what he said. Wolf Blitzer should reassess his bookings. And colleges that bring in Belafonte in to make speeches and arouse the Bush-haters should ponder the insult to Holocaust victims of inviting someone who so disparages them by pulling out these comparisons at the drop of a hat.

This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.

Last week, lefties all across the blogosphere got their noses out of joint because Chris Matthews pointed out that Osama Bin Laden, in his last video, sounded like Michael Moore:

"Why is [bin Laden] doing it? Why is he trying to track what he picks up in the internet and from the media as the lingo of the left in America, like Moore? Why would he start to talk like Moore? People misunderstood what I said last night. I think he’s getting some advice from people, he’s getting some lingo, some wordage that he hears working in the United States about this thing for war profiteers and he’s jumping on every opportunity. Is that what you are saying Joe?"

This drove liberals into a frenzy, which is quite ironic given two things.

#1) Bin Laden really did sound like Michael Moore. And John Kerry. And John Murtha. And Ted Kennedy. And Cindy Sheehan, etc., etc., etc. He compared Iraq to Vietnam, claimed our troops were torturers, talked about Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, hawked a left-wing book called, "Rogue State," said Bush didn't have a plan and so on and so on. It's like he spent a few hours reading Michael Moore's website along with the Daily Kos before he gave the speech.

#2) It's amusing that lefties are getting so huffy because Bin Laden's rhetoric was compared to Moore when day in and day out they compare Bush and other Republicans to every nasty, rotten b*stard who ever lived. We're evil, fascists, like serial killers, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Bin Laden, and of course, let's not forget their favorite comparison, the Nazis.

For example, here are the results of a poll question I pulled off of the Democratic Underground earlier today. It's called: Is Mike Malloy over the top when he calls the GOP the American Nazi Party?

No wonder Bin Laden apes the left: they're defeatists who protest almost every security measure Bush pushes -- claim we can't win in Iraq, that our troops are torturers, that the Republicans fighting Al-Qaeda are evil, etc., etc. Quite frankly, Bin Laden really couldn't come up with anything much worse to say about Republicans and the war effort than liberals do on a regular basis, so it's not really surprising that he's copying them.

Maybe, instead of getting angry with Chris Matthews for pointing out that Osama sounds like Michael Moore, liberals should ask themselves why Bin Laden would want to do so.

Right Wing News emailed more than 230 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a ranked list 1-5 of the candidates that they would most like to take the Republican nomination for President in 2008 and the 1-5 candidates they'd least like to see as the Republican nominee in 2008. Representatives from the following 58 blogs responded...

Aaron's CC, Absinthe & Cookies, The American Mind, The Anchoress, AtlanticBlog,
Atlas Shrugs, Backcountry Conservative, La Shawn Barber, The Baseball Crank, Betsy's Page, BlameBush!, Boi From Troy, Byrd Droppings, Commonwealth Conservative, DANEgerus Weblog, Dodgeblogium, Dr. Sanity, Eckernet, Euphoric Reality, Gateway Pundit, GayPatriot, Generation Why?, GOP Vixen, Guardian Watchblog, Hog Haven, The House of Wheels, Hud's Blog-O-Rama, Inside Larry's Head, Iowa Voice, The Jawa Report, ~Jewels~of~the~Jungle~, Jihad Watch, JunkYardBlog, The Key Monk, Knowledge Is Power, Multiple Mentality, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Newmark's Door, A North American Patriot, The Nose On Your Face, The Patriette, The Patriot Blog!, Peaktalk, Damian Penny, The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill, QandO, Red-State, Right Side Redux, Right Wing News, Isaac Schrödinger, Sister Toldjah, Slobokan's Site Of Schtuff, Solomonia, Stop The ACLU, Suitably Flip, Toys in the Attic, WILLisms, Wuzzadem

All participating bloggers were provided with the following list of potential candidates although they were also allowed to select nominees who were not listed...

George Allen: (Senator, Virginia)
Haley Barbour (Governor of Mississippi)
Sam Brownback: (Senator, Kansas)
Jeb Bush: (Governor of Florida)
Dick Cheney: (VP, Wyoming)
Bob Ehrlich: (Governor of Maryland)
Ernie Fletcher: (Governor of Kentucky)
Bill Frist: (Senate Majority Leader, Tennessee)
Newt Gingrich: (Former Speaker of the House, Georgia)
Rudy Giuliani: (Former NYC mayor)
Chuck Hagel: (Senator, Nebraska)
Mike Huckabee (Governor of Arkansas)
John McCain: (Senator, Arizona)
Bill Owens: (Governor of Colorado)
George Pataki: (Governor of New York)
Tim Pawlenty: (Governor, Minnesota)
Condoleeza Rice: (Secretary of State, California)
Tom Ridge: (Former Homeland Security Advisor, Former Pennsylvania Governor)
Mitt Romney: (Massachusetts Governor)
Mark Sanford: (South Carolina Governor)
Tom Tancredo: (Congressman, Colorado)

As I mentioned earlier, the bloggers were allowed to make 1-5 ranked selections. Those selections were weighted as follows...

1) Worth 2 points
2 or 3) Worth 1.5 points
4 or 5) Worth 1 point

So, for example, a candidate who received two first place votes (4 points), a third place vote (1.5 points), & and three fifth place votes (3 points), would receive a grand total of 8.5 points.

Also, keep in mind that the scoring cut-off to be included in the lists below was 5 points. If a candidate received less than that, his/her score was not listed.

Here are the selections that were made with the total number of points each candidate tallied following his/her name in parentheses...

Most Desired Nominee For 2008

15) George Pataki (5.5)
15) Mike Huckabee (5.5)
15) Sam Brownback (5.5)
14) Bill Frist (6.0)
13) Bob Ehrlich (7.5)
11) Tim Pawlenty (10.5)
11) Haley Barbour (10.5)
10) John McCain (13.0)
9) Mark Sanford (13.5)
8) Jeb Bush (19.0)
7) Tom Tancredo (19.5)
6) Mitt Romney (24.5)
5) Dick Cheney (26.0)
4) Newt Gingrich (32.0)
3) George Allen (42.0)
2) Rudy Giuliani (58.0)
1) Condoleeza Rice (65.5)

Least Desired Nominee For 2008

14) Rick Santorum (6.5)
12) Tom Tancredo (7.5)
12) Tom DeLay (7.5)
11) Condoleeza Rice (8.5)
10) Tom Ridge (15.0)
9) Newt Gingrich (15.5)
8) Mitt Romney (16.5)
7) Rudy Giuliani (17.0)
6) Dick Cheney (20.5)
5) Jeb Bush (22.0)
4) George Pataki (33.0)
3) Bill Frist (43.5)
2) Chuck Hagel (55.5)
1) John McCain (74.5)

Also see:

Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Most & Least Desired 2008 Republican Nominee (2005 edition)

Now is the time of year when William Saletan tells us that we should stop arguing about abortion and just keep women from getting pregnant in the first place.

Well, thank you, Dr. Insight. Hey guys--let's stop arguing about the death penalty, and make it so no one ever commits heinous murders!

The insistence that the abortion problem can be remedied with better education would seem to me willfully obtuse, if it weren't obvious that the more ardently pro-choice members of our society need, in a deep down way, to believe that abortion is a necessary response to an unforeseeable misfortune, rather than a form of birth control for the lazy and imprudent.

Which sounds more perjorative than I mean it to. I mean, I'm lazy and imprudent in all sorts of ways--just ask my student loan officer. But even a cursory thought about abortion leads one to the conclusion that inadequate sex education is simply not likely to be a major contributor to the number of abortions in this country.

People who get abortions can be divided into three categories: those who were using birth control perfectly, but had an unforeseeable accident; those who were using birth control imperfectly ("imperfect" use apparently, in many of the statistics collected, includes "oops, we're out of condoms!"), and those who weren't using birth control. The largest group is apparently group number three.

Now, to a certain sort of social analyst, this seems to indicate that these people desperately need education and cheaper birth control. But it seems to me that, outside of a few religious communities where abortion is not likely to be a common practice, there are very, very few people in America, even young ones, who do not know that having unprotected sex gets you pregnant. Whether they have hip, now, "Do what ever you want, but do it safely" sex ed, or mean, puritannical "Good girls don't have sex" abstinence-based education, they are being told exactly what sort of thing can get you pregnant--and in abstinence-based programmes, having the bejeesus scared out of them with scenarios that are possible, but wildly unlikely. If there is a teenager in America who doesn't know that doing that can result in a baby nine months later, then they are being home-schooled by incredibly uptight religious parents, and any resulting pregnancies are Mom's responsibility, not ours.

Even in the depths of the bible belt, teenage boys know what condoms are, and teenage girls have heard of the pill--if not on television, then in the girl's bathroom. Now, one might argue that without good sex ed, teenagers will not be adequately informed about the relative benefits of condoms or the pill. But roughly half the people getting abortions were not using birth control at all. What is better sex ed going to tell them that they don't already know?

Nor do I think that sex ed is likely to remedy what is (I assume) the other major source of unwanted-and-terminated pregnancies: people using their birth control incorrectly. I had (she said modestly) pretty much the finest sex education money can buy. It started in fifth grade and went every year until I was a junior in high school. Yet apparently none of my classmates could remember things like "no, you are not protected for a few months after you stop taking the pill". My classmates avoided pregnancy (to the extent they did) not because they had fabulous sex education, but because they were anxious enough about their futures to use protection each and every time. As far as I have been able to tell from a cursory examination of the literature, abstinence-based education is almost completely ineffective at reducing teen pregnancies, a failure mitigated only by the fact that birth-control based education is also almost completely ineffective at reducing teen pregnancies. Sex education simply is not telling teenagers very many crucial facts that they don't already know.

Better education might prevent some condom failures, if the same kids who forgot the dates of the Civil war three days into summer vacation actually recalled their sex-ed lectures at the moment of truth. But the other common failure--failure to take the pill every day, at the same time--is amply warned against by one's gynecologist. Over and over and over again. Especially if you get your pills at Planned Parenthood, as so many of our uneducated teens do. Still one of the most common ways to get knocked up.

As for the people who get pregnant despite having taken every reasonable precaution--that tiny minority so beloved of Hollywood scriptwriters--education isn't going to help them at all, is it?

Mr Saletan seems to be ignoring a very basic question, implied by his own statement that half of all terminated pregnancies occur in women who weren't using any protection: why are so many people engaging in behaviour that they have been repeatedly told will lead to an unwanted pregnancy? Especially when there are cheap and effective prophylactics at the nearest drugstore? Answer: because it's not very costly to do so.

Abortions are relatively cheap, and relatively painless (or at least, they sound that way if you haven't had one--I don't actually know if they're painful or not), and America's youth, like youth everywhere, are not very good at correctly estimating the future disutility of current actions. This is why smoking continues to be popular. And the back seat of a car is a terrible place to by trying to do an expected value calculation in your head.

Not that I'm advocating making abortion illegal; I'm not. As I've said before, I'm reluctantly pro-choice. But "safe, legal and rare" is like "good, fast, and cheap" -- you have to pick two, because it's not possible to have all three at one time. At least not until we get that perfect birth control that doesn't have to be remembered, doesn't have to be prescribed, doesn't have to be applied, and never lets its user down. And by then we won't have to worry about getting pregnant anyway, because the Trump will have sounded and we'll all be on our way to meet Jesus at the pearly gates.

This content was used with ther permission of Asymmetrical Information.

Madman on Collision Course with Oprah

After a brief mention in his terror tape last week turned a little-known book into an instant best-seller, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden today announced that he was officially launching “Osama’s Book Club.”

Mr. bin Laden’s glancing reference to “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower” immediately sent the book soaring to the top of the best-seller lists, inspiring the world’s most wanted evildoer to form his new club.

Hours after he announced “Osama’s Book Club,” hopeful authors and publishers deluged Mr. bin Laden’s cave with books, hoping to get a blurb or a mention in his next terror tape.

In a new tape released today, Mr. bin Laden revealed his club’s first selections, including several anti-Bush books by filmmaker Michael Moore.

Other choices, however, were more unexpected, such as “Memoirs of a Geisha,” which the terror mastermind called “a sensual feast.”

In addition to his book club, Mr. bin Laden announced plan to launch a new magazine called “O,” which he described as “a magazine for the jihadist lifestyle.”

But Mr. bin Laden’s newest ventures may have put him on a collision course with talk show legend Oprah Winfrey, who said today that she was contemplating filing trademark infringement suits against the al Qaeda madman.

“I’ve studied the bin Laden tape several times and it appears to be authentic,” Ms. Winfrey told reporters. “But then again, I thought James Frey was authentic, too.”

Elsewhere, in NBA action, the New York Knicks lost to the New Orleans Hornets, but trounced several fans at Madison Square Garden.

This satire was used with the permission of The Borowitz Report

Israeli Hints at Preparation to Stop Iran

Joe Lieberman: U.S. Prepared For Iran Strike

Claim: The American Administration Has Promised Israel That The United States Will Not Recognize Any Palestinian Government In Which Hamas Participate

Claim: 6 Iraqi Militant Groups Announced That They Will Unite Their Forces And Join The Rest Of Resident Of Anbar And Salahiddin In Fighting Al-Qeda

Radical Iraqi Cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr Said Sunday That His Mahdi Army Would Help To Defend Iran If It Is Attacked By A Foreign Nation (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Conservative Win In Canada Could Help Repair Ties To U.S. (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Michael Moore Upset That Conservatives Are About To Win In Canada. Sends Annoying Message To Canadians

Rasmussen Poll: Just 15% Of Americans Believe Abramoff Did Anything Different Than What Lobbyists Typically Do. Forty-Seven Percent (47%) Say Abramoff's Actions Were The Norm While 38% Are Not Sure

5 Pics Of Bush With Abramoff At What Appear To Be Presidential Receptions. Over Five Years, Bush Has Posed For Tens Of Thousands Of Such Shots--Many With People He Does Not Know

Group Descending On Justice Souter's N.H. Hometown In Eminent Domain Protest

US Army Prepares To Test Gun That Fires 240,000 Rounds Per Minute

Kay S. Hymowitz: Marriage and Caste

John Fund: How To Cure Pork And How Big Government Produced The Abramoff Scandal.

Mark Steyn: Standing Small Against Iran Won't Work

Karl Rove: The GOP Remains The Party Of Ideas

"Friends" Returns To TV

Syrians Oppose U.S. But Love KFC

Harry Belafonte, One Of The Bush Administration's Harshest Critics, Compared The Homeland Security Department To The Nazi Gestapo

Video: Saturday Night Live Mocks Ray Nagin, Jesse Jackson, And Hillary Clinton

Website Of The Day: Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers