Yes, this country has absorbed huge migrations of illiterate peasants in the past -- notably Italian immigrants at the turn of the last century. But also notably, half of them went back. We got the good ones. America was not yet a welfare state guaranteeing room and board to the luckless, the lazy and the incompetent from cradle to grave. -- Ann Coulter
Paul Weyrich, who is definitely hooked in, has the scoop on a hot rumor floating around Capitol Hill: that John Paul Stevens intends to retire this summer:
"That rumor is that President George W. Bush will have another vacancy on the Supreme Court when the term ends this coming June.
One Senator claims he has specific knowledge that the vacancy is coming. The speculation revolves around 85-year-old Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. Stevens, as the rumor is embellished, supposedly let it be known that he is impressed with the caliber of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., as well as with that of Associate Justice Alito. Stevens supposedly told the White House that even though he is a Rockefeller Republican (he was President Gerald R. Ford’s only Court appointee during the period when Nelson A. Rockefeller was Vice President) he believes the Court would not move radically to the right should he depart."
Weyrich says he doesn't buy this, but he goes on to drop some interesting details about John Kerry's fruitless attempt to filibuster Alito (emphasis mine):
"Look at what happened to Justice Alito. Various Democratic Senators, such as Dianne Feinstein, of California, declared that there was no need for a filibuster. But as soon as Senator John F. Kerry, of Massachusetts, initiated one, she was the first to line up to support it. The same with Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid, of Nevada. He saw no justification for a filibuster on a prominent Sunday Talk show one week and was voting against cloture to support a filibuster the next week. No apology. No explanation. The far left now so controls the Democratic Party that it is in a position to make demands of even its senior Senators.
On the Republican side, Alito lost one, Senator Lincoln D. Chaffee, of Rhode Island. If there is another vacancy, and assuming the President nominates someone who has doubts about Roe v Wade, not only will Chaffee be gone but the Maine twins, Senators Susan M. Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, almost will be lost as well. That would bring the Republican number down to 52.
There always is the possibility, too, that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter, of Pennsylvania, could find fault with the nominee and while he would keep his promise to vote the nominee to the Floor of the Full Senate, he might vote against the nominee there. That would leave Republicans with just 51 votes, 52 if Nelson supported the nominee. A 52-48 confirmation would put that nominee in line with Justice Clarence Thomas, who was confirmed by that margin.
What outsiders who look at voting records don’t comprehend is the piling-on effect. The vote against Kerry’s filibuster appeared overwhelming. My sources tell me that the Caucus came within two votes of finding the 41 votes necessary to sustain a filibuster. A shift of just two votes and Majority Leader Frist would have been looking at deploying the Constitutional Option for Alito rather than for the next nominee. Once it is determined that the vote is going a certain way (in this case they did not have enough votes for a filibuster) then all sorts of Senators who would have supported a filibuster pile on to end debate. So long as they knew the votes for cloture were there they piled on to make themselves look more reasonable. Even the usually accurate talk show host Rush Limbaugh saw that large vote to end the filibuster as a repudiation of Senators Kerry, Kennedy and the others. It was not. It was a bow to reality."
This shows why the Republicans in the Gang of 14 really blew it. Had they voted for the nuclear option, the Democratic threat of the filibuster would have been off the table. But, imagine the situation we could be in if we lose 2-3 seats in November, including guys like Santorum, who were ready to vote for the nuclear option the first time around. Suddenly, the Democrats could be in a position to block conservative nominees to the Supreme Court and the GOP simply may not be able to muster the votes to stop them. And you can be sure of one thing -- if the Democrats come to the conclusion that the GOP can't trigger the nuclear option, they will filibuster again. You can take that to the bank...
Hey, how about clicking on 3 of these ads? Not only does it help me out, it rewards these advertisers for supporting conservative blogs. So, just 3? Please?
The reason these emails, which I've been receiving, have caught my attention is because one of the gimmicks the Democrats are going to be using this year is snapping up every vet they can find and running them in Republican districts.
Of course, almost all of the candidates will lose, but from their perspective, it's still a win/win situation. After all, they were going to lose these districts anyway and by just running all these military candidates, they can hopefully improve their well deserved, "hostile to the military," image. Plus, as an added bonus, the Dems will have a whole new group of "Max Clelands" who can run around claiming the Republicans challenged their patriotism by pointing out that in practice, their views on national defense weren't much different than those of Ted Kennedy or Dennis Kucinich.
Anyway, I called up Eric Schmeltzer over at the Veterans of America Political Action Committee (IAVA PAC) to talk about this. Mr. Schmeltzer was polite and professional in the face of my barrage of accusatory questions, but vehemently denied they were a partisan group, which in my opinion is completely dishonest.
Let me tell you why I say that.
To begin with, it's worth noting that Wesley Clark seems to be a major player in this group. Also, Mr. Schmeltzer confirmed that there are no prominent Republicans working with the group, although he did say they're working on getting one.
Although I was, of course, very skeptical at that point, I figured the proof was in the pudding. That's why, I asked how many Republicans the group was currently backing. Mr. Schmeltzer replied that no candidates had been endorsed yet, although there were currently 9 Democrats and 3 Republicans who could potentially make the cut. Why do I suspect those Republican vets just aren't going to turn out to be IAVA PAC material?
Then there was the next piece of evidence: when you look at IAVA PAC's endorsement criteria, some of them seem non-partisan, but others seem to mirror things called for on the left. For example:
"Demand from the administration a victory strategy for Iraq that includes hard success metrics which trigger American troop drawdowns so our forces can safely re-deploy from theater."
That sounds like a timetable to me. Something the Democrats have demanded and Bush has adamantly refused to give.
"Guaranteeing the exhaustion of diplomacy options by the President prior to approval for military conflict."
Many of us, myself included, would argue that we've done that. Who has been arguing that we haven't? Liberals, who just don't want to go to war, but are afraid they'll sound too dovish if they come right out and say so. Therefore, they take this route so they can claim that they were hawks, too, when the next election rolls around, despite opposing the war.
Then there are all the lefties that are talking about this group. In some places, IAVA PAC is even openly described as an Anti-Bush veterans PAC. Then there are bloggers like Dem Bloggers, Daily Kos, Maxspeak, You Listen! among others talking up IAVA Pac. Trust me, lefty bloggers wouldn't even consider promoting this PAC if they thought there was the slightest chance this group would ever give money to Republicans.
The long and short of it is this: Republicans shouldn't be giving money to the IAVA PAC and quite frankly, if the PAC was more honest they wouldn't even be contacting Republicans. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Political Action Committee can call themselves a non-partisan group all day long, but if they end up doing nothing but funneling money to Democratic candidates, then it's pretty clear that they're not a group conservatives would want to support.
*** Update #1 ***: More about IAVA PAC from The Jawa Report.
Some of them were funny, some of them weren't, but here's my personal fave (My apologies in advance to moderate Muslims who I know will find this offensive, but it's important to support freedom of speech):
Maybe the USA got in late on the whole cartoon controversy and most of the MSM was too wimpy to participate, but at least on the net the images are being regularly shown and judging by this pic, which is better than any of the originals, improved upon.
*** Update #1 ***: From the comments section:
"The fact that John claims to support freedom of speech and yet apologizes to Muslims who might be offended, and his bashing of Ann Coulter, proves to me that John is being pretty hypocritical about all this stuff. Either you support freedom of speech, or you don't." -- SupremeDirector_Neo
There is a reason I apologized in advance to moderate Muslims for posting that cartoon and it's because they're no more wrong to be offended by it than Christians are to be offended by the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung or a crucifix dipped in urine.
That's why, as a general rule, I wouldn't post this cartoon or the Danish cartoons because I do not wish to gratuitously and unnecessarily offend people. If magazines like Rolling Stone, that put Kayne West on the cover as Jesus, had the same attitude, the world would be a better place.
That being said, the point of publishing this photoshop and the Danish cartoons seems to have been lost on some people, who see it as nothing more than a good opportunity to bash Muslims. This isn't about offending Muslims.
The point of publishing these cartoons is to show the Islamo-Fascists that they cannot intimidate the press with threats and violence. It's to make it clear that these thugs that are burning down embassies and promising to behead the infidels are not allowed to tell us what we can and cannot say.
Those who are unable to make that simple distinction, who can't see the obvious difference between suicide bombers and, let's say, the American Muslim who voted for Bush in 2004 or who stands up and condemns Islamic violence at every opportunity, are the sort of people who run around talking about "ragheads" and "camel jockeys" (which, if I may be so frank, makes you wonder what other little offensive nicknames for other groups they like to use in private).
Now, to tell the truth, I really doubt that Ann Coulter is the sort of person who thinks all Muslims are the enemy given that she used to date a Muslim. However, because she chose to be so deliberately & unnecessarily provocative, she comes across that way and furthermore, she encouraged people with that sort of foolish attitude.
Oh, and yeah, it is a very foolish attitude. Our troops are working shoulder to shoulder with Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. In countries like Iran and Kuwait, the populations are very pro-American. There are swelling ranks of pro-American Muslim bloggers out there and more than a few Muslims who've even spoken out against violence and extremism during this cartoon flap, like Ayatollah Sistani to name one.
To lump all these people in together with the Islamo-Fascists like Bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not just offensive, it shows a lack of critical thinking. I know some people don't buy that. They think every Muslim is our enemy. Well hey, even if you believe that, the overwhelming majority of Muslims must not agree since they're not contributing to terrorist groups or blowing themselves up on school buses. Heck, more than a few Muslims seem to be under the impression that they like the United States and would like to live in Democratic societies, just like we do. So how about not shoving all these people into an "enemies group," when they don't even see themselves that way?
Congressman Mike Pence's 2006 CPAC Convention Address
*** Via Patterico's Pontifications, I ran across a speech Mike Pence gave at CPAC. Pence is a real deal fiscal conservatives and if we had a Congress full of guys like him, we'd have a balanced budget today. Furthermore, this speech by Pence? It's magnificent and it deserves to get out to a wider audience. So enjoy! ***
Two years ago, when I presented the keynote address here at CPAC 2004, I likened the state of the Republican movement to a tall ship at sea - a ship that had drifted off-course from essential conservative principles.
I said we had lost our way. But I believed we could get back on course - would get back on course. We could make the corrections. We needed only to keep our eye on True North - our core principles of limited government and traditional moral values.
I believed that we were off course not because we’d abandoned these principles, or forgotten the shining city on the hill. We’d simply made honest, but flawed calculations on how to get there.
I no longer believe that.
It’s one thing to drift off course…
It’s quite another thing to continue that course when half the crew and passengers are pointing out that nothing looks familiar … not to mention the tens of millions of Americans lining the shoreline screaming, “You’re going the wrong way!”
I first started a gaming page back in early 1999, moved on from there to a humor zine in late 1999, and started RWN in early 2001. That was a long time back, huh? But, despite putting in countless hours, the first time I ever made $100 in a month was either late 2003 or early 2004 (My memory is foggy).
Think about that: spending hours per day, day in and day out, even though you don't have all that many people reading you and could be making 10 times more by just flipping burgers at minimum wage. Unless you're a Michelle Malkin or a Hugh Hewitt who has already paid your dues elsewhere, that's likely what you're going to have to endure -- even if you're talented -- to draw eyeballs.
The reason I point that out isn't to discourage people from blogging, it's just to make sure that they understand what it takes to even get up to the level I'm at -- and, if I may be so frank -- I'm still a peon compared to people like Reynolds and Malkin who both literally have audiences more than 10 times bigger than mine.
So, if you've been slogging away for a year or two and still don't have that many readers, it's not because there's a good old boys' club, not because the "A-listers" won't link you, not because of sexism, racism, or any other, "ism," it's because it's hard and it takes a long time, even if you have what it takes to get big. Incidentally, some people don't have what it takes. They can blog for the next hundred years and they'll still be at a few hundred readers, their mom, and whatever traffic Google sends over. That's life.
In any case, just understand that if you don't love blogging so much that you'll happily do it for free, then it's probably not for you. That's because...
#1) The odds are heavily against your building an audience (Look at the number of bloggers out there (27 million blogs created) and the number that have, let's say, 1000 daily readers (probably 1000-2000 across the entire blogosphere -- tech, political, gossip, etc.)
#2) If you don't enjoy blogging so much you'll do it for free, you'll never hang in there long enough to get big and make any money at it.
Is that too blunt for some people? Maybe. But, guess what? Everything I just wrote? I knew it before I ever got started. That's why I figure the least I can do is let new bloggers look at the facts behind the hype around blogging and let them make their own decisions with their eyes wide open.
PS: Let me add one more thing so this post doesn't come off as being too negative: I can't speak for anyone else, but blogging for a living is a lot of fun. It's something I loved doing so much that it became a hobby and I got good enough at my hobby to eke out a living at it.
It's all the sweeter because it was such an uphill climb and because I remember, week after week, putting in 40-50-60 hours when I still had a full-time job. I remember going night after night, getting 4-5 hours sleep, because I had to put in the time on the blog and work. I remember being told, "Gee, if you quit the blog and put in the same hours at a part-time job, you could make a bundle." By the way -- you want to know how many people ever believed I would be doing this for a living in, let's say, 2000? Here's a hint: there was only one and you're reading him right now.
Granted, I'm not making a lot of money -- yet. But, I get up when I want, I go to bed when I want, I write what I want, I don't answer to a boss, and I love what I'm doing so much that I literally hope to keep doing this until I keel over and die at the ripe old age of 118. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to a job, it doesn't get much better than that.
"FISA came into being to regulate peacetime surveillance by the federal government, as an antidote to Nixonian abuses of power that had nothing to do with the conduct of war. In fact, Jimmy Carter's attorney general Griffin Bell made that very argument in promoting the legislation before Congress in 1978, the year after Carter had authorized warrantless surveillance on an American citizen for a simple espionage case involving Vietnam (US v Truong and Humphrey). He told Congress that FISA would not affect the powers of the presidency under the Constitution, and it doesn't, as only a Constitutional amendment can change the enumerated powers.
The authority to conduct wartime surveillance on one's enemy, regardless of whether one terminus of the communication was located in the US, has never been questioned until now. The NSA program used speed as an advantage in tracing and monitoring international calls on phones and from people suspected to have ties to terrorist organizations to uncover the sleeper cells everyone believes still exist in the US. How is that different from listening in on a call from a suspected Nazi agent in Spain to a member of the German-American Bund in 1942? (Is the argument) that FDR would have had to have secured a warrant before monitoring that call to see if the Germans had plans to sabotage American industrial facilities?" -- Ed Morrissey
Believe it or not, the following "personal fundraising" pitch you're about to read actually comes from the Democratic Party's Home Page.
So, get out your wallets and get ready for the....Atheists for Democrats!
"Step up to the plate!
I'm sick of talking about how quickly this country is headed toward a theocracy. I want to do something.
Contributing money to fund Democratic candidates is one of the best ways we can make a difference."
Wow, that's a big surprise, isn't it? Atheists thinking the best thing they can do to help spread atheism is to give money to Democrats?
And oh yeah, we're really headed towards a theocracy. Ya know, any day now we'll be throwing out the Constitution and replacing it with the Bible. In fact, the only thing left to debate at this point is whether to use the Old or New Testament....These people are so paranoid, so out there...
You know, I've always been a big fan of yours. I've read all your books, interviewed you twice (here and here), and quoted and linked your work countless times. Why have I done that? Because you're intelligent, gutsy, and have a knack for saying things other people know are true, but don't have the guts to say.
Unfortunately, you've always had one major flaw: you have the same sort of case of foot-in-mouth disease that people like Pat Robertson and Howard Dean have and regrettably, it seems to have gotten much worse of late.
Maybe in your mind, you think it's not a problem. Maybe you think the people criticizing you are RINO wimps, that liberals get away with saying dumb things all the time, or that being outrageous actually helps you get attention.
But, you need to understand that this is a problem for you because you're becoming a parody of yourself. Instead of being the old Ann, a brilliant, incisive writer who occasionally says controversial things to get a reaction, you're becoming the new Ann, a controversialist who is so absurd that any brilliant things you happen to say get lost in the shuffle.
The CPAC controversy is a perfect example. Here you are at the biggest conservative event of the year, one attended by the Veep himself, and you take the opportunity to talk about, "ragheads," which you must have fully known would make you sound like a grunting neanderthal. You should have apologized for those comments, but unsurprisingly, you didn't know when to quit.
So, in your latest column, the first one you wrote after CPAC, you took the opportunity to talk about, "camel jockeys." What will you be doing for an encore next week? Will you be slurring Muslims again or will you be branching out to different groups? I guess anything goes when your shtick is to be deliberately offensive and then claim people can't take a joke when there are complaints. You know, Ann, that might work -- oh, let's say the first 40 times -- but at some point it starts to get a little old.
That's why you need two things at this point: some of your friends to tell you the truth about how this is going to affect your career if you keep it up and an editor to cut the garbage out of your columns and help you get back on track.
Of course, you're not going to listen to me. But at least do this: go ask some of your famous conservative friends to really, honestly, tell you what they think. Talk to Drudge. Talk to Miguel Estrada. Ask them if they honestly think running around in public calling all Muslims, "ragheads," and, "camel jockeys," is okay. Ask them how appropriate is it to keeping making jokes about having liberal Supreme Court justices killed. Go read some of the other blogs out there, the conservative ones that talked about your CPAC appearance, you know, the sort of people who normally buy your books and link your columns, and see what they had to say. I can assure you that it wasn't pretty.
Take it from a long-time supporter, Ann: your best days are behind you unless you snap out of it and start making some changes.
*** Update #1 ***: Just a few responses to things said in the comments section:
#1) "Which offends me more...a writer calling someone a camel jockey or a Revolutionary Council that chants "Death to America!" whenever they get together to discuss their future plans?" -- MakeYourLivingOnline
Gee, why can't you find them both offensive? Why is it supposed to be either/or? The idea that just because some Muslims do things that are offensive means that anything said about any Muslims is fair game, is asinine.
#2) Ann was dumb to talk about, "ragheads," at CPAC and, "camel jockeys," in her latest column not only because it's offensive, but because it can only detract from the message she is trying to get across. Those words added nothing to what she had to say and were simply a distraction from her message. So, how much sense did it make to use them?
#3) I know a lot of the liberals who frequent RWN mentioned that they liked what I had to say in the comments section. All I can do about that is repeat something Reagan once said: "They endorsed me; I didn't endorse them."
#3) Let me say something that unfortunately, badly needs to be said to a big group of conservatives out there: Muslims are not the enemy. Let me repeat that: Muslims are not the enemy.
When you use terms like, "raghead," and, "camel jockeys," you're not just spitting in the eyes of the sort of human debris that's burning down KFC's in Pakistan and chanting, "Death to America," in Iran, you're hitting our friends and allies, too, and that's wrong.
That would seem to be obvious. After all, we're spending God knows how much blood and treasure to help Iraq and Afghanistan become free countries and we're not doing that because we think they're irredeemable enemies. We're doing it because it's the right thing to do and because we believe that their example will help democracy and freedom spread across the Muslim world. If you really think all Muslims are bad guys, then you should consider that a waste of time.
4) What it all comes down to is that you shouldn't lump in the radical Islamist wackos with the majority of Muslims who don't share their views. The moderate Muslims may not speak up as often as they should, but given how the mainstream media in this country have wimped out on the Danish cartoon controversy, can you blame them? If CNN is too afraid to go up against the radical Islamists, is it any surprise that the average person out in Saudi Arabia or Jordan is scared to publicly say the radicals should go to hell? Keep that in mind because as free speech, democracy, and the rule of law become more common in Muslim countries, you'll see a lot more moderates speaking out.
"We did not reveal all that we have (my emphasis)," Kamel says in the meeting. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."
..., in a 1995 conversation, that would seem to suggest that they had WMDs at the time.
Moreover, they played a clip saying that essentially Iraq had what they needed to rebuild their program in short order. Whether Saddam had WMDs or had gotten rid of them and simply intended to rebuild them at some point in the future, doesn't matter much. Either way, you'd have eventually had an anti-American nutjob, who supports terrorists, with WMDS -- unless he was removed.
On the other hand, Saddam essentially said that Iraq wouldn't launch a terrorist attack at the US, which is more than a little hard to believe after he tried to have Bush 41 assassinated back in 1993.
Ironically, at one point in the tapes, they actually discussed whether to come clean with the UN about what they were doing. The person talking (this wasn't Saddam), said he didn't think that was a good idea. Of course, in retrospect, that seems to have been a very bad piece of advice.
In any case, this didn't add anything to, "the WMDs were sent to Syria," theory that started to gain momentum since Iraqi general Georges Sada made that claim.
Nor did these tapes, at least what they played on Nightline, shed light on one of the most puzzling questions of recent memory: if Iraq actually destroyed their WMDs, why did Saddam refuse to cooperate with UN inspectors, lose countless billions of dollars because of sanctions, and go to war with the United States all over WMDs that no longer existed? Despite everything that's been written about this subject, that's one question that has never been answered to my, or many people's satisfaction, and it's why it is very hard to believe that we know the whole story yet.
*** Update #1 ***:PS: I thought the Nightline interpretation of one part of the tape was incorrect:
"Also at the meeting was Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who said Iraq was being wrongly accused of terrorism. "Sir, the biological is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a bottle of germs and drop it into a water tower and kill 100,000. This is not done by a state. No need to accuse a state. An individual can do it."
Actually, if you look at what he's saying in a little more detail, he's really just making the argument that picking Iraq out of a hat and saying that they might hand WMDs to terrorists is a bad argument, because it could be applied to a lot of people and nations. You could accuse Pakistan or Israel, or anyone who could make WMDs of doing it. That's what he's saying, not that Iraq wouldn't do such a thing.
That becomes more apparent if you look at the full quote:
"Sir, the biological is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a germ bottle and drop it into a septic tank and kill 100,000. This is not done by a state, no need to accuse a state, an individual can do it. Even an American in a house, close to the White House, I mean, they don't have a logical argument."
Given that Iraq has used WMDs against Iran and their own people, the White House was right to be particularly worried about them. That's why Aziz's argument doesn't hold up.
It's sort of like a serial killer getting all huffy because no one wants him to live in their apartment complex. Why, any of these people could theoretically murder someone, so why are they all so nervous about me?
They have good reason, buddy. Just like we had good reason to be worried about Iraq handing off WMDs to terrorists.
This report from USA Today about troop readiness sounds very optimistic:
"The U.S. military says 40% of Iraq's combat battalions are effective enough to have taken the lead role in fighting the insurgency, a key measure for determining when U.S. forces can withdraw.
The U.S. military expects to complete the handover of responsibility to nearly all of Iraq's army by the end of the year, meaning Iraq's military will rely on U.S. troops primarily for logistical support and for providing airstrikes and heavy artillery. The main fighting will be conducted by Iraqis.
"When all Iraqi combat battalions own their own battle space, the map of Iraq will be covered," said Lt. Col. Michael Negard, a military spokesman. Battle space refers to the area of responsibility assigned to a military unit.
Currently, 40 of Iraq's 102 battalions have taken over security in the areas where they operate, Col. James Greer, chief of staff for the U.S. military command responsible for training Iraqi troops, said in an interview."
Folks, if, and it would be a big, "if," the Iraqis were able to take over the day to day policing of Iraq by the end of this year, it would be an enormous step forward. American casualties would plunge, we could bring large numbers of soldiers home, our image in Iraq would improve, and the terrorists would be forced to either give up or aim their attacks almost exclusively at Iraqis, which would make them even more unpopular in Iraq and throughout the Middle-East.
Whether the Iraqis will be as far along by the end of 2006 as they're speculating in this article is hard to say, but either way, time is on our side. Whether it's the end of 2006, mid-2007, or even the end of 2007, victory is almost inevitable at this point as long as the politicians at home don't lose their nerve and keep the troops from finishing the job.
Excerpt Of The Day: Blankley On The Media Meltdown Over Bird Shot Gate
"As I understand the profound concern of the ever-alert White House reporters, they smell a constitutional crisis because the shooting party failed to alert the media of the accidental shooting down in Corpus Christi, Texas. Well, actually, they did alert the Corpus Christi media -- but that didn't count. Unless the exalted ones have been formally informed by an official government press secretary, no public communication has technically occurred.
I checked the bylaws of the White House press corp, and they are right. It seems that the bylaws refer to Article XXIII of the U.S. Constitution, which expressly designates that White House reporters with a minimum annual income of $375,000 (plus minimum stock options equal to not less than two-thirds their yearly salary, plus use of driver and long sedan during business hours, of which hours must include post-deadline dinner engagements of a semi-social nature) are the exclusive recipients of all government information.
If information isn't hand-delivered in gilt-edged paper to them while they are reclined on their chaise lounges, it hasn't been released to the public. And if they don't report a fact, it hasn't happened. This provision is vital to a vigorous and independent free press. [I should note, my copy of the Constitution must be outdated, because it doesn't have an Article XXIII.]
Of course, this provision technically makes the White House press corp not reporters, but receivers -- sort of glorified shipping clerks, but with the prerogative to re-write and re-package the material before they deliver it to the public.
When an out-of-town newspaper got the scoop, the dignity of the White House press corp had been impeached, so they threw a public temper tantrum. As that has worked for many of them since their early childhood, they obviously expect it to work while on the job -- to use the term loosely.
...Most of us can tolerate arrogance if it is accompanied by extraordinary capacity and virtuosity. The brilliant scientist, the war-winning general, the great artists are entitled to their pride.
But the hallmark of the Washington Press corp these days is mediocrity, groupthink, a lack of curiosity and rampant careerism. These attributes were all on show in the shooting party incident." -- Tony Blankley
On the one hand, I'm already kind of bored with the whole Cheney hunts "the most dangerous animal" story, but on the other hand, these fascinating little angles keep being burped up, one right after the other.
For example, here's Harry Reid yesterday on the delay in reporting the shooting to the press:
"Talk about secrecy. The vice president accidentally shoots someone and keeps that a secret for nearly a day. That man (who was shot) is now very sick," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters Tuesday.
Asked why he thought Cheney had not talked about the shooting, Reid said, "I think the reason it took the vice president a day to talk about this is part of the secretive nature of this administration. The American people are not entitled to know what’s going on in their mind-set. They keep things pretty close to the chest."
Nothing unusual there. It's typical Harry Reid...except, as the folks over at Sweetness & Light point out, ole Dirty Harry was engaged in a bit of staggering hypocrisy. You see, last year Harry Reid had a stroke and didn't reveal the details to the press for THREE DAYS:
"The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, suffered a brief mini-stroke Tuesday, but doctors found no complications and he feels fine, aides said Friday.
One of the nation’s most powerful elected Democrats, the 65-year-old senator canceled several appearances in Nevada late this week. But his press secretary Tessa Hafen said, "There are no complications or any restrictions on his activities."
...Asked why announcement of the event was delayed for three days, Hafen said, "The reason was the tests and the evaluations that they were doing. We wanted to make sure we knew what we were announcing. You need conclusive information."
Gosh, how could we have all missed this after the enormous stink the media made about the 3 day delay? Oh wait, the media didn't make a big deal about that back then, did they? That couldn't be because Harry Reid is a Democrat and Dick Cheney is a Republican, could it? Nah, cause that would mean that they're biased and we all trust the press to be fair, right? Snicker, snicker, snicker...
The First Step – My Statement Of Admission By Lorie Byrd
My name is Lorie Byrd and I believe George Bush told the truth about Saddam’s WMD. Not only do I believe he told the truth, but I think he was right about his belief that Saddam had WMD he intended to use against the U.S.
There. I said it. Isn’t the hardest and most important step always admitting it? Now that the admission is out of the way, I will explain why I thought it was so important to come out so openly with that opinion. I have actually been on record with that belief for quite some time now. I am one of those who really never believed that we could have gotten it so wrong in the first place. Now I am reiterating my position because I want to be loudly, and even obnoxiously, on record when the truth is finally known.
I wrote the above statement a week ago and had planned to include it as part of a column, following the statement with the various reasons for my belief. Since the news of the Saddam tapes has broken, and will be the subject of a Nightline special, I figured I better get it out now though, to get ahead of the rush of people who will surely fight to be first on record saying they never doubted. For those who don’t read Polipundit regularly, and think that I am just changing my tune in light of this most recent news, check the archives. I have, at times, sounded like a broken record on this subject with my numerous posts on “connecting the WMD dots.” I don’t know whether or not this latest story will be the smoking gun that many are hoping for, but I believe that the truth will be known one day, and I am beginning to think that day will be sooner, rather than later. (Hawkins note: The TiVO is already set for Nightline tonight and I expect the crowing from those of us in the pro-war crowd will be loud and long tomorrow if these tapes are as good as advertised.)
This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.
It has been a little more than 3 months since the last time I ranked my favorite 40 blogs, so I thought it was about time to do it again, for the first time in 2006.
Do keep in mind that as the quarter has progressed, some blogs have of course moved up and others have dropped, based on how often I visit them, how much I like what I see when I get there, how often the blogs are updated, etc., etc. As per usual, do keep in mind that these sort of lists changes frequently over time based on a variety of factors. So if a blog didn't get included, it's no big deal -- it could be on the list next time.
Also, if there are any other bloggers out there who rank at least 20 favorite blogs or more in order today and then link back to the post & let me know about it, I'll add a link to your post right here later tonight.
Come on folks, let's see how the blogosphere stacks up!
PS: I decided to leave pages that compile "the best of the blogosphere" -- like The Hotline's Blogometer & GOPINION -- out of the mix because I wasn't sure if they'd count as blogs or not.
Of all the extravagant wastes of our tax dollars in American history, few expenditures can compare to FEMA's decision to buy mobile homes to house people temporarily displaced because of Katrina.
Even now, as the Katrina families in hotel rooms are starting to be told to find other places to live, there are nearly 11,000 mobile homes, worth roughly $400 million dollars, that were purchased by the government for Katrina victims and have NEVER EVEN BEEN USED:
"Ever since they arrived in Hope, we`ve been telling you about the thousands of FEMA trailers sitting empty. Now, there`s concern all of them, totalling about $400 million, may be tossed in the trash.
The mobile homes have been sitting empty for nearly 6 months now. "Since they were not properly stored," Homeland Security inspector General Richard Skinner told a Senate Panel. "The homes are sinking in the mud and their frames are bending from sitting on trailers with no support."
The soil under the mobile homes is so soft, that every time it rains, the mobile homes sink. Arkansas Congressman Mike Ross says FEMA is taking extreme measures to fix the problem. "If you can believe this they are delivering something like 44,000 jacks by that cow pasture near the airport to jack up each corner of all 10,777 manufactured homes."
Why weren't people ever put in these homes? Better question: why were expensive mobile homes bought to serve as temporary housing in the first place?
Moreover, why don't they just go ahead and resell the mobile homes now instead of buying jacks? After all, it has been almost 6 months since the hurricane hit and quite frankly, the government has gone above and beyond the call of duty by paying people's rents for this long on the taxpayer's dime.
This is a ridiculous situation that reflects particularly badly on the Bush administration, especially since so many people have been pointing out how foolish it was to buy mobile homes all along (See RWN posts on this topic from Sept. 19 and Dec. 14 of last year).
While I defended how FEMA handled the immediate aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans and placed the vast majority of the blame for the problems there squarely on the shoulders of the locals, the way that the Bush administration, FEMA, and Congress have thrown our money away during the rebuilding process, primarily because they think spending more money helps them politically, has been irresponsible, embarrassing, and shameful.
Since Dick Cheney accidentally peppered his pal, shot his sidekick, and blasted his buddy, I think we all knew the moment would come when some wacko Democrat would go way over the edge and accuse him attempted murder for nefarious purposes....oh, you didn't know that was coming? Don't you realize how kooky these people are? Geeze....
Anyway, the columnists in question is one Barry Saunders, a staff writer for the Raleigh News and Observer. Granted, he's not exactly a household name. In fact, I live in North Carolina and I've never even heard of him.
But, the fact that he wrote this column and handed it to an editor of a newspaper who, instead of quite properly yelling "Are you out of your mind Barry? Do you think we'll humiliate this paper by publishing your lunacy! Get out! Get everything in your desk and get out!", decided to publish it, says a lot.
"Accident my eye. Or rather, Harry Whittington's eye.
If you believe it was just an accident that Vice President Dick Cheney shot his hunting companion last weekend, you obviously have never seen "The Godfather" movies.
Just as surely as a fish wrapped in a bulletproof vest means "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes," that shotgun blast to Whittington's face was meant to convey that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby had better bite his tongue and forget about testifying against Cheney, his former boss, in the Valerie Plame spy case.
What'll it be, Scooter: a case of amnesia or lead poisoning?
The woman who owns the ranch on which the shooting occurred said Whittington shot a bird, went to retrieve it and then snuck up on Cheney.
The vice president, she said, was shooting at a covey of quail when he hit the tall, orange-vest-wearing lawyer. Oy.
Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, recently told a grand jury that leaking Plame's identity as a spy was authorized by his superiors (Hawkins' note: this is quite simply wrong, but what does a paper publishing this kind of nutso speculation as fact care about being accurate?) who were angered by Plame's husband's public criticism of the war in Iraq.
That revelation had many questioning how low this administration would go to quash dissent.
Now we know.
A vice president who'll shoot an ally to get across his message of omerta -- that's mobspeak for "hush up" -- may be considered a national disgrace by some."
Next week from Barry Saunders: Look for Barry's hot new column that explains how Bush popping Barney on the butt for using the bathroom in the White House is really a threat to nuke North Korea. That'll be one column you won't want to miss!
About a fifth of Americans think federal agents have listened in on their phone calls, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday suggests.
Twenty-one percent of the 1,000 adults who replied to the survey conducted Thursday through Sunday said it was very likely or somewhat likely their conversations had been wiretapped, while 52 percent said it was not at all likely.
Twenty-four percent said it was not too likely.
Other findings:
18% of Americans think it is "highly likely" that Dick Cheney will shoot them.
10% of Americans say Dick Cheney "already has" shot them.
3% of Americans could not respond, as Dick Cheney was at that moment pursuing them with a shotgun, a gladiator's trident, and a bottle of Firewater peppermint-flavored schnaaps.
To tell you the truth, the mainstream media's faux outrage over not being alerted sooner about Dick Cheney mistaking one of his pals for quail has already gotten old. Here's a long report from Time on the whole thing:
"Cheney insisted on carrying out a strategy he had worked out with the ranch owner, Katharine Armstrong, in which she was to call a trusted reporter at the local paper, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, to disclose the news. Caller-Times Managing Editor Shane Fitzgerald told TIME that the newspaper had done its usual nightly checks with local law enforcement agents on Saturday and had been told nothing was going on. Armstrong started leaving messages at the newspaper at 8 a.m., reached a reporter by 11 a.m. and the newspaper posted its story on the Web at 1:48 p.m. local time Sunday. At 3:34 p.m. eastern time, The Associated Press finally flashed the news: "Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and injured a man during a hunting trip in Texas." Fitzgerald said he is "mystified" about the chain of events and that the public should have been notified much earlier, even if the shooter had been some random guy. Even on Monday, the newspaper struggled to get a copy of the accident report. "I think it has become a bigger deal than Mr. Cheney and/or the White House anticipated," the editor said.
That is perhaps the understatement of the day. McClellan endured two of his testiest briefings ever, with NBC's David Gregory saying at an off-camera morning briefing that the Administration neglected its duty to put out the information and that White House reporters "don't care if some ranch owner calls a local paper." McClellan accused Gregory of grandstanding: "Hold on. Cameras aren't on right now. You can do this later." That infuriated Gregory. "You don't have to yell," McClellan said. Gregory shot back: "I will yell. If you want to use that podium and try to take shots at me personally, which I don't appreciate, then I will raise my voice, because that's wrong." McClellan said: "Calm down, David."
To make a long story short: these whiny press guys who hate Bush's guts are looking for something to complain about and they're also offended that the local press was informed before they were.
You know what would be funny? If Cheney showed up for the next press briefing, wheeled a bunch of quail in behind the reporters, and offered to show them a live reenactment of what happened. Can you just see their faces when Cheney said:
"OK, David Gregory, I need you to move about 30 yards away from me. All right, now move those quail right behind him...what do you mean "is this gun loaded"? Of course, it is and yes, we do have an ambulance standing by. Here, you'll want these safety goggles...."
I'm kidding, just kidding, you sensitive liberals. Imagine that Dick Cheney hugs Gregory or something after he hands him the safety goggles.
However, I'm not kidding when I say that the White House press corp is obnoxious, self-righteous, and yet largely irrelevant. If the White House did once a month briefings or replaced all the reporters in there with a bunch of friendlies from the new media, it wouldn't make much of a difference.
*** Update #1 ***: Over at the Corner, one of the best columnists in the business, John Podhoretz -- who has seemed overly concerned about this incident -- has asked:
"If, during his vice presidency, Al Gore had gone out hunting, had shot someone during the hunt, and had failed to make the incident public for 18 hours, what would conservatives have said and thought? Now be honest when you answer this question. You don't need to answer me. Just answer yourself."
What would he think conservatives would say differently than they've already said? Most conservatives have criticized Cheney for being careless and made a few jokes. Would it be that different for Gore? Certainly the press wouldn't be making as big a deal out of it if a Democrat was involved and maybe more of the jokes would be about liberals hating guns, but that's about it.
This was a dumb screw-up on Cheney's part, but it's not really indicative of any larger issue, nor is it a big deal politically. How much else can be said other than "Be more careful the next time you're out hunting"?
In a week or two, once Whittington is out of the hospital, Cheney will be back in public again, he'll make a couple of self-depreciating jokes about his bad aim, and no one will care about this other than the same angry, bitter, liberals who hate everything associated with the Bush administration and a few puckish bloggers and columnists who'll enjoy tossing a hunting joke into their latest scribbling about Cheney. For everyone else, this will have been pitched down the memory hole.
One of the fascinating things about polls is that relatively minor changes in the way that a question is phrased or coming at an issue from a slightly different angle can cause wild shifts in the results.
"Fifty-nine percent thought Iran would use nuclear weapons against the United States, and 80 percent thought the Iranians would hand them over to terrorists to use against the United States.
More thought Iran would use the weapons against Israel -- 77 percent -- and about as many -- 81 percent -- thought Iran would give them to terrorists who wanted to use them against Israel.
Sixty-eight percent of the respondents called for economic and diplomatic action to keep Iran away from atomic weapons, while only 9 percent called for military action.
Even if diplomacy were to fail, only 36 percent of those who responded to the survey thought military action would be called for, while 45 percent said it would not."
So let's see if we have this straight: 80% of the people polled think Iran will give terrorists nukes to use against the United States, but only 36% say they would support military action against Iran even if diplomacy failed?
That means we have what, probably 44%, who think Iran getting nukes could lead to let's say New York and Chicago disappearing under mushroom clouds, but they still wouldn't support bombing Iran? Doesn't that seem more than a little bizarre? Surely there can't be that many Noam Chomsky-hate-America types out there who think America deserves to be nuked, right? Right.
What probably happened is that you had people who see Iran as a threat, but then, when they're asked about military action, they figure we have our hands full in Iraq and rule out a military strike on that basis, without thinking things all the way through (Sure, Iran could cause trouble for us in Iraq, but is that really worse than their handing over nuclear weapons to terrorists to use against us?)
In any case, since either the US or Israel will likely end up bombing Iran, and relatively soon, within a few months to let's say 18 months out, it's good that the Bush administration has started to beat the war drums a little louder lately. The fact that they haven't gotten too overt about it yet probably either means that nothing is coming up in the next few months or that Israel will be making the strike, but it's too early to tell yet. Whatever the case may be, it's not too early to start preparing the American people for what may turn out to be an inevitable bombing run that will have some very serious repercussions.
Last month, it was revealed that Hamas hired a spin doctor to try to improve their image with Americans and Europeans.
Well, if the latest Gallup Poll is on target, even if they could get their hands on the billion plus Arafat stole from the Palestinians and hire PR firms with it, it wouldn't make much difference.
Just look at these brutal numbers:
-- Only 22% of Americans say we should even have diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority if Hamas follows their current policy and refuses to recognize the existence of Israel.
-- Only 5% of Americans say we should give financial aid to the Palestinian Authority if Hamas follows their current policy and refuses to recognize the existence of Israel.
-- 59% of Americans say their sympathies lay more with the Israelis while only 15% say their sympathies are more with the Palestinians.
-- 68% of Americans have a favorable view of Israel while only 11% have a favorable view of the Palestinian Authority.
-- It's also worth noting that, "Republicans (77%) are significantly more likely to sympathize with the Israelis than are Democrats (50%) or independents (50%)," which is particularly bad news for the Palestinian Authority since the GOP holds the White House and Congress.
It's no surprise that Democrats, especially Liberals among them, have been exceptionally unhappy with President George W. Bush. Besides the obvious self-pity that they exude at every opportunity, and the ill-chosen flight from maturity in their choice of descriptions, there seems a genuine note of desperation. And that got me thinking.
When 2009 rolls in, two of the last three Republican Presidents will have been 2-termers, and very successful in the more important parts of their job. In between them is a Republican who won a solid majority in his election, and generally did an above-average job in the Oval Office. Even the most disgraced Republican President in memory had achievements in his work which commiserate his historical position.
Compare with them the Democrats; the last Democrat to serve as President was impeached, and later admitted to the essential facts in the charges against him. The last Democrat before him to win election, was a one-term Democrat who managed to create two simultaneous conditions which economists previously thought impossible; Consumer Price Index showing Inflation above ten percent, at the same time as wager-earner Unemployment above ten percent. The last Democrat before him to hold office, chose not to run for re-election because his own party said they wouldn't support him. Not a happy string of terms and results.
Also, there is recent history. Nine of the last fourteen Presidential elections have gone to the Republicans, and five of the last seven. Census reports and public opinion polls show a steady drift from a Democratic preference among party identification to a an even balance. And if trends continue among minority shifts, the exurban control by conservatives and the political death of the liberal bastions at union halls and college campuses, the Republicans may expect to see an effective permanent majority.
When someone mentions the "Bush Doctrine", people know what he means. Same for Reagan. But no one can explain what, if anything, was addressed by the "Clinton Doctrine", or the "Carter Doctrine". No Democrat since Kennedy has been an effective speaker on his foreign policy, or defined a realistic economic program. And no Democrat since FDR has been able to show the promised results. Republicans can point to modern history and current events, once the MSM spin has been corrected. Democrats cannot, even with spin in their favor, show anything for their promises.
Democrats need a hero, because all the ones they could point to on their side have faded into obscurity. And it sure looks like the only heroes on the horizon today, are on the Right side of the issues.
This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.
"During his WonderCon panel, Frank Miller discussed his next graphic novel. Once again, Miller returns to the world of the Batman, this time with Holy Terror, Batman!. Though the title plays with Robin's classic catchphrase, the book deals with a serious subject. Gotham has been attacked by Al Qaeda and Batman sets out to defend the city he loves. The book, which Miller has inked through 120 pages, is expected to run roughly 200 pages total.
Miller proudly announced the title of his next Batman book, which he will write, draw and ink. Holy Terror, Batman! is no joke. And Miller doesn't hold back on the true purpose of the book, calling it "a piece of propoganda," where 'Batman kicks al Qaeda's *ss."
The reason for this work, Miller said, was "an explosion from my gut reaction of what's happening now." He can't stand entertainers who lack the moxy of their '40s counterparts who stood up to Hitler. Holy Terror is "a reminder to people who seem to have forgotten who we're up against."
It's been a long time since heroes were used in comics as pure propaganda. As Miller reminded, "Superman punched out Hitler. So did Captain America. That's one of the things they're there for."
"These are our folk heroes," Miller said. "It just seems silly to chase around the Riddler when you've got Al Qaeda out there."
Dick Cheney made an enormous, embarrassing mistake when he "peppered," "blasted," "shot," however you want to put it, his pal Harry Whittington during a quail hunting trip. Whittington is lucky he wasn't seriously injured in the accident and Cheney was right to apologize to him.
However, the left side of the blogosphere seems to have become seized with paranoia and angst about the "18 hour gap" between when Cheney accidentally hit his friend with birdshot and when that information was given to the press.
Here are a few comments from the lefty bloggers:
"So, what we have is an event shrouded in secrecy for almost twenty-four hours which, when disclosed, was accompanied by a fawning statement by a Bush apparachik exonerating Cheney from any and all blame and/or liability.
Thus, this appears to be yet another example of the Bush Administration attempting to manipulate the press and perhaps hide the truth." -- political cortex
"Something is weird about this. I can't put my finger on what it is, and I'm awaiting a read of whatever police report gets released, but the whole narrative is odd. And reeks of covering for something." -- firedoglake
"F*ck it," (Cheney) said. "Call in the 'copter. Tell Harry to keep it quiet or we'll kill his grandchildren. Sit on the story. F*ckin' media doesn't need to know a godd*mn thing. Now, someone open that bottle of Scotch and pour me a stiff one. And, hey, did I get the quail that was behind him, heh-heh? Let's fricassee that f*cker." -- The Rude Pundit speculates, imagines, emotes, I can never quite figure out what that idiot is doing beyond trying to be deliberately obnoxious
First of all, Cheney isn't required to alert the jackals in the mainstream press about anything. It's their job to find out information, not his job to provide it for them. Moreover, Cheney's press secretary confirmed what happened when he was asked about it and said reporting the matter to the press had been left in the hands of Katharine Armstrong, the owner of the ranch, who called the local paper, Corpus Christi Caller-Times and told them all about it the day after the event. So obviously, there was no intent to hide what happened.
In any case, the long and short of this is: Dick Cheney should be more careful about where he's pointing and firing a loaded gun.
Dick Morris worked for the Clintons for a long time and therefore, knows them very well. That's why it was sort of a surprise when he started running around claiming that Hillary was an unstoppable juggernaut and the only hope the GOP had was to run Condi Rice against her.
Today, Morris has written a column that discusses Hillary's political style in detail and surprisingly, given the very high opinion Morris seems to have of her as a politician, she doesn't seem to come across all that well:
"....Hillary takes her political positions very seriously and personally. She has a hard time seeing virtue in those who disagree with her. What others would dismiss as honest disagreements about how to accomplish good ends, she often looks at as a clash between good and evil, selflessness and selfishness, generosity and greed. (She once asked how someone could "be a Republican and a Christian at the same time.")
In her speeches and interviews, she has two speeds: bland and shrill.
When she has no sharp ideological or substantive point to make, she relaxes and acts casual — tossing her head, giggling, feigning intimacy with the interviewer.
But when she has something to say, the passion burns inside her and metastasizes into anger and thence to shrillness. Like Bella Abzug before her, Hillary can't speak about issues without coming across as harsh and angry. Mehlman captured that affect perfectly in his characterization of Hillary as "angry."
...For Hillary, there is only the sound-bite, hyperbolic, aggressive, podium thumping, rhythmic partisan rhetoric — the kind typical of Ted Kennedy. That or bland nothingness.
The fact is that Hillary has always gained in popularity by keeping quiet. Her "up" periods, when she gained in popular approval, were all accompanied by the sounds of silence. Her global tours after the health-care plan failed; her listening tour of New York state; her opening years in the Senate — all were characterized by a silence broken only by bland, vanilla interviews in which she worked hard at saying nothing.
But when Hillary has to speak out, she usually drops in the polls."
After reading that, does anyone think that sounds like the person who's going to be our next President? A woman who, "has two speeds: bland and shrill?"
You know, likability isn't everything, but it is certainly important. In fact, if you look at Presidential contests all the way back at least to 1972, the more likable candidate won every single time (Neither Nixon nor McGovern were particularly likable, so that's a hard one to call).
Moreover, it's possible that you could even make an argument that plain old likability is a big part of the reason why the GOP is ascendant and the Democrats have fallen on hard times. Republicans tend to be more optimistic, patriotic, and respectful of cultural traditions and religion than Democrats, who often come across as pessimistic, angry, and yes, shrill.
Of course, that doesn't mean you support candidates just because they're likable because after all, politics is about getting your agenda enacted to help the country, not winning for winning's sake. But, likability is important and it's a big part of the reason why Hillary would have a tough time winning the presidency.
"A documentary on the perils of runaway capitalism that spotlights Wal-Mart screened at the Berlin Film Festival on Saturday, and interest among European distributors and television networks has been strong.
The feature-length documentary focuses on working conditions at the U.S. retail giant and argues that the company treats its employees shabbily in pursuit of maximum profit.
"Wal-Mart is the poster child for the worst in corporate behavior," U.S. director Robert Greenwald said in an interview after his film, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price", screened to a large and appreciative audience.
"But it is not only Wal-Mart, it is these issues that affect all of us all around the world."
...Greenwald's film, which has sold 110,000 DVDs since November and been shown in a limited theatrical release in the United States, was quickly snapped up by distributors in Britain, Germany and Australia.
The film, which Greenwald partly financed, portrays Wal-Mart Stores Inc as a monster that destroys the fabric of small towns by killing off small business with discount prices, and as a firm paying poverty-level wages without adequate health cover.
Greenwald, who said he tried unsuccessfully to interview Wal-Mart executives for his documentary, shows how Wal-Mart moved into two small towns in Ohio and Missouri, among other places, and how family-owned stores folded after its arrival.
"Wal-Mart is on a rampage across America but no one is doing anything about it," says hardware store worker John Faenza in the film. Greenwald reports that wages and property values fell when Wal-Mart came to town."
I lived in a small town, Stoneville, population 1000 -- Yee-Ha -- from roughly age 7-18 and my first job after college was in a Wal-Mart portrait studio (which interestingly enough, wasn't owned by Wal-Mart), so I can tell you a few things about this issue from personal experience.
First of all, everyone cries for these small mom and pop businesses that Wal-Mart is running into the ground. As someone who has had to shop at these local mom & pop stores before, let me tell you, they stink. They're extremely expens
