Andi's World

At Least Two Bomb Blasts Went Off In Iran In The Last 24 Hours. One Of The Blasts Was Outside Of The Governate Building In Southeast Iran. At Least One Person Is Dead!

Caption This!

Confederate Yankee

National Journal

Ray Robison

South Park Java Games

Tens of thousands of Hamas supporters took to the streets Friday, the day after their leader -- Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya -- survived an alleged Fatah assassination attempt.

TomDeLay.com

Transcript Of Rumsfeld Interview: 'I Worry We Are In A Gathering Storm'

Question: Rocky Balboa, aka Rocky VI, opens this week, starring Sylvester Stallone at the age of 60 reprising his role as a challenger for the heavyweight championship of the world. Meanwhile, the fourth installment of the Die Hard series is expected to be released in the summer of 2007 with a 51-year-old Bruce Willis as its lead, and Indiana Jones 4 is supposed to be coming in 2008, with its star Harrison Ford now at 64.

Are you fond of this idea; bringing older actors back to repeat roles that made them famous when they were young? Aren't there younger actors who could fill the role of an action hero more convincingly, or is the fact that Hollywood seems bent on resurrecting action heroes from the 80s a sign that the new generation of Hollywood studs are really a bunch of wimps?

Answer: Heck, why not make Indiana Jones and the Walker of Doom if people will still pay money to see it? Same goes for another Rocky movie. After George Foreman, why couldn't you have a doddering, old Rocky fighting and winning in the ring. Heck, I'm even sort of looking forward to Rambo IV, although judging by what I'm seeing at Wikipedia the movie has gone through some weird twists. Here's one idea that was apparently discarded (if you believe Wikipedia):

"Yet another terrorist plot was considered. Referred to as Rambo IV: Holy War, this version has Rambo as an environmentalist working in New York for the United Nations. The UN Assembly is hijacked by terrorists, one of which is Tomask (the boy from Rambo III). It is also revealed in this version that Rambo has become a Sufi Muslim."

Yes, a Muslim environmentalist Rambo who works for the United Nations. Why didn't they just go all the way and have him castrate himself and then ask the Vietnamese government for a job as a clerk?

Come on, how much would it rock to have Rambo sent on a mission to Pakistan or Afghanistan to find a group of Al-Qaeda terrorists that are holding some US soldiers captive? Then, maybe after Rambo breaks all the rules and saves their lives by killing dozens and dozens of terrorists in every way conceivable, some smug diplomat/senator yells at him and accuses him of being a war criminal before Rambo tells him off. Now that would make a hundred million dollars in its first week-end easy, but Hollywood is too politically correct to make that movie.

Question: "If a horde of flesh-eating zombies were to suddenly begin spreading across America... (Hey don't laugh, those poor schmucks in the movies never think that it could happen to them either) what steps would you take to survive? Where would you go? Are you prepared for this unlikely event?" -- Good_Ol_Boy

Answer: In a society that's as heavily armed as America, I just don't think the sort of spread of zombies that you usually see in the movies would be possible. Remember, the way it usually works is that the disease is spread when the generally slow moving zombie shambles up and takes a bite out of you before you can smash his head in with a baseball bat. In the real world, human beings would win those fights with superior firepower and quickly deplete the zombie population.

As far as preparation goes, since I live in hurricane country, I'm probably better prepared than most people. I have bottled water, several days worth of soup, a gun, and Patton, who I'm sure would make a great zombie detector. So, I could afford to hole up for a few days to try to wait the zombies out if need be. But, if I had to take off for somewhere because this area was overrun, well, Fort Bragg is only a few hours away. You'd have to think that would be a safe spot if you could make it that far.

Update #1:

Question: "John, I thought that Zombies were the "undead" and as such, a baseball bat or a bullet has absolutely no affect on them??? Maybe I'm remembering 50's "B" movies incorrectly, but how, exactly, do you kill something that's already dead?" -- JonW

Answer: Most movies now portray zombies as people infected with a disease who die and come back almost immediately as a zombie or as living human beings infected with a disease. In either case, doing damage to their brain is usually portrayed as the only way to kill them.

Question: "Is there any truth to the rumors about a possible NC Governor's run by Rick Flair? If so, would you support him? Which is really just my way of politely asking what the Nature Boy's political leanings are." -- Good_Ol_Boy

Answer: As an ex-Charlottean, I can tell you that Ric Flair is a diehard Republican and he's well-liked. However, Flair spent decades drinking, screwing, and partying his way across the country and then went into great detail about a lot of the things he did in his biography. Here's a little sample. It's a quote from wrestling promoter Davy Crockett about Flair:

"When Ric was a bad guy, the women loved to hate him. But, when the show was over, they loved to be with him. He had a bad habit of taking his clothes off. He'd come out of the bathroom, walk up to a female sitting on the couch, and tap her on the head. Only he wasn't tapping her with his finger."

The bio, which I've read, is absolutely full of stuff like that...although, on the other hand, Arnold Schwarzenegger was nearly as bad back in his bodybuilding days. In an unauthorized bio I read about him, way back in the day before he ran for office, it said that he would literally walk up to women on the beach that he had never met before and say, "Do you wanna do the hibbetty jibbetty," but in much more explicit language.

Of course, Arnold managed to win a special election, in a very accelerated time frame, so a lot of his background material never went public and then, once he was reelected, it wasn't a big issue. But, Flair? He's a likable guy (and his bio is one hell of a wild read), but it would be too hard for him to get elected after living that sort of lifestyle for so long.

Question: Presidential candidate Rep. Hunter is a conservative except, as you've noted, when it comes to his protectionist tendencies (e.g. opposing NAFTA).

Do you think that a somewhat-protectionist but otherwise capitalist conservative can win in the Republican Party presidential primaries?

I really have reservations about how much our economy has been opened and left vulnerable to foreign manipulation (e.g. China's undervalued currency). I feel that Republicans could stand to gain votes from moderates and the union crowd if they became a little more aggressive about fighting unfair foreign trade practices. What are your thoughts?" -- RepublicanPig1

Answer: Here's the thing: Hunter is not running against the perfect prototypical conservative who has conservative views on every subject. To the contrary, he's running against real people who deviate from the conservative orthodoxy on a lot of fronts.

For example, the two front runners right now appear to be John McCain & Rudy Giuliani. Although I am a free trader and don't agree with Hunter on that issue, I also don't agree with McCain on campaign finance reform, his incredibly broad definition of "torture," global warming, the protection of marriage amendment, illegal immigration, etc., etc. When it comes to Rudy Giuliani, you have a guy who is pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, pro-gun control, etc., etc. So personally -- and I think this will be true for most conservatives -- despite my difference with him on trade, I still have much more in common ideologically with Hunter than I do with Giuliani or McCain.

Moreover, let me add that Hunter's views on the free trade issue would probably be very useful in appealing to blue collar Democrats working in factories, mills, unions, etc. The sort of things Hunter is saying about CAFTA, NAFTA, and China would be music to their ears and I think a lot of them could be persuaded to vote for him because of it.

I'm not endorsing him or anything at this point (I probably won't pick the candidate I'm going to get behind until shortly before the first primary), but I think Duncan Hunter would be the most electable candidate that the GOP could run in 2008. He has no serious baggage that I've seen, served in Vietnam, has enormous credibility and experience on defense issues, a tough anti-illegal immigration stance, favors a Balanced Budget Amendment, wants a 2/3 majority to raise taxes. I believe he would pull in some Democratic voters because of his trade stance and I think he's a candidate that conservatives would actually turn out to vote for (as opposed to say, turning out just because they don't want Hillary in the White House).

Can Hunter gain the name recognition and backing he needs to have a real shot of winning the nomination? That remains to be seen at this point, but since Republicans desperately seem to be searching for someone to represent the conservative wing of the Republican Party and since Hunter seems to fit the bill better than anyone else running, I think a meteoric rise into the top tier over the next few months is within the realm of possibility for him.

PS: Granted, the best candidates for the presidency are usually governors, but when you look at the candidates in the race, the pickings are pretty slim at the moment. Huckabee? No. Pataki? Please. Romney? The only reason he is even getting a hard look from people is because so many conservatives really don't like the idea of having McCain or Giuliani as a candidate.

PS #2: When Howard Dean ran in 2004, he built up name recognition and buzz online. Then, when he won the MoveON.org primary, people started to take him seriously as a candidate. The same thing could happen with Hunter. If he can build up some buzz and win or place surprisingly high in a prominent poll (like the National Journal Insider's Poll), then next thing you know, people will start to give him a hard look. So, although a guy like Hunter would have had no chance to get up into the top tier in, let's say 2000, because of the new media in today's political environment, he has a real chance to pull it off if he can appeal to conservatives.

Question: "Kirk or Picard." -- ArbiterStrikesBack

Answer: All I have to say about this is that Kirk was like the idealized American version of Starship captain while Picard was more like the idealized EU version of a Starship Captain.

Hence: Kirk rules and Picard drools!

It's almost time for me to put together the 40 most obnoxious quotes of 2006 and if you have any suggestions for quotes that you think should make the list, please let me know.

My guess is that most of these quotes will come from liberals, but I'll certainly add conservative quotes in as well if I think they merit being included.

So, feel free to suggest some quotes that you think deserve consideration...

Question: If Senator Tim Johnson can't continue his term, how can the Governor appoint anyone other than a Democrat?" -- Tom_pinko_Delay

Answer: I've tried to steer clear of the whole Tim Johnson thing because it's almost impossible not to sound callous when you're talking about the situation.

Here you have a poor guy who's in the hospital and we don't know exactly how bad off he is yet. Really, all people should be doing is praying for him and his family, but yet, because of the precarious balance of the Senate, there's an endless discussion going on about what happens if he dies or becomes incapacitated.

In any case, since it does need to be discussed, here's the rundown:

#1) If the situation were reversed and Johnson was a Republican while the governor was a Democrat, there's no question that a Democrat would be appointed. When governors appoint replacements, they also appoint people from their party. That's how it was, how it is, and how it will continue to be.

#2) Even if Johnson takes a turn for the worse, the Dems will want him to stay in there, even if he can't really fulfill his duties as a senator. Again, that's just how the game is played when the senate is in the balance.

#3) If Johnson were to leave office and be replaced by a Republican, the senate would go to a 50/50 split and the GOP would end up in charge of the senate.

But, my hope is that Tim Johnson recovers and that there is no need to replace him. Although I'd like to see the GOP take over the senate, you want to take over by winning at the ballot box, not because someone on the other side becomes ill.

Question: Has anyone ever threatened you legally, physically, or otherwise because of articles you've written for your blog?" -- mike_the_engineer

Answer: I've had a couple of death threats and a few physical threats over the years and a few legal threats as well. But, that sort of comes with the territory.

As far as the physical threats go, I have an unlisted phone number and since I moved from Charlotte, I don't give out where I live to the general public. So, that's not really a big worry although someone dedicated could always track me down. Of course, if it ever got that far, I do have a gun.

Then, with the legal threats: I've never gotten one that I thought had any merit whatsoever. But, even if it did come to a court battle, I'm a member of the Media Bloggers Association and they do have general counsel, Ronald Coleman, who helps out if you end up having to go to court.

Additionally, if I could find a decent lawyer who would charge a reasonable (read cheap) retainer fee, that would suit me, as well. Given our overlawyered culture, you can't be too careful.

Democratic Sen. Johnson in Stable Condition After Brain Surgery (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Terror Fears as Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, Faces 'Medical Emergency' (Die Faster Please)

NJ Lawmakers Approve Civil Unions In Response To Court Ruling

Senator Kerry Urges Dialogue With Iran, Syria

France Admits Air Raids On Darfur Neighbours

Israeli Politician Likens Iraq Proposals to 1930s Appeasement

Richardson Gains Attention By Hosting North Koreans (Gag)

Tom Tancredo: What I Meant by 'Third World' Miami (Great Column)

Ann Coulter: Surrender By Any Other Name...

Evans-Novak Political Report

Lawrence Kudlow: Behind the Obama Bounce

Kirsten Powers: Ho', Ho', Ho': Dolls To Make You Cry

Byron York: Did the Clinton Administration Spy On Princess Diana? No

MoDo And Barack Hussein Odumbo

The New York Post: Freelance Diplomats

Peggy Noonan: The Man From Nowhere'. What Does Barack Obama Believe In?

Who Americans Are and What They Do (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Samples Of Comet Dust Show A Mix

10 Tech Concepts You Need to Know for 2007

Video: Dennis Miller On Iraq & The War On Terror (Some Cursing)

Website Of The Day: Neophyte Pundit

Today is Q&A Friday #55 at RWN.

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

Ask away!

Earlier this week, I did a phone interview with Congressman Duncan Hunter, a former Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a former ranger in Vietnam, who is one of the Republican contenders vying for the presidency in 2008. What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation.

PS: I can tell you from talking to Hunter that he is VERY PASSIONATE about building a fence on the border and about any and all things related to the military. He also seems to have a pretty good sense of humor.

You can read the interview here.

It's impossible to have a reasonable, rational, debate about torture in this country, because liberals tend to call anything and everything torture. We're talking about people who make no distinction between let's say wrapping someone in an Israeli flag, refusing to let them sleep, or say pulling out their fingernails with pliers. To liberals, anything short of our interrogators asking terrorists questions while giving them pleasant backrubs is the same as breaking their toes with a hammer.

If you want a perfect example of how far gone liberals are on this subject, take a look at a thread called, "Supermax Prisons Are Torture. Period." Granted, not everyone at the DU forums agreed with the idea that just having convicts like Eric Rudolph in a Supermax prison constitutes torture, but you'll be surprised by how many did (On second thought, you won't be surprised at all).

H2O Man: It's a shame that citizens are so unfamiliar with the US penal system. While people should have consequences for committing crimes, and that includes incarceration as "punishment," the brutal nature of the jails and prisons in America is not making our society "safer."

Octafish: It's 'cheaper' than the alternative: a society where everyone is cherished.

Expense of creating a just society, to the monied class, is unacceptable burden -- meaning it would cost them a percentage of their loot.

Fixing society's ills -- from unemployment to education to homelessness to hunger to illness -- is expensive.

That's why they prefer spending money to keep a man incarcerated for year -- still more expensive than sending him to Harvard for a year.

It's important for the Order to demonstrate the pyramid, the hierarchical nature of society with themselves positioned as near the top as possible: it enables them to divide, conquer and control the populace better.

Next thing is they'll realize it's too expensive to run the prisons. Then they'll just do away with them altogether.

Then it's their war-war-war and a much more habitable, if lonely, world.

Jed Dilligan: I think that for the privilege of being a cop, prosecutor, or judge,

you should have to spend 30 days in a Supermax. Or maybe gen pop. I'm not sure which, but the system ought to be in the hands of people with a view from the inside.

RestoreGore: We Torture in American Prisons
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0712-08.htm

We are no better than a third world country in the tactics used either. And it is WRONG no matter WHO it is or WHERE it takes place. PERIOD.

From the article linked:

The human rights violations, as pointed out in the report, also refer
to the use of electric stun belts, grenades, and guns; tethers; waist
and leg chains; air tasers; and restraint hoods, belts, and beds.

Prisoners, according to the report's findings, can be held in long-term
solitary confinement and extreme isolation in severely confined spaces
with little or no daily contact for days, weeks, months, or even years.
Sexual assault of female prisoners is common.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prisoners may very well deserve their sentences, and even in some cases there are those who do not which is an entire other outrage...However, we as a people have a MORAL obligation to uphold a higher principle regarding incarceration of prisoners in our prisons. What does it say to what we are as a people when we actually take PLEASURE in seeing this happening? I am appalled, outraged, and disappointed. Our prisons on the whole are no better than Abu Ghraib.

alcibiades_mystery: I completely agree. They're also useless. The age of the SuperMax is almost over. Give it another 10 years, and they'll be gone.

mopinko: spend that money on real research into mental health and addiction. find a reliable way to repair a psyche smashed by experiences that no one should have to survive. end this stupid *ss war on drugs. so much in mental health treatment these days is barely a step up form reading chicken entrails. make love not war.

Joanne98: They don't want them to read....the prisons do everything they can to keep crime UP not down. Religious books but nothing to enlighten. It's a disgrace.

SlipperySlope: All prisons are torture. Imprisoning somebody against their will is torture.

One of the reasons that I don't think Hillary has a lock on the Democratic nomination or on the Presidency is the enormous amount of alienation that she has created on the left by refusing to call for a cut and run strategy in Iraq. Although she hasn't dismayed the lefties as much as Lieberman, who unlike Hillary is an enthusiastic supporter of the troops and the war, Hillary is really paying a price for her pro-war stance, however it might be.

Just take a look at these numbers from a poll at the Democratic Underground and you'll see what I mean. Here's the question, "If Hillary apologized for her IWR vote, would that actually satisfy you?"

Now, here's the response:

Those are some ugly, ugly numbers and they come from exactly the sort of people who will actually turn out to vote in the Democratic primaries.

PS: Since the front runner on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton, is widely disliked by the netroots while the front runner on the right side, John McCain, is absolutely despised by the rightroots, the 2008 elections will be a real test of the influence for the blogosphere.

Democrats used to suck up to the Communists when they were a real force, so it's not surprising to see someone like "Damascus" Bill Nelson heading over to the Middle East to collaborate with a terrorist supporting regime like Syria. Supposedly, there are other senators also planning to head over and chat with their Syrian Pals, including John Kerry and (Gag) Arlen Specter.

What exactly was the point of this trip? The White House opposed Nelson's visit and if America makes the decision to have talks with Syria, the President should be the one making the decision. Moreover, Nelson doesn't make foreign policy and Syria supports Hezbollah, a terrorist group that has killed Americans. Additionally, the Syrians will take this as a sign that American is divided and too weak to confront them.

But, maybe Damascus Bill and the Syrians can negotiate things out. Syria wants to do everything possible to weaken America, kill our troops, and see our country humiliated and disgraced. As a Democrat, Bill Nelson probably agrees with the first and third planks of that agenda, at least as long as a Republican is in the White House, so maybe they worked on that. On the other hand, maybe Nelson was trying to negotiate a "coveted" Syria endorsement for the Democratic nominee in 2008. If so, that was a waste of time because any nation that wants to see a weak and compliant America will be rooting for wimpy Democrats, like Ben Nelson, to take over the White House in 2008. Perhaps our young diplomat wannabe, Damascus Bill, can go suck up to Iran and, if we can find him, Osama Bin Laden next. You'd have to think that would be right down his alley.

It seems that the United Nations is upset that National Review Online roughed up Kofi Annan:

"Contributors to the Annan-hate-a-thon range the ideological gamut from fellows of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies to the Heritage Foundation. But it is the Hudson Institute's Anne Bayefsky who hurls the most over-the-top criticism:

"Kofi Annan will forever be remembered as the secretary-general who presided over the biggest and most insidious hijacking of the global agenda which has ever occurred. ... over a decade with Kofi Annan at the helm, the U.N. has become an instrument of terror. A place which has no definition of terrorism because the terrorists and their allies run it, while democracies pay the bill." (Emphasis added)

One has to wonder what part of the terrorist agenda is served by eradicating polio, running war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, administering elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, and keeping the peace in Haiti and the Congo?

More to the point, for the past four years right wing critics like Bayefsky have used Annan as a whipping boy to vent their innate hostility to multilateral platforms like the United Nations. My only question is how long it will take the Bayefsky crowd to turn Ban Ki-moon, who takes over from Annan in January, into a boogeyman of the right. I don't imagine it takes much time. For all along, it was not Annan they hated, but the very idea of the United Nations."

The UN is a corrupt, anti-semitic, anti-American, talking shop that makes it more, not less, difficult to tackle bad actors across the world. As an institution, the UN does a lot of harm and a very minimal amount of good and were it to completely disappear tomorrow, the world would be better off.

As to Ban Ki-moon, we don't have to wait for him to get in office to, "turn on him." The very fact that he could be chosen to run an organization like the UN means he's likely cut out of the same worthless stock as Annan. In other words, it's really not much different than one Mafia Don retiring and another taking his place. You know, just because of the fact that he's a Mafia Don, that he's bad actor.

One of the reasons animal rights and environmental extremists are worrisome is because many of them view the very existence of large numbers of human beings as a problem to be solved. If these lunatics were to somehow convince someone with nuclear or biological weapons that their crazy philosophy had merit, it's not outside the realm of possibility that we could see WMD's used for no other reason than to try to produce an incredible body count.

Don't buy that? Well, take a look at what environmentalist nutball neuroscientist Dr John Reid is suggesting:

"If we do not delude ourselves, and if we accept the calculations made by the Global Footprint Network and WWF (and I know of no scientific analysis that refutes the basic validity of the model) there is only one ineluctable conclusion. The population of the world must be very quickly reduced to 5 billion (that is, if 6 billions equals 120% of capacity, then 5 billions equals 100%). And then, as the average level of affluence rises, fairly quickly reduced further to, say, 2 to 3 billion.

The urgent discussion then becomes, how do we achieve these targets? Leaving aside uncontrollable natural events, such as a collision with a large asteroid or comet, or the eruption of a super-volcano, there is only a limited number of ways population decrease can be achieved. These ways are all painful, and most are brutally painful in their effect.

...The most humane way to achieve a reduction in the human population would be for people to voluntarily stop breeding, but this would never happen. The urge to procreate and the innate belief that people have the inalienable right, if not the duty, to have children is too strong to be suppressed, just to save the planet.

One small, but appropriate, token gesture would be to ban immediately all forms of assisted conception, including the use of donated sperm or ova. The fact that relatively affluent couples, or single women who cannot achieve pregnancy by good old-fashioned copulation, or even choose not to do so, can demand the use of expensive medical technology to satisfy their 'need' for parenthood is unacceptable in a hugely overpopulated world.

The next most human way to reduce the population might be to put something in the water, a virus that would be specific to the human reproductive system and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile. Perhaps a virus that would knock out the genes that produce certain hormones necessary for conception.

The world's most affluent populations should be targeted first. According to the 2006 Living Planet Report, the six populations that have the biggest per capita ecological footprint live in the United Arab Emirates, the United States of America, Finland, Canada, Kuwait, and Australia.

...The precepts of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam represent the quintessential perversion of the human mind. They must be abandoned and the notion of the sanctity of human life must be subjugated to the greater sanctity of all life on Earth."

This is the sort of crackpot thinking that exists at the far end of the scale in groups like PETA, the WWF, ELF, ALF, and the rest of the far end of the environmentalist and animal rights movement and it's definitely scary.

Sen. Tim Johnson Of South Dakota Underwent Surgery On Wednesday, A Source Said, After Suffering What A Doctor Called "Symptoms Of A Stroke." (Sorry To Hear That. I Hope He Gets Well Soon.)

Incoming Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy Said Yesterday That He Plans To Rein In President Bush's Program Of Wiretapping Without Warrants, Rewrite The Policy For Handling Terrorism Detainees And More Closely Scrutinize Nominees To The Federal Courts

Bush To Seek $100 Bln More War Funds: House Report

Raids In 6 States May Be Largest Ever

Lacrosse Players Tout DNA Tests

ABC News/Washington Post Poll: Bush 28% Approval

Swift Boat Vets, MoveOn.org Fined by FEC

The ACLU Refuses To Turn Over Secret Government Document It Acquired

Tancredo Cancels Miami Trip, Speaks On 'Need For Assimilation'

Ignoring Bush Policy, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson Meets Syrian President

Al Fayed Calls Diana Accident Report "Outrageous"

Somalia: Pray or Die, Town Tells Residents (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Victor Davis Hanson: Talking To Iran A Mistake For Strategic, Moral Reasons

Jed Babbin: Intrusive Facts

Mark Steyn: It's The Demography, Stupid

Ed Meese: Reagan Would Not Repeat The Amnesty Mistake

The WSJ: Kofi And U.N. 'Ideals' Rwanda, Dafur, Iraq And Oil For Food

Jonah Goldberg: Iraq Needs A Pinochet (Free LA Times Reg Req)

Bob Sullivan: Meatpacking Raids: A Victim's Story

Deputy Finds Rats Eating Man's Body

Video: Pauly Shore Gets Punched By A Heckler During His Comedy Act (Lots Of Bad Language)

Video: Chris Matthews Asks Edwards If His Wife “Bites [His] Balls”

Website Of The Day: Flopping Aces

Today, I've been invited to do a little guest blogging for Tom DeLay. The first post that I put up is called, "Why The GOP Lost In 2006." Here's a sample:

"How could it be that we had a Republican President, 55 Republican Senators, and a 15 seat lead in the House, yet we still had a massive deficit, a Republican led amnesty for illegal aliens push, and someone like Harriet Miers being nominated to the Supreme Court? Just when did the Republican Party become the sort of party that supported projects like the "Bridge to Nowhere," and expensive big government programs like the Medicare Prescription drug plan? When did we stop being the party of Reagan and become the Party of compassionate conservatism? "Compassion" is all well and good, but in the real world, all it seems to mean is wasting a lot of taxpayer money and the President standing there and taking it when he's called a liar who misled the American people into going to war by Democrats who voted for the war themselves because they believed that Saddam had an active WMD program.

Face it: the GOP lost in 2006 because they became complacent, arrogant, and decided that they were too good to, "dance with the conservatives that brung them," into power in the first place. Moreover, let me add that the distance between the Republicans in Washington and the people who should be their biggest supporters has yet to be bridged by the sting of defeat. The base may not like the Democrats or be happy that they're in power, but they're still frustrated and angry with the GOP."

You can read it all, here.

Today on Conservative Grapevine, here are some of the links:

Mountaineer Musings: “This is not your own personal playground. I am about to have you thrown out of here. I paid thirteen dollars to see this movie. Okay? Thank you.”

Townhall Blog: FAQ: Who are the Shiites and the Sunnis?

Iowahawk: The first draft of Kofi Annan's final speech.

Make sure to check out those links and all the rest by clicking here. Also, don't forget to bookmark CG.

Hillary Clinton has been the Democratic front runner for quite a while, but her position at the top has been getting more and more precarious by the month. The biggest reason for that is that Hillary is caught in the "Iraq trap." On the one hand, the Democratic base is virulently anti-war, but on the other hand, Hillary is afraid that being perceived as soft on the war on terror could make it impossible for her to win the general election. So, she's refusing to call for a cut and run strategy while brutally criticizing the war and hoping to split the difference. Unfortunately, it may be a "worst of both worlds" situation for her because the liberal activists are angry at her for refusing to turn on the war while simultaneously, she isn't coming across as hawkish enough to satisfy people who are serious about national security. Add to that her inexperience (A mere 8 years as a senator isn't necessarily a hefty enough resume for a President), the considerable baggage she carries from her husband's time in the White House, her high negative ratings, the fact that she foolishly squandered her enormous cash-on-hand advantage by wasting vast sums of money in a non-competitive senate race, and the fact that she lacks her husband's "gift of gab," and Hillary is far from a lock to win the Presidency or even the nomination.

Next, there's Barack Obama, who is currently riding a wave of hype because he's charismatic and has a "moderate tone" that people tend to like. However, Obama is very liberal and will have had less than one full term in the senate by the time that 2008 rolls around. Could an inexperienced, northern liberal with charisma capture the Democratic nomination? Sure. He's a real threat to Hillary if only because he can probably reel in a large chunk of the black vote while still pulling in significant numbers of non-black liberal and moderate Democrats.

But, could Obama win the Presidency? That seems highly unlikely, especially since research has shown that, "In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black." The number of racist Democrats crossing the line might drop a bit because of the importance of the presidency, but Obama's race would cost him a lot of votes. So, Obama could be the Democratic Katherine Harris in 2008 -- strong enough to win the primary, but unelectable in the general elections because he's a liberal lightweight who'd be victimized by Democratic racism.

On the other hand, you've got to wonder if Al Gore has the heart to take another run at the presidency. After all, he would have been sure to be the nominee in 2004 and he chose not to make a run at it. So, is he going to be willing to take another crack at it in 2008, when he'd have to win a real dogfight just to get elected? That seems to be an open question. That being said, if Gore does run, he can be expected to be an impact player. After all, we're talking a southerner, a former Vietnam vet, an anti-war candidate, and a man who has served in the House, Senate, and spent two terms in the White House as VP. Whatever you may think of Gore, he has much more gravitas than any of the other top tier candidates.

On the other hand, when Gore lost in 2000, Bill Clinton was very popular, Al Gore was a sitting VP, and the economy was thought to be strong. Yet, Gore was still defeated by George W. Bush. Of course, afterwards, people suggested that Gore's defeat was a result of brilliant strategy by the Bush team. But, given the politically inept performance of the Bush Administration over the last couple of years, you've got to wonder if Bush was that good or if Al Gore was just that bad. Personally, I lean towards the latter interpretation. Gore lost every southern state, including his home state of Tennessee and came across as a dull, wonky technocrat. Today? He's older, chubbier, and he comes across as a flakier, more fanatical version of the candidate who was once considered a centrist. The "Inconvenient Truth" is that the Al Gore of 2008 probably would be a significantly weaker candidate than the Al Gore who lost a nail biter in 2000.

Last but not least, John Edwards seems to be getting a surprising amount of traction. Sure, he's from the south, is good looking with a great head of hair, is anti-war, and has some charisma. But, he's a lightweight with a single term in the Senate to his credit and he added nothing to the ticket in 2004 when he was the VP.

Could Edwards win the nomination? Maybe. Could he win the general election? Well, the Kerry/Edwards ticket didn't manage to win a single seat in the south last time around, which sort of defeats the purpose of selecting a southern candidate. Moreover, Edwards is such a "pre-9/11" candidate. He's so inexperienced and insubstantial that you could almost imagine him curled up under his desk in the fetal position if there were another big terrorist attack. He's just not the sort of guy who inspires confidence that he could handle a crisis.

Now, there are of course other candidates who'll be running -- John Kerry, who seems to leave most Democrats cold, Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsack, and Bill Richardson, none of whom could ever win because Democrats tend to like liberals pretending to be moderates, not actual moderates, and Wesley Clark, a man who appeals to Democrats because he can use his status as a general to distract voters from the fact that he basically shares Cindy Sheehan's views on the war in Iraq. Then there's Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, Dennis Kucinich and the rest of the cavalcade of also-rans who can feel free to plan vacations in November of 2008 without having the slightest worry that they'll have to spend that time redecorating the West Wing of the White House. But, at least for the moment, the four Democrats to watch are Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Gore.

Yesterday, while checking a link back to the Warblogger Awards, I ran across a liberal blog called CoolAqua and he had an eye catching post at the top of his blog. Here's a sample,

"Ed Shultz called for his audience to ask questions of Barack Obama yesterday, and because he had switched his start time, I wasn't able to get my question asked. I brought it up to Thom Hartmann (9-noon on AM 1090) and he thought it was a good one.

Ask this question of every single national politician you meet, campaign for, interview, or interact with in any way, even if just for a second on a talk show:

"Do you believe that agents of the Bush administration planned, executed, supported or covered up any elements of the 9/11 attacks, and if so, what are you going to do about it?"

Folks, you may not like it, but Bush and Cheney planned 9/11. It's obvious to anyone who does the research."

Now, of course, it's easy to write this lib blogger off as just another loon -- because he is. But, I do agree that every single "national politician" should be asked:

"Do you believe that agents of the Bush administration planned, executed, supported or covered up any elements of the 9/11 attacks, and if so, what are you going to do about it?"

There are two reasons why that's the case.

#1) Conspiracy theories often thrive because most people think the theory is so stupid that it's a waste of time to bother addressing the issue. In other words, if more credible liberals were talking about how ridiculous the LIHOP (Bush Let It Happen On Purpose) or MIHOP (Bush Made It Happen On Purpose) theories were, a lot less people would believe in those theories (the same applies to the equally ludicrous North American Union conspiracy theory on the right).

#2) If there is a politician that will admit that he believes these ridiculous conspiracy theories, then that is in effect an admission that he's too kooky to be in office and deserves to be targeted for defeat in the next election.

So, ask away, because in either case, it's a win/win situation!

If someone tried to apply this sort of reasoning to left wingers or people they support, they'd call it fascism:

"Controversial professor Ward Churchill says the United States is responsible for the 9/11 attacks, because of its support for Israel and the sanctions against Iraq.

According to the New York Sun, Churchill, an ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado, gave a two-hour speech at New York City's New School on Monday night. In the speech, titled "Sterilizing History: The Fabrication of Innocent Americans," Churchill said America essentially was asking for the 9/11 attacks because of a historical pattern of mass murder."

First of all, let's momentarily set aside Churchill's "Blame America first, America is the root of all evil, I hate America," shtick because it's not unusual to hear that sort of rhetoric from liberals.

Instead, let's focus on his reasoning. According to Churchill, America is responsible for the 9/11 attacks because this is a bad country that does bad things. And because America is evil, people hate us, and therefore we deserve whatever happens to us.

Moreover, let's take things a step further. Al-Qaeda, the group that attacked us, isn't a Palestinian group, nor were they based out of Iraq. Additionally, Churchill doesn't try to justify Al-Qaeda's attack on us because we were a threat to Al-Qaeda or to Afghanistan, where they were based at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

Again, it's simply, "America is evil, people hate us, and therefore we deserve whatever happens to us."

Ok, so let's try applying that same reasoning to other people and nations.

Let's say someone calls Ward Churchill evil and hates him, because he hates America. Does that mean that it's OK for them to encourage people to, let's say, work him over with a lead pipe? Let's say the Israelis, quite understandably, hate the Palestinians and call them evil because of their suicide bombings. Does that mean it's OK for them to simply massacre every Palestinian they run across on the street?

We can be sure that Churchill would strongly disapprove of any assaults on his person or assaults on the Palestinians even though, using the same reasoning that he applied to the 9/11 attacks, they'd be justified. Why is that?

Because Churchill's "reasoning," such as it is, only works if you agree with his underlying assumption: that America deserves whatever it gets just by virtue of being America. It's no different than the attitude the average person takes towards a cockroach. Any excuse to kill a cockroach will do because it's a cockroach. In the Chomskyian/Churchillian world view, America is the root of evil and any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to kill an American will do.

So, take away the hate for America and the "reasoning" collapses.

WorldNetDaily writer Jim Rutz has found the enemy… and it is soy:

There’s a slow poison out there that’s severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it’s a “health food,” one of our most popular.

Now, I’m a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it’s organic. I state my bias here just so you’ll know I’m not anti-health food.

The dangerous food I’m speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they’re all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore. …

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That’s why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today’s rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because “I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t homosexual.” No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can’t remember a time when excess estrogen wasn’t influencing them.

Now, soy may be responsible for lots of things–chief among them, bland high-protein foods–but somehow I doubt widespread male homosexuality is one of them. Nor does this theory also explain the apparent rise in female homosexuality in recent decades… but I’m sure Rutz has a theory involving trans-fatty acids or something for that.

Elsewhere, Steven Taylor rightly gives this article the mocking it deserves, although Jason Kuznicki may be the exception that proves the rule.

This content was used with the permission of Outside The Beltway.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out."

Iraq Suicide Bomber Kills 63, Hurts 200

More Than 30 Prominent Islamic Clerics From Saudi Arabia On Monday Called On Sunni Muslims Around The Middle East To Support Their Brethren In Iraq Against Shiites And Praised The Insurgency

Saudi Arabia Has Told The Bush Administration That It Might Provide Financial Backing To Iraqi Sunnis In Any War Against Iraq’s Shiites If The United States Pulls Its Troops Out Of Iraq (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Iraqis Consider Ways To Reduce Power Of Moktada Al-Sadr (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Why Did Clinton Spy On Di? CIA Sez 'It's Not Us' But NSA Admits Vacuuming Up Info

Dems keep Jefferson Off Ways and Means

Rep Walter Jones Asked The Justice Department On Tuesday To Investigate Whether The District Attorney Prosecuting Three Duke University Lacrosse Players Charged With Rape Has Violated The Athletes' Civil Rights. (Applause)

National Journal Insiders Poll For 2008

Former U.S. Rep. Ciro Rodriguez Defeated Seven-Term Republican Incumbent Henry Bonilla In A Runoff

Mark Steyn: Losing Every Which Way

M. Zuhdi Jasse: From a Muslim outlook, imams have missed the point on flight behavior

Robert Samuelson: The End Of Pax Americana?

Jack Kelly: Failing To Know The Enemy, And Ourselves

3 Million Bees Removed From Kitchen Of Couple's Apartment

Remains Of Horse With Far-Out Past Resurfaces On Ebay. Owner Of Snippy, Who Mysteriously Died Nearly 40 Years Ago, Claimed Space Aliens Killed It.

Old Video: McCain Sings Streisand

Video: Arab Running The Treadmill

Website Of The Day: Jeremy Freese's Weblog

Yesterday, I got together with former Majority Leader Tom DeLay for a short interview. What follows is an edited transcript of our discussion.

To begin with, let me ask you a question that just about everyone in politics has been asked over the last month: why did the GOP get shellacked so badly in November?

...I think it's (because of) a variety of reasons. On the House side, taking me out so disrupted the leadership during the time that they should have been planning for a campaign and working towards campaigns (that) they were in chaos. If you remember, I stepped down temporarily because of a Republican rule, not a Democrat rule. They didn't know how to deal with that because no one has ever had to do that before.

Then, we had a full leadership race in January and February and it took John Boehner, I don't know how many weeks to get up and get going. By the time that they were ready to go, it was May and that was too late. I think that had a part to play and in that part, it was difficult for them to articulate what accomplishments that they had in the 109th Congress and where they wanted to take the country in the future -- and that disconnect undermined the base.

And you add to that, the incredible coalition that the Clinonistas had put together -- I mean, I thought I knew the coalition, but I studied what they did and it was mind boggling, absolutely mind boggling -- well funded, huge, a lot of groups working together and coordinating together...thank you, John McCain and Chris Shays -- I give them more credit for the minority than anybody else because...

Campaign Finance Reform?

...McCain-Feingold destroyed the party's ability to play on a level playing field in these elections. The Democrats created their own outside party, David Horowitz calls it the "Shadow Party;" that was awesome and huge and we had nothing to rival it.

And I'm probably oversimplifying the reason that we lost the majority...

...So we've got nothing to rival it. What do we do about that? How do we build our own network of that sort?

Well, first you have to realize that we have to work together as a conservative movement. The leaders of the movement have to come together and start working together under the laws, as laid out, by McCain-Feingold. We have to have a communications strategy that articulates to the American people, who I think, by and large are centered to the right, and we have to compete in the communications game. I'm trying to be a role model for that by getting involved in the blogosphere, by building a grassroots coalition, by looking at ways that we can pull people together and be united for a common agenda.

And we have to rally around an agenda. The agenda I'm pushing is: win the war on terror, fundamental tax reform, redesigning government to reflect Constitutional values -- that'll get your spending in control, fighting judicial activism, and win the culture war -- end abortion as we know it. That's an agenda that conservatives can rally around and if we compete and tell our story, people will rally around us and it will be easier to raise the money and develop the strategy to win the races we need to win in '08.

As people who've followed it closely know, Ronnie Earle (District Attorney) down in Texas filed some ridiculous, politically motivated charges against you. When do you get to go to trial and clear those off the record? Also, when, as expected, his case fails against you, is there any way to get the guy impeached or hit with...misconduct charges?

No. There's no way and certainly we looked at it. There's no way to hold a rogue District Attorney accountable for abusing the law. I think that's outrageous and I am hoping the Texas legislature will take a hard look at my case and -- not only in my case, but the case he brought against Kay Bailey Hutchinson -- and his entire career of attacking politicians with frivolous charges just to drag their name and reputations through the mud and undermine their ability to win elections. That's his strategy. He never cares (whether) he's going to win the case...frankly, I don't know how long it's going to take. Ronnie Earle is dragging it out as long as he can and right now, I'm stuck in an appeals process, and have been for eight months -- and he's just using the process to drag it out -- on a ruling that ought to be easy for a first year law student. There was no law in Texas of conspiring to violate the election code when I was supposed to have broken it. They can't find it on the books. In fact, the state passed such a law two or three years after I was supposed to have violated it. There is ex post facto in this country. So anyway, that's ongoing. It's the politics of personal destruction -- the Democrats and the left abusing our system and using it against us. That's not going to slow me down in fighting for what I believe in.

Now in your district, the Democrats managed to lawyer their way into a seat by keeping Shelley Sekula Gibbs' name off the ballot."

That's right.

Do you see their continuing to hold onto that seat after the 2008 election?

No way.

No chance?

Well, first of all, Shelley Sekula Gibbs -- in the special election where she was on the ballot -- got more votes than he did in the general election where she wasn't on the ballot. She was able to get 42% of the vote on a write-in. That's pretty impressive...which shows you that this district is more Republican than the Houston Chronicle and the left would lead you to believe. You've got people, very talented, strong, political people that are looking to run. There's no way that Nick Lampson can survive.

Good to hear.

Now let me ask you a tough question. When you were Majority Leader, you said something that drove conservative bloggers, myself included, just absolutely nuts.

What's that?

According to the Washington Times, you said,

(Laughs)

Do you still agree with that? Disagree with that....

I don't agree with it as it was reported back then.

Well, I was going to ask you -- were you misquoted or do you think...

Yes, I was misquoted, severely misquoted. What I was trying to say was, the low hanging fruit had been picked during the first four years of the Republican majority. It was easy to cut wasteful spending in those first four years because there was plenty of it. As we moved forward, it became more and more difficult to cut spending, yet we still did.

I just never said that the government is running efficiently. No government runs efficiently. And I never said it. That's the point I was making -- that it was getting harder and harder to cut discretionary spending and frankly, I put it in my first agenda. I wanted to go after entitlements. That's where the real spending is and the first year of the last Congress, when I got to write an agenda, we had reconciliation as a process in there and we looked at every entitlement program, reformed every one of them, and saved 40 billion dollars. I wanted to do that every year and treat entitlements like you would appropriations and over time, get rid of entitlements as process. Entitlements should be outlawed in America. Every government program shouldn't be on automatic pilot. It should be looked at and appropriated for every year.

I agree. That's a good idea.

Now, tell us about why you decided to create a blog.

I think conservatives have to compete in every media that's out there. There are some good conservative blogs, yours included, that are very good and helpful. But, there are not enough of them. We are sorely outnumbered by the left in the blogosphere and I think we've got to compete and I'm trying to be a role model for leadership around the country. They ought to be involved. They ought to have a blog so they can be more personable in communicating our philosophy to the American people. This medium allows us to bypass the liberal media and make a more direct appeal and we ought to be using it. We ought to be involved in movies, we ought to be involved in documentaries, we shouldn't just (let the left have those mediums to themselves). Any time the New York Times writes something outrageous, all of us ought to jump on it and chastise them for it. The left does that to us and if you look at the comments made on my blog in less than 24 hours, they're going to try to shut me down by attacking me. When was the last time the Republicans or conservatives attacked the left for their outrageous comments or outrageous activities? We don't attack. It's time to start attacking and be aggressive about what you believe and fighting for your beliefs.

Now, tell us a little bit about the grass roots organization that you're starting, G.A.I.N. Tell us a little bit about that.

Well, I just feel like there are a lot of people out there that, if given some leadership and projects to work on in order to advance the conservative cause, they will spend some of their time in doing that and I'm looking for those people. We have a lot of projects that we could do to advance the conservative movement and if people join our organization, G.A.I.N., they can participate in as many projects as they want to or not participate in any and just get the information. People are out there that believe in what I believe and where we want to take this country and they want to do something about it. We're giving them a way to do that.

Now, we're finishing up here. Is there anything else you'd like to say or promote before we finish?

No, I think you've covered it pretty well.

Excellent. I really appreciate your time. Best of luck with your new blog.

Thank you!

You can read more from Tom DeLay by clicking here to go to his new blog.

My pal Michelle Malkin and a few other bloggers have roughed up Rosie O'Donnell for mocking the Chinese language with these "sage" comments about Danny DeVito:

"The fact is that it's news all over the world. You know, you can imagine in China it's like, 'Ching chong, ching chong, Danny DeVito, ching chong chong chong chong, drunk, 'The View,' ching chong.'"

While admittedly it is amusing to see Rosie O'Donnell getting roughed up for not being politically correct, I didn't think what she said was offensive. What's the difference between what she said and the way that South Park makes fun of the way Arabs speak? You know,

"Derka Allah Muhammad jihad. Bakala! Muhammad jihad! Bakala! Muhammad jihad! Allah derka derka Muhammad jihad! Muhammad jihad."

Heck, making fun of the way people speak has been a staple of the acts of comedians for a long time. How often has Carlos Mencia made fun of the way people talk? How many times have you heard a black comedian say something like, "And you know how white people are, it's like, 'Hey buddy, what's going on over there?' "

Awww, why don't I just show you. Listen to Eddie Murphy in this classic bit:

What makes Rosie O'Donnell's comments any worse than that clip from Murphy? In my book, they're not.

Last night, I did a Conservatives With Attitude podcast along with Sister Toldjah and we discussed the 2008 Republican Presidential contenders. It runs about 30 minutes and you can listen to the whole thing at the link above.

Tom Delay's new blog didn't officially go live until yesterday. However, on Sunday, apparently before they had any sort of method of screening comments in place, the word got out about the blog and some liberal blogs linked to it.

As you'd imagine, when a bunch of liberals are allowed to post uncensored comments on the blog of a hated political foe, most of what they had to say was stupid, obscene, and generally moronic. Although Tom DeLay's blog deleted those comments, they were saved on another page. Here are a few examples of what liberals behave like when they think they can get away with it:

"YOUR ARE A F*CKING DISGRACE TO THE IDEAS OF GOLDWATER. CRAWL BACK INTO A HOLE YOU TURD!" -- Unregistered Commenter Clayton Hutchinson

"You left Congress disgracefully and you want people to take you seriously? You should be in prison you *ssclown, p*ss off Tom." -- Unregistered Commenter Tom you suck

"Tom DeLay is a pussy-*ss f*ggot moneygrubber." -- Unregistered Commenter Jar Jar

"Tom,

When you're locked up, will you smuggle blog posts out in your visitors' rectums?" -- Unregistered Commenter Rick Derris

"Oh, by the way I mostly put the blame on your corrupted,twisted,criminal,phycotic,evil existance on your PARENTS who bought your no-good *ss into this world." -- Unregistered Commenter Bill Davis

"Did I mention that you are a f*cking moron?" -- Unregistered Commenter john w

"rot in hell b*ch!" -- Unregistered Commenter mike

"911 was an inside job. The USA attacked the USA on Sept 11th, 2001 in order to have an excuse to attack other countries." -- Unregistered Commenter Atheist

"Tom, you are a disgusting piece of sh*t.
Tom, you are a disgusting piece of sh*t.
Tom, you are a disgusting piece of sh*t.
Tom, you are a disgusting piece of sh*t." -- Unregistered Commenter Wade F. Godo

Every so often, you hear liberal bloggers make a big deal out of the fact that most conservative blogs don't have comment sections. Well, I'd just say, look at the sort of left-wing scum that conservative comment sections tend to draw and it becomes very easy to understand why most conservative bloggers don't want the hassle.

Dick Morris is still trying to convince people that Hillary Clinton will be practically invincible in 2008:

"She definitely can win … and probably will. She is uniquely able to expand the electorate to bring in millions of women, mostly single, who will vote overwhelmingly for a female Democrat. The feminization of poverty, long decried by the left, will finally lead unmarried women to show up at the polling place and vote their short-term economic interest and vindicate their gender bias. In 2000, only 19 million single women voted. By 2004, their turnout rose to 27 million. With Hillary in the race, the single-female vote will probably go up to its proper ratio of the adult population -- 33 million votes.

Can white men outvote single women? Despite the intensity with which white men tend to oppose Hillary, they can’t vote twice.

The enthusiasm that will grip many Americans -- women in particular -- at the cultural implications of a woman president will probably sweep through the primaries and cause many to overlook Hillary’s flaws and dismiss her defects. The generic of a woman candidate will prove so attractive that millions of voters will overcome their objections to the specific person who is running."

Long story short: Slightly more women than men vote and women will vote for Hillary because she's a woman. That's the linchpin of the theory that Dick Morris has been peddling for a year now.

The problem with it is that the evidence suggests that it doesn't work that way in the real world. For example, Geraldine Ferraro would have been the first female Vice President in history back in 1984 if Walter Mondale had defeated Ronald Reagan. So, did this tidal wave of female voters show up at the polls to vote Ferraro and Mondale into the White House? No, to the contrary, Reagan and Bush Sr. crushed them 525-13 in the electoral college count and Reagan and Bush received almost 59% of the popular vote.

Next, on the other side of the aisle, let's look at Elizabeth Dole's run at the Presidency in 2000. Dole didn't even make it to the primaries before she dropped out of the race. Again, there was no huge groundswell of support for her based on her gender.

Now let's take a look at Congress as well as Mayorships and Governorships. If Morris' theory had merit, you'd expect to see women over represented in these government posts. However, the opposite is true. Here are some stats from The White House Project that appear to have been compiled BEFORE the latest election:

There have been 25 women governors in American history. Only eight (16%) of our current governors are women (9 if you include the female Governor of Puerto Rico). No women of color have ever been governor of a U.S. state.

Just 14 of the mayors of America's largest 100 cities are women (14%). And only 188 of 1139 US cities with more than 30,000 residents have women mayors. (17%). Thirty-seven (15.2%) of the 243 cities with populations over 100,000 having women mayors, only eight are women of color.

Women currently hold 14 Senate seats (14%) and 66 seats in the House of Representatives (15.2%), not including three non-voting female delegates to the House from Guam, Washington D.C. and the Virgin Islands, respectively. In total, 80 of the 535 members of Congress (both houses) are women (15% overall).

Although there are only 14 women Senators in 2005, some of these women represent the three most populous states in the Union (i.e. California, New York, and Texas). All 14 women Senators are white, with only one woman of color ever elected to the Senate, Carol Moseley Braun from Illinois. Women of color constitute 3.4% of the total 535 members of Congress.

If women are such can't-miss candidates based purely on the fact that they're women, why aren't elected positions across the board dominated by women instead of men? You can try to make the argument that the Presidency is an exception for some reason, but again, I'd point to Ferraro and Dole as examples of why that argument doesn't fly.

Given how close our last two elections have turned out to be, it seems likely that the election in 2008 will be close as well. So, whoever the Democratic candidate will be should have a chance to win the Presidency. But, this idea that Hillary is unstoppable because women will come out of the woodwork to vote for her is bunk.

If you want to watch a show that features martial artists going at it in fights better than any boxing match you've seen, then you've got to check out the Pride Fighting Championships.

In all the time I have been watching the TV show, I have never, not one time, seen them put on a "bad" fight and it's not unusual for every fight that they show to be just phenomenal. There's lots and lots of striking and the rules are set up so that the fighters don't end wrestling around on the ground endlessly either.

Here's a little sample from the show that I Tivo'd last night. It features Quinton "Rampage" Jackson knocking out Ricardo Aron in one of the most brutal knockouts that you've ever seen:

Also, while I was tooling around YouTube, I ran across this video called, "Pride fighting knockouts."

I know that's a "best of" video, but to tell you the truth, it's not unusual for the average fight to end with action that furious. So, check it out. You won't be disappointed.

I justed posted on Britain's first steps away from multiculturalism. Unfortunately, that isn't the case with Spain, who caved to terrorists and voted in Liberals because of the pre-election train bombings in Madrid.

Here's where that road leads you: h/t reader C

Spanish school cancels Christmas for fear of offending Muslims

MADRID (Reuters) - A school in traditionally Catholic Spain has cancelled Christmas celebrations so as not to offend children who are not Christians, ABC newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The Hilarion Gimeno school in Zaragoza said teachers had put forward various reasons for not celebrating Christmas, but ABC said the worry was that Muslim children might be upset.

The school will not put on a nativity play or hand out presents, but pupils will be free to decorate the halls and sing carols.

"We are educators and we want our school programme to advance the personal development of our students as much as possible," the school said.

Christmas celebrations usually last for about a month in Spain, with parties starting in December and running through to January 6 for "Los Reyes", a huge fiesta to celebrate the visit of the three wise men to the new-born Jesus in Bethlehem.

This content was used with the permission of Riehl World View.

Dems To Wipe Out Pet Projects In Bills

Millions Of Commercial Web Sites And Personal Blogs Would Be Required To Report Illegal Images Or Videos Posted By Their Users Or Pay Fines Of Up To $300,000 If John McCain Gets His Way

Booted Imams Want Airline Settlement

Rep. Kucinich To Seek White House In 2008

Top 10 Most Expensive House Races in 2006

Christmas Trees Are Going Back Up At Sea-Tac Airport

Claim: By 2040 -- An Arctic With No Ice?

NSA To Deny Bugging Diana's Phone. Official Tells CBS News Agency Had Files On Princess Because She Came Up In Others' Conversations

Car Bombs Kill 54 In Baghdad

$20bn Shell Gas Project Seized By Russia

Four People In Germany Are Being Tested For The Same Radioactive Poison That Killed Russian Ex-Spy Alexander Litvinenko

Holocaust Conference Begins In Iran

Robert Novak: Democrats Aren't Ready to Give Up Pork

An Interview With Jim DeMint

David Frum: Why Is It Always about Israel?

Mort Zuckerman: The Threat From Within

Nicole Richie Busted For DUI

20,000 Pakistani Men Protest Law That Will Prevent Rapes

A Primary School Sacked A Woman Teacher For Telling Heartbroken Nine-Year-Olds There Is No Father Christmas

2006's Worst Political Mishaps

Top 10 Scams of 2006

Website Of The Day: SmartChristian

In order to recognize the excellent work some of our fellow bloggers have been doing, RWN has put together the "5th Annual Warblogger Awards". More than 235 bloggers were invited to vote for their favorite blog in numerous categories and 41 responded.

Here were the rules of the contest:

1) I decided to use a dual scoring system because of the way the categories were set-up.

For every category except "The Best Blog Overall," each judge was allowed to make 1-5 unranked selections. The winner of each category was the blog with the most votes.

In "The Best Blog Overall" category, the judges made 1-15 unranked selections. Rank in that category was also based on the number of votes received.

The winner of each category is presented below with their total number of votes in parentheses beside of them.

2) The judges were not allowed to vote for their own blogs, blogs run by family members, or Right Wing News since I'm sponsoring the contest.

3) I told the judges not to get hung up on whether someone was a "warblogger" or not.

Before the results are presented, here's a list of the judges. RWN appreciates their participation...

Aaron's CC, Argghhhh!, Ankle Biting Pundits, AtlanticBlog, Atlas Shrugs, Betsy's Page, Bit's Blog, Blogs For Bush, Blogs of War, Brainster's Blog, Damian Penny, Euphoric Reality, Freeman Hunt, GOPProgress, Guardian Watchblog, IMAO, Iowa Voice, JackLewis, Mary Katharine Ham's Blog, Mountaineer Musings, Moxie, Newmark's Door, Newsbeat1, The Nose On Your Face (Potfry), Outside The Beltway, QandO, Relapsed Catholic, Right Angle Blog (Rob Bluey), Right Angle Blog (Ivy J. Sellers), Right Thinking Girl, Right Wing News, Slobokan's Site Of Schtuff, Small Dead Animals, Solomonia, Texas Rainmaker, Tim Chapman Blog, Trying To Grok, Villainous Company, Vox Popoli, WILLisms, Wuzzadem

Now here's what you've all been waiting for, the results:

The Funniest Blog

Honorable Mention: Tim Blair (4)
Honorable Mention: Iowahawk (4)
Honorable Mention: Ace of Spades HQ (4)
3) Wuzzadem (5)
3) BlameBush! (5)
2) IMAO (8)
1) Scrappleface (15)

Best Designed Blog

3) Michael Yon: Online Magazine (4)
3) Cold Fury (4)
2) Hot Air (5)
1) Little Green Footballs (6)

Most Missed (The best blog that's out of business now)

1) Chrenkoff (3)
1) Expose the Left (3)
1) The Spoons Experience (3)
1) USS Clueless (3)

Best Original Reporting By A Blog

Honorable Mention: Passionate America (4)
Honorable Mention: Jihad Watch (4)
Honorable Mention: Power Line (5)
3) The Fourth Rail/(Bill Roggio) (6)
3) Captain's Quarters (6)
2) Michael Yon: Online Magazine (7)
1) Michelle Malkin (11)

Best Blog Round-Up Site (Best website/blog to go to see the top/most interesting stories in the blogosphere for the day)

3) Pajamas Media (4)
3) Michelle Malkin (4)
3) Hot Air (4)
3) Basil's Blog (4)
1) Memeorandum (11)
1) Instapundit (11)

Favorite Columnist Who's Not A Blogger

Honorable Mention: Ann Coulter (10)
3) Thomas Sowell (11)
2) Charles Krauthammer (15)
1) Mark Steyn (17)

Least Liked Columnist Who's Not A Blogger

3) Frank Rich (4)
2) Paul Krugman (9)
1) Maureen Dowd (10)

Favorite Political Website That's Not A Blog

Honorable Mention: Townhall (4)
3) Drudge Report (6)
2) National Review (7)
1) RealClearPolitics (10)

Favorite Left-Of-Center Blogger

3) TalkLeft (3)
2) Kausfiles (4)
1) The Washington Monthly (5)

Most Annoying Left-Of-Center Blogger

Honorable Mention: Oliver Willis (5)
Honorable Mention: The Huffington Post/Arianna Huffington (5)
2) Unclaimed Territory/Glenn Greenwald (6)
2) Andrew Sullivan (6)
1) Daily Kos/Kos (18)

Most Annoying Right-Of-Center Blogger

3) Michelle Malkin (3)
2) Stop the ACLU(4)
1) Andrew Sullivan (11)

Most Overrated Blog

3) Power Line (4)
3) Michelle Malkin (4)
2) Andrew Sullivan (5)
1) Instapundit (8)

Best Linker

3) Hot Air (5)
2) Michelle Malkin (9)
1) Instapundit (19)

The Best Original Content For A Blog

3) Little Green Footballs (4)
2) Captain's Quarters (5)
1) Michelle Malkin (9)

The Best Blog Overall

11) Power Line (4)
11) NewsBusters (4)
11) Jihad Watch (4)
11) IMAO (4)
11) Tim Blair (4)
11) Ankle Biting Pundits (4)
11) Ace of Spades HQ (4)
9) Redstate (5)
9) Blackfive (5)
7) Hugh Hewitt (6)
7) The Corner (6)
6) Wizbang! (7)
5) Hot Air (8)
4) Instapundit (10)
3) Captain's Quarters (12)
2) Michelle Malkin (16)
1) Little Green Footballs (17)

You can see results from previous years by clicking the links below

The Fourth Annual Warblogger Awards For 2005
The Third Annual Warblogger Awards For 2004
The Second Annual Warblogger Awards For 2003
The First Annual Warblogger Awards For 2002
The Best Of The Blogosphere (The Precursor To The Warblogger Awards)

Make sure to check out the latest links at Conservative Grapevine including,

David Frum: Bill Clinton's dark night of Fascism and Lady Di

Hog On Ice: A bunch of stunning sub-20-year-old latinas walked through. They maneuvered around us like we were furniture. Eye contact? Why would you make eye contact with a china cabinet or an end table?

Hugh Hewitt: If James Baker ran a bipartisan Blue-Ribbon panel tasked with saving social security, his commission would conclude that...

Click here to visit Conservative Grapevine and don't forget to bookmark CG!

This week-end, I headed into the theater to catch Mel Gibson's new flick, Apocalypto. The movie begins with peaceful villagers chasing, killing, and slicing up a tapir and playing a prank. Ah, life seems so care free and happy -- until a band of refugees comes wandering by and explains that their land was ravaged. Now, you'd think that if your neighbors were driven from their homes, you might want to know more about it. The intrepid hero of the movie, Jaguar Paw, certainly did. But, his father, Runs with Liberals, Flint Sky keeps him from finding out more and tells the hunters not to inform the village that they may be in danger. Then, he explains to his son that he doesn't want him to "be afraid," or "live in fear." Of course, that sounds a little like the drivel the left has been putting out about the war on terrorism and that prompted me to remember that Mel Gibson had spouted off about Bush helping to inspire Apocalypto.

Film star and director Mel Gibson has launched a scathing attack on US President George W Bush, comparing his leadership to the barbaric rulers of the Mayan civilisation in his new film Apocalypto.

...Gibson reveals he used present day American politics as an inspiration, claiming the government callously plays on the nation's insecurities to maintain power.

He tells British film magazine Hotdog, "The fear-mongering we depict in the film reminds me of President Bush and his guys".

So, if Bush's America represents the Mayan bad guys, does that make Al-Qaeda the innocent villagers? Who knows, but regardless, Flint Sky's exhortation not to "be afraid," or "live in fear," turns out to be the worst advice in the history of moviedom.

That's because instead of being motivated by fear to prepare for a threat or run away, the hunters keep what happened to themselves, spend the night listening to a fairy tale about owls and jaguars, and wake up the next morning to find Mayans rampaging through their village. The Mayans rape, murder, and enslave the whole village except for the children, who are left to die, and Jaguar Paw's pregnant wife and son whom he manages to hide in an empty well before he's captured.

At this point, the tribesmen are marched across country to a Babylon in the jungle, where the Mayans sell them on the slave block and sacrifice them -- I could go on, but I don't want to tell you too much of the plot.

However, I will tell you that the movie, which ran 2 hours and 18 minutes, would have really benefitted from being 20 minutes shorter. Moreover, it's hard to figure out exactly what the point is of having all the characters speak in Yucatec Maya with subtitles instead of just having them speak English. Now, The Passion Of The Christ? I get what he was going for there. He wanted people to think something like, "Mel Gibson cares so much about making an authentic movie about Christ's life that he's actually having the characters speak Aramaic." That at least makes a certain kind of sense. This doesn't. Mel should have gone with English or dubbed it.

Let me also add that the movie was quite violent and disturbing -- if you're one of the few people in the modern world who hasn't quite been completely desensitized to violence yet. The film featured beating hearts being carved out of people's chests, decapitations, Auschwitz style body pits, squirting skull fractures, brutal combat -- it's fair to say that it's a gory movie. But, it was also a visually stunning film. The Mayan city was decadent and eye catching, and a spectacle in and of itself. Additionally, the abrupt end of the movie, which was the sort of thing that M. Night Shyamalan would come up with on one of his better days, will probably be a love it or hate it thing for most people.

Long story short: this was a fairly unique movie with lots of action, but the pacing was a little slow and the subtitles were unnecessarily distracting. So, the rating? Thumbs in the middle.

I'm not sure if this story is less flattering to the British Government or to Muslims:

"Cabinet ministers have been told by the Foreign Office to drop the phrase 'war on terror' and other terms seen as liable to anger British Muslims and increase tensions more broadly in the Islamic world.

The shift marks a turning point in British political thinking about the strategy against extremism and underlines the growing gulf between the British and American approaches to the continuing problem of radical Islamic militancy. It comes amid increasingly evident disagreements between President George Bush and Tony Blair over policy in the Middle East.

...A Foreign Office spokesman said the government wanted to 'avoid reinforcing and giving succour to the terrorists' narrative by using language that, taken out of context, could be counter-productive'. The same message has been sent to British diplomats and official spokespeople around the world.

'We tend to emphasise upholding shared values as a means to counter terrorists,' he added.

Many senior British politicians and counter-terrorism specialists have always been uneasy with the term 'the war on terror', coined by the White House in the week following the 9/11 attacks, arguing that the term risked inflaming opinions worldwide. Other critics said that it was too 'military' and did not adequately describe the nature of the diverse efforts made to counter the new threat."

How can the Brits continue to fight a "war on terror," if they're afraid to even call it by its name? They can't. The reality is that the Brits of old are fading away and being replaced with people who have more in common with Spain or Italy than they do with their cousins across the pond. That's part of the reason that I think our "special relationship" with the Brits probably won't last much longer than Tony Blair's time in office.

Additionally, what does it say about Muslims if the phrase, "war on terror," is upsetting to them? That they're sympathetic to terrorists perhaps? Would you want to fly on a plane with a Muslim who was "anger(ed)" by the idea of a "war on terror?"

PS: Let me interpret this bit of "diplomateese" for you:

'We tend to emphasise upholding shared values as a means to counter terrorists,' translates to we'd rather keep our heads down and hope that the crocodiles eat us last.

That's quite a come down for a people who Winston Churchill once famously remarked were not made of "sugar candy."

* Note, that if you're a blogger who wants to see what your readers think, you can use the javascript above to paste this poll on your own blog.

You can see the results from RWN here and the results for the whole right side of the blogosphere here.

Late last night, I ran across this headline on Drudge:

"UPDATE: George Mitchell says he'd consider UN post..."

For just a second, I thought it read "UPDATE: George Michael says he'd consider UN post..."

Of course, one is about as likely as the other because I cannot imagine a situation where George Bush would consider replacing John Bolton with former Democratic Senator George Mitchell unless it involved blackmail that featured pictures of him and a chubby intern on the desk in the Oval Office.

If the point of this commercial is to make me want to buy a phone, then this commercial is a complete failure. If the point of this commercial is to make me want to bludgeon "Jo Koy," whoever he is, with a heavy object, then this is the most effective commercial ever made.

Update #1: Some people in the comments section are saying that they can't see the video. So, here's a link to it at YouTube just in case it's not displaying for you above.

Major Partners In Iraq's Governing Coalition Are In Behind-The-Scenes Talks To Oust Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki (Applause)

Arab States Study Shared Nuclear Program

US Bugged Diana's Phone On Night Of Death Crash (Why Was Bill Clinton's Administration Tapping Diana's Phone?)

Iraq Is Failing to Spend Billions in Oil Revenues (Free New York Times Reg Req)

France Deploys UAVs To Stop IAF Flights (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Crowds Flood Beirut To Pressure Gov't

Kofi Annan To Blast U.S. In Farewell

New Taliban Rules Target Afghan Teachers

Rumsfeld Bids Farewell To Troops In Iraq In Surprise Visit

Democratic Incumbent William Jefferson Wins House Runoff Election Despite Federal Bribery Probe

Democrat Leader Rahm Emanuel Heard Of Foley E-Mails In 2005

No Prosecution Likely For Foley

Jeb Bush Won't Rule Out Presidency

Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Says A Video Clip Showing Her Calling For Fidel Castro's Assassination Footage Is Fake, A Charge Denied Sunday By The Film's Director

U.S. Has Most Prisoners In World (Applause)

Michael Barone: Realists?

Jeff Jacoby: Oh, Brother

Robert Novak: No Farewell To Pork?

Jonah Goldberg: All The Backslapping Over The Baker Panel’s Report Ignores The Fact That The Iraq Study Group Didn’t Say Much

Mark Steyn: ISG Must Stand For, Uh, Inane Strategy Guesswork

The Great Australian Bikini March Has Been Canceled

Video: The original Ronald McDonald (This Guy Is Ever Creepier Than The Burger King)

Video: State Employees

Italian activist's TV Suicide Try Foiled (W/Video)

TomDeLay.com