A New Editor for Human Events: Jed Babbin

Althouse

Bitsblog

Bob Ney Sentenced To 30 Months In Jail

Brainster's Blog

Bush Considering Pardon For Border Agents Convicted Of Shooting Mexican Drug Runner. Hunter's Bill To Pardon The Border Patrol Agents Has Collected 72 Co-Sponsors On A Bill Within 15 Minutes After He Introduced The Measure On The House Floor

Danny Carlton Web Design (Highly Recommended)

Main Aide Of Muqtada Al-Sadr Arrested. Al-Sadr Fears For His Life And Stays Constantly On The Move

Mary Katharine Ham: Big Orange CEOs Under Fire In Congress

PA Water Cooler

The Political Pitbull

Power Line

Relapsed Catholic

Sarah Silverman Online

The Sheila Variations

Video: Jack Bauer Management Infomercial

Question: "Do you know the difference between Sunni & Shia muslims?
Which one is the majority in the world?
Which one is the majority in Iraq?
Which one is Al Qaeda?

I'm not trying to make you look foolish here, since I had to double check the answers myself. Just trying to shed light on the fact that lots of Americans don't know the answers to these questions, including some folks who are running the war, and that is scary." -- Tom_pinko_Delay

Answer: Al-Qaeda is Sunni.
Hezbollah is Shia.
The majority of Muslims in Iraq are Shia.
The majority of Muslims in the world are Sunni.

Here's a part of my 2nd interview with Robert Spencer that does a good job of explaining the difference between Sunnis and Shiites:

The Shiia and Sunni (branches of Islam) came about in a dispute over succession to Muhammad. Is that correct?

Yes, exactly.

Can you explain to people how that came about?

The prophet Muhammad died rather suddenly and he did not leave clear instructions as to his successors, as to who would succeed him as leaders of the community. The Party of Ali it was called or the Shi'at Ali believed that only a relative of Muhammad could legitimately take over his role as the leader of the Muslim community that he created. The other party believed that it was not necessary that somebody be a member of the Prophet's family, but only that the best man be chosen.

So Ali was not chosen, was passed over for the first three times in the choice for the succession to the leadership, and finally was chosen but was rather shortly thereafter murdered and his sons also were murdered. ... These became the cardinal incidents for Shiite Islam and are celebrated today, yearly, in extravagant displays of mourning of which you've seen pictures. ...

... People cutting themselves with swords ...

... Yes, people cutting their heads with swords in mourning for Hussein, the son of Ali. Really, there's not much difference between Sunni and Shiite practice of Islam although the Shiites do tend to be more spiritually minded—have more of a mystical tradition—and are certainly more emotional and extravagant in their piety and have a little bit more of an emphasis on, let's say, the cult of the Saint. But otherwise, certainly in terms of jihad warfare against infidels, there's not any significant difference between the Sunnis and Shiites.

If you understand all that then you have a better handle on it than Silvestre Reyes, the Democratic House Intelligence Chairman.

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

Beltway Blogroll: Survey: The top 10 most read blogs on Capitol Hill.

Darwin Awards: The 2006 Darwin Awards for people dying in the stupidest fashion.

Scrappleface: Hagel Bill would cap GOP Senator numbers.

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark CG!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

Question: "If you had the sole power to appoint any one person President, who would that person be?" -- maledicta

Answer: Duh! Me, of course! Now granted, I would still have elections, but my popular agenda, which would include sending all the liberals and dissenters to "freedom camps," putting land mines across the Mexican border, and turning Canada into one vast, frozen slave labor camp would guarantee me 99% support in every election. And just to make sure that the count was done right, I would nationalize Diebold, and make sure people I completely trusted handled the election results from start to finish.

PS: The term President is so stuffy, so formal. That's why I'd change the term to something more personable and friendly, like "Grand Overlord."

If you've watched any of the Lord of the Ring movies, you have GOT TO see this video (it's about 12 minutes before the credits) which is described as,

"Michael Moore's searing examination of theAragorn administration's actions in the wake of the tragic events at Helms Deep."

This brutal parody of Michael Moore is funnier than any skit I've seen on Saturday Night Live or Mad TV in the last few years:

Question: "I have learned an enormous amount from you since 9/11 and have come to understand, as a Canadian/born in Britain something about your nation. I am gobsmacked by the folks in that Fox poll who "don't know" their wishes for the outcome of the new policy in Iraq. As a person who lived as a sentient being [albeit a child] in England during the Second World War how can ANYONE "not know" what they want for their country? Yes, I do understand the "No" crowd thanks to reading your blog!" -- Jourdemaine

Answer: The poll Jourdemaine is referring to is here (.pdf file). Here's the key info:

Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?

------------------Yes-------No-------(Don't Know)
Average---------63%-----22%----------15%
Democrats------51%-----34%----------15%
Republicans-----79%-----11%----------10%
Independents---63%-----19%----------17%

As far as the "Don't Know" answers go, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them have no idea what the surge is. I know that seems incomprehensible to those of us who are political junkies, but there are a lot of people out there who don't follow anything related to politics, government, etc., and couldn't tell you the difference between what's going on in Iraq and France.

On the other hand, if you do know what Bush's plan is and "don't know" if you want it to succeed, you're no better than the people who want it to fail -- and those people are contemptible. If you're an American and you want the surge to fail, you're rooting for your own country to lose a war and hence, you're not a patriot, you're not a good American, and you're not even a decent person.

Earlier this week, I mentioned in a post that Nancy Pelosi's husband had 17 million dollars in Del Monte stock. My source for that was Redstate. However, it turns out that their "source's source" wasn't reliable or reputable.

Since that's the case, I wanted to correct the record. To the best of my knowledge, the Pelosi family does not currently own $17 mil worth of stock in Del Monte.

The Clinton machine is already gleefully planting long knives between the shoulder blades of Barack Obama:

"Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?

This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.

An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.

"He was a Muslim, but he concealed it," the source said. "His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign."

When contacted by Insight, Mr. Obama's press secretary said he would consult with "his boss" and call back. He did not.

Sources said the background check, conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton, disclosed details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past. The sources said the Clinton camp concluded the Illinois Democrat concealed his prior Muslim faith and education.

"The background investigation will provide major ammunition to his opponents," the source said. "The idea is to show Obama as deceptive."

So, the Clinton line here is that Obama is really a lying, dirty foreigner from Indonesia who's secretly a Muslim?

Fascinating.

In a way, this reminds me of the way that the Kerry campaign handled the "Mary Cheney issue" during the 2004 campaign. Democrats always claim that conservatives hate gays, but during the campaign, the message was, "Think twice before you vote for Bush because Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbo!"

Now it's, "Conservatives hate Muslims and foreigners, but did you know that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim foreigner! Watch out or he'll amend the Constitution to make the burqa mandatory and put 'In Allah We Trust' on the back of the dollar!"

The Clintons are some the nastiest, most vicious people in politics and you can be sure that they're not done with Barack by a long shot.

Question: "In your opinion John, how likely or unlikely is the nuke scenario from the recent episode of "24"? -- ArbiterStrikesBack

Answer: It would be unlikely, but not impossible (given the damage a nuke would cause, that low probability certainly isn't comforting) at the moment because of the limited number of sources from which the terrorists currently have to acquire a nuclear bomb.

Incidentally, that's one of the scariest things about Iran getting nukes. It's not just that they might give nuclear weapons to terrorists, it's that Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, etc., etc., etc., would build them to make sure they could defend themselves from Iran. We could be in a situation, say a decade or two from now, where there might be a dozen places that terrorists could conceivably get nukes and the difficulty of figuring out who supplied the nuclear weapon after the fact could, in and of itself, make it much more likely that a nuclear bomb would be set off in an American city.

Moreover, keep in the mind that acquiring the materials for a dirty bomb would probably be very doable for groups like Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda. Imagine the panic, chaos, and havoc that would be caused by a massive explosion in the middle of LA that sent radioactive material for blocks in every direction. Not only would you have people killed by the initial explosion, you could have people getting sick from radiation, and a significant portion of a major city made uninhabitable for...who knows how long it would be?

Question: "What's with the serious lack of commentary about the start of "24"? -- Mike_M

Answer: Well, since I got TiVo, I have no idea what time or channel anything comes on. I just set it to record shows and then, whenever I have time to watch TV, I take a look at whatever looks to be the most interesting thing I happen to have recorded.

Unfortunately, in this case, I went in to put "24" on my Season Pass list a while back, before it had showed up, and it wasn't there. Then, I forgot I didn't get it on the list. So, when I turned on the TV and looked for "24," it wasn't there, because I didn't set the TiVo to grab it. Because of that, I missed the first two episodes and didn't even realize it until after they'd both already shown.

So, I have seen the nuke clip and have heard a good bit about what happened on the show, but I haven't seen any episodes yet.

PS: Month 5 of a Barack Obama presidency courtesy of "24?"

"It looks like the Soviet approach to science is taking over the US now. Climate scientists are going to have to choose sides in scientific debates based not on empirical evidence subjected to the scientific method, but on whether they want to succeed in their careers. Want a life? Say global warming is real. Want to end up working as a substitute science teacher? Say what you really think." -- Steve H., Hog on Ice

Question: "Could you provide a list of all of the posters you have banned, and if you have time, why you banned them?" -- _FRANKVOIKEL

Answer: When it comes to people who are banned, I don't respond to their email, keep a list of their nicknames, or any sort of list of why they were banned and I probably never will until the Democratic Congress passes the "Fairness for Liberal Trolls Act" that imposes $100,000 fines for not sending that information into the FEC.

But, this is a good opportunity to note the rules for comment posting from the FAQ:

Are There Any Rules About Posting Comments?: Yes, please don't flame excessively, use an exceptional amount of vulgar language, call anyone a "towelhead," "raghead," or "wetback," continually post off topic material, spam, use racial or gay slurs, libel anyone, troll, make threats, or challenge anyone to fight.

In short, don't be a jerk.

If that won't work for you, I'll delete your posts and ban your IP. If you are banned and genuinely don't know why, email me. If you know you were doing something mentioned above and you are banned, please don't try to get around the ban. Do everybody involved a favor and find somewhere else to post where they appreciate what you have to say.

I would also note that if you're brand new at RWN, you're on a shorter leash than people who have been here for a while. If I log into Movable Type and see nicknames I don't recognize, take a look at what they have to say, and it comes across like trolling, I don't hesitate to get rid of them immediately. People who've been around a little longer get a little more rope.

I do ban conservatives and liberals, but a lot more libs end up getting bounced because a lot of them show up here with a chip on their shoulder looking to pick a fight.

Last but not least, there are moderators who can also delete posts, but I'm the only one who can ban somebody. So, if someone's banned, it's because I personally held his head down on the block with my foot and swung the axe.

Chinese Test Anti-Satellite Weapon

Saudis Consider Sending Troops To Iraq If The Surge Fails

Afghan Civilians Stop Terror Attack At U.S. Base

Israel To Use 'Code' To Prevent 9/11 Attacks

The Bennett Amendment Has Passed The Senate, Which I Believe Puts An End -- For The Moment -- To Worries That Bloggers Will Be Treated As Lobbyists

Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes Hypocrisy Over The Surge

Gay Couple's Divorce Case Back In Lower R.I. Court

Longshot Hunter Touts Win In Arizona Straw Poll, As McCain Runs Fourth (Free New York Times Reg Req)

McCain Does About-Face On Grassroots Reform Bill

Obama's Past Offers Ammo for Critics (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Ann Coulter: The Stripper Has No Clothes

Scot Lehigh: Romney vs. Romney

Joshua Muravchik: Our Worst Ex-President

John Stossel: Losing Sleep Over the Trade Deficit?

Exclusive: Jimmy Carter Interceded On Behalf Of Nazi SS Guard

Muslims Unhappy Over `24' Portrayal

TV Helicopter Pilot Saves Stranded Deer

Hooters "Plagiarism Saves Time" Sign Near Elementary School Causes Controversy

A Cambodian Girl Who Disappeared Aged Eight Has Been Found After Reportedly Living Wild In The Jungle For 19 Years

Today is Q&A Friday #57 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!

The daily news at RWN takes 2-3 hours per day to prepare and yet it draws a minimal number of links and a minimal number of comments. Now, I know some of you like the daily news section, but from what I've seen, the overwhelming majority of RWN's readers are coming here for the commentary, not the news. Moreover, there are so many other news sources out there these days that I'm really not sure the daily news is as relevant as it was a few years ago.

That's why I've been thinking about dumping the daily news at RWN and replacing it with more posts.

Again, this is an issue that I've been thinking about for a long time, I have conferred with some other bloggers about doing it (They all thought it was a good idea), and I'm strongly leaning towards doing it. However, I thought I'd post about it so the regular readers could give their perspective on it. So, if you have an opinion about dropping the daily news, for good or ill, speak now or forever hold your peace.

Update #1: I figured I'd let this discussion go on for another day to make sure I hear all the ideas and opinions before I make a decision. However, just keep in mind that there's no way for me to make everybody happy here. So, when I do make a decision, there will probably be some people who are less thrilled with it. That's not because I'm blowing off anyone's opinion, it's just the nature of the beast.

At the moment, after listening to the comments, I'm toying with the idea of dropping the daily news at RWN, but adding some columnist and left-over type links to the blogger links at Conservative Grapevine. That will still free up some time for me to get up more content at RWN, while getting what seem to be the most popular news sections covered at CG. Still, no final decision has been made as of yet.

This just arrived in my email:

"Washington D.C. - Today, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) introduced the Congressional Pardon for Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean Act. The legislation pardons convicted Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who reported to prison yesterday to begin serving 11 and 12 year sentences respectively. The conviction derived from an incident involving their efforts to apprehend a drug smuggler on the international border with Mexico.

"The Border Patrol is America's first line of defense against the constant and unrelenting efforts of drug and human smugglers to illegally enter the United States," said Congressman Hunter. "Agents Compean and Ramos fulfilled their responsibilities as Border Patrol agents and rightfully pursued a suspected and fleeing drug smuggler. It is irresponsible to punish them with jail time.

"The security situation on our Southern land border requires a strong law enforcement presence. This conviction demoralizes our nation's Border Patrol and sends a clear message that we are not serious about protecting our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.

"We cannot turn our back on Agents Compean and Ramos or the rest of the men and women proudly serving in the U.S. Border Patrol. These two agents deserve our full support and the Congressional pardon provided by this legislation."

In addition to introducing the Congressional Pardon for Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean Act, Congressman Hunter contacted the Federal Bureau of Prisons and personally requested that Agents Compean and Ramos be segregated from the general prison population in order to ensure their safety."

Wow. Can they do this? Even if they can, wow, this may very well be a can of worms best left unopened. Certainly, if this were to work, we'd see bills like this being introduced regularly and it would put congressmen in the position of trying to play judge and jury based on their political convictions and what could turn out to be slanted, hearsay evidence as presented by the media. You could also certainly make a case against this bill along Terri Schiavo lines, "Right, wrong, whatever, Congress shouldn't be involved."

Of course, I was for intervening in the Terri Schiavo case and I'm for intervening in this case, too, if it can be done. I just can't support leaving two border patrol agents in jail for more than a decade each because they shot a drug running illegal alien -- whom they thought had pulled a gun -- in the behind. Worst case scenario, these guys merited a short suspension, not a jail term.

I guess that means the old saying is true: "Hard cases, it is said, make bad law”.

Update #1: Duncan Hunter's people have sent out a 2nd press release on this explaining the legal reasoning behind it:

To help answer questions about the "constitutionality" of Congressman Hunter's Congressional Pardon for Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean Act, I am forwarding a legal analysis provided to our office.

In response to your query, our research indicates that Congress has never enacted legislation purporting to grant an individual pardon. However, it does appear that legislation contemplating such action was introduced in the 72d Congress. We are currently in the process of obtaining the text of the pertinent House and Senate bills. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutional authority of Congress to grant individual pardons. It could be argued that the vesting of pardon authority in the President in Article II of the Constitution gives rise to the negative implication that Congress is precluded from exercising such authority.

The Supreme Court has construed an act of Congress granting immunity from prosecution to qualifying individuals as "virtually an act of general amnesty, [which] belongs to a class of legislation which is not uncommon either in England or in this country. Although the Constitution vests in the President 'power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment,' this power has never been held to take from Congress the power to pass acts of general amnesty...." Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 601 (1896). The Court went on to declare that the "distinction between amnesty and pardon is of no practical importance" and that the distinction between the two terms "is one rather of philological interest than of legal importance." Id. at 601-02.

This statement could be viewed as lending support to the view that the pardon power is not vested exclusively in the President and may be exercised by Congress as well. However, it could be argued conversely that the holding in Brown does not in fact support such a conclusion, as the act at issue did not attempt to grant a pardon to anyone already convicted of a crime, or who had already committed a crime; instead, the statute considered by the Court simply prohibited the use of certain testimony in a subsequent criminal prosecution of the person giving the testimony. As such, it is not clear that Brown may be taken to support the assertion that Congress may grant a pardon to an individual of the same type that may be made by the President (for instance, to vacate or set aside the conviction and imprisonment of a person convicted of a crime). Based on these factors, it is impossible to predict with certainty whether a reviewing court would consider an individualized legislative pardon to be within the power of Congress, or, rather, an unconstitutional usurpation of the pardon power that is specifically vested in the President in the Constitution.

Translation: If this bill passes and goes to court, maybe it will pass muster and maybe it won't.

Jim DeMint is one of my favorite senators and one of the biggest budget hawks roaming the halls of Congress. That's why I was happy to get a chance to get in on a teleconference with him this afternoon. Here are my notes (not quotes) from the teleconference.

DeMint's Opening Comments

I've never seen more effort coming from bloggers than the pressure you guys are putting on people in the senate on earmarks. It's making a difference. We also want a vote on the line item veto because it is very important in stopping earmarks. However, I think the Republican leadership has given up on it for now. They want to include it as part of a minimum wage argument, but I think that's a big mistake because it's more relevant now, as part of the earmark debate.

Republicans have lost the debate publicly on the minimum wage, even though a tiny percentage of Americans work for the minimum wage and a lot of them work in restaurants. So, it's going to pass, but we are trying to add some things in to protect business.

The Q&A Session

Q: What can we help you get out there to make earmark reform more likely?

A: Harry Reid tried to kill disclosure of earmarks. Now he wants to kill the reform of the earmarking process. We just want some more amendments added. The New York Times, the WAPO were in on setting a false story that we're trying to block reform.

Q: About Social Security...

A: This is one of the most important issues, but unfortunately, I think the best strategy is to stop the senate from taking it back up with the President signaling that he will accept tax increases and benefit cuts. The climate right now just makes it unlikely that we'll get a real Social Security reform bill through.*

Q: Do you think (Reid)* has betrayed you on earmark reform?

A: I felt betrayed last week. I tried to say some good things about working with the Democrats and they slammed the bill I was working on, even though they were basically submitting exactly the same thing. But, I don't expect them to play fair. The media isn't giving us any help, which is why bloggers are more important.

Q: Do you think that insisting on having a vote on recission authority right now may be pushing things too far politically?

A: We need to have more reform to make this work, including recission authority which makes a huge difference. If we don't have a line item veto and eliminate adding earmarks in conference, I'm not sure it will help that much.

Q: Are bloggers going to be affected by Senate ethics bill (S. 1) which makes bloggers into lobbyists if they write 500 people?

A: It's a big concern because it could cause an enormous amount of reporting to the government, lots of paperwork. If we allow the Democrats to tie strings to radio hosts and the blogosphere, we're just not going to have much of a conservative voice out there.

Q: A Bennett Amendment, #20 to Senate bill 1, will be voted on which will strike section 220 from Senate bill 1 in its entirety. Section 220 would make just about everyone a lobbyist, including people who wrote their senators a couple of times. The penalties would be enormous, $100,000 fine and 10 years in prison, and that could affect bloggers urging people to call their congressman. Hopefully, the votes to remove it entirely from the bill will be there.

A: That would be great.

Q: Why would the line-item veto cut spending?

A: It would allow the President, 4 times a year, to send things back to the House in a block to be eliminated. He doesn't strip them out, we would have to actually vote on them. If the President sent things back, it would embarrass the Senate, it would make them more likely not to send it up in the first place, and it would make them more likely to kill them when they come back. It would work like the BRAC package with military bases.

Closing: Thanks to the bloggers to be a voice to the American people. We can't get a fair shake from the mainstream media, but you guys help get our message out.

* After hearing from Senator DeMint's aid, Tim Chapman, I made a correction and a small change to the original post to better reflect what the Senator was trying to get across.

"The war is being lost not on the streets of Baghdad but right here in America. It is the cultural left that is doing Bin Laden's work for him. There is no way that Bin Laden could persuade America to give up on the war on terror and get out of Iraq and the Middle East. Fortunately for Bin Laden he has a whole political movement in the United States that is dedicated to exactly this objective." -- Dinesh D'Souza

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

The Corner: Mark Steyn: Take a look at the healthiest fertility rates in Europe and the nations with the highest percentage of Muslims and you'll notice something very interesting.

Blake Ross: MTV’s Rock the Vote honored Martin Luther King day by linking to MartinLutherKing.org, a site run by the hate group Stormfront.

Wizbang: Video: Jimmy Carter's attack rabbit resurfaces and takes on a snake.

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark CG!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

According to the Las Vegas Sun, "(Al) Franken Seeks Advice for Possible Bid."

Granted, he wasn't seeking advice from me, but I'll do Al a favor and give him some advice anyway. Al, you have no chance, no chance whatsoever to be a senator because every stupid thing you've ever written or said, while you were filling up 3 hours a day on Air America, is going to be dredged up and used against you in a campaign.

Now, Al, you may think you can trot out the old, "Gee, I'm a comedian and I was just kidding," excuse and that will take care of it. But, how many times will that work? By the time the opposition researchers are done with you, they'll have a list of stupid and offensive faux pas as long as your arm and they'll be released and discussed ad nauseum throughout the campaign with the stupidest and most obnoxious of them, saved until the end.

There's a reason people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc., etc., don't run for office despite the fact that they do the same thing you do, and better. You can be a talk radio host, a blogger, a columnist or a politician. Maybe there are a few exceptional people who can manage to do both, but Al Franken isn't one of them.

It starts a little slow, but Ditka gets in some good lines in the 2nd half of the vid.

Hat tip to Hot Air for the video.

We have too many RINOS in Washington who are ideologically sympathetic to the Democrats and primarily look at serving in Congress as nothing more than a cushy job. You don't buy that? Then read this Washington Times article and you may change your mind:

"At a recent meeting of the House Republican leadership, members of the new minority party looked around and realized they were entering unfamiliar territory: Only one of them -- Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio -- had ever served as a member of the minority party on Capitol Hill.

"We're all still finding our way," said Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, the Republican Conference vice chairman.

The power shift has created its own internal struggle among Republicans.

The younger pit bulls want to go after the Democrats quickly and without remorse. Some of the older Republican stalwarts prefer sitting back and allowing new Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her party members to have their moment in the sun and govern accordingly.

"It's in flux right now as to kind of what direction we take and how we operate now that we're in the minority," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina.

"There is a group of us who think we have to throw down the gauntlet and be on the offensive from the very beginning in battles from Day One," he said. "That's the only way we are going to get back in the majority. Then there are others who say we need to let them have their time."

Several Republicans confirmed privately that more than two-thirds of House Republicans are favoring a slow approach, while a minority of members think the attacks on Democrats should come rapid-fire.

Already, some say the opposition has been too quiet in allowing Democrats to pass key elements of their initial agenda.

There have been four major votes on Democratic bills since Congress convened under the new majority earlier this month. Of those, 24 Republicans crossed the line to support changes to Medicare, 37 voted with Democrats to expand funding for embryonic stem-cell research, 68 voted to implement more recommendations of the September 11 commission, and 82 Republicans voted for increasing the minimum wage.

Some Republicans privately fumed at these votes and noted that Democrats in the last Congress were far more united against the Republican majority's bills."

Yeah, if the Republicans mope along, keep screwing over the people who voted for them, forget about party discipline, and just "let them have their time," everything will work out fine...geeze, how do real conservatives who are playing to win in Congress, like Patrick McHenry, keep from throwing things in meetings like this?

Yesterday, I did an appearance on a BBC show called, "World Have Your Say," to talk about Barack Obama and "Is America ready for a black president?"

I knew nothing about the show, but I figured that the BBC is big in Britain, so what the heck? Long story short, it was an odd show because they misled me a bit going in. I thought I was going to be a guest on the show and, of course, they told me they'd mention the blog (Why would I bother doing the show if they didn't). But, when I actually did the show, they didn't mention my last name or the fact that I blogged at Right Wing News. In fact, they played it off like I was a caller. Now, I don't listen to the show, so maybe all of their readers knew that I was someone they'd grabbed in advance, but in any case, if they'd told me exactly what I'd be doing, I wouldn't have bothered.

Anyway, the first person who talked about Barack went on at length about how he was bi-racial, wasn't out of the Jesse Jackson school of "black leaders," and how he had more appeal across racial boundaries and beyond his liberal base because of that.

Then they came to me and I said that's true, as far as it goes, but Obama is getting by right now on charisma and a moderate tone, his appeal isn't based on issues. In a presidential campaign, Obama would have to actually get into the issues and his extremely liberal views would kill a lot of the non-liberal support he's getting today.

They also asked if America is ready for a black President and I said yes, America is ready for a black Republican President. Then I noted that Colin Powell, had he run and won the Republican nomination in 2000 and Condi Rice today (and no, I wouldn't support Condi or Colin for the nomination although I at least like Condi) would have better shots of getting elected than Obama because they would have a shot to pull in black voters who normally vote Democratic.

But, Obama? My gut instinct is that there are 7 or 8 Republican candidates who could beat him in a Reagan style landslide because he's inexperienced, very liberal, and beyond charisma, he brings nothing to the table.

"There are really two elements to the global warming crowd. On the one hand we have the scientists, on the other hand the political activists. The scientists know that as soon as they acknowledge the role of increase solar activity in global warming their research funds will dry up. Much of these research funds are tied to the idea that global warming is caused by the actions of man. The political activists behind the man-made global warming idea have a goal .. .and that goal is to slow the evil machinery of free enterprise. They are, at their core, anti-capitalists; newbie socialists and remnants of the old world-wide communist movement. " -- Neal Boortz

You'd think that Katie Couric would be too busy driving the CBS Evening News into the ground to have time for petty complaints, but she manages to take time to whine:

The feminist movement that began in the 1970’s helped women make tremendous strides—but there still haven’t been enough great leaps for womankind. Fifty-one percent of America is female, but women make up only about sixteen percent of Congress—which, as the Washington Monthly recently pointed out, is better than it’s ever been...but still not as good as parliaments in Rwanda (forty-nine percent women) or Sweden (forty-seven percent women). Only nine Fortune 500 companies have women as CEO’s.

That meeting was a reality check for me—and not just about Iraq. It was a reminder that all of us still have an obligation to ask: Don’t more women deserve a place at the table too?

I didn't realise we were supposed to be looking towards Rwanda for inspiration these days. Anyways...

Katie, grab a clue: women, as a gender, don't deserve anything. People who earn deserve things - and, per Shakespear, what most of us have actually earned is a whipping: and people who make millions of dollars a year and still find reason to complain should be at the top of that list. You're not supposed to have a spot at the top reserved for you just because you've got the correct internal plumbing. The plain fact of the matter is that if the very best people to be our top 50 CEO's are handicapped, transgendered women of color, then that is who should have those top 50 slots. Does the phrase "content of character" ring a bell?

There is no such thing as a women's issue, a black issue, a gay issue - what we have are issues which humans have to deal with, as humans, and seek the most just settlement possible. We're really not supposed to care if a person is being denied their due because they are black, or gay, or female - the only concern is that someone is being denied their due, and we have to try and ensure they get what they've earned. If you really want to say that women deserve something, then you're saying that the single mother who works her butt off raising her kids and going to college to improve her life deserves no more than the single mother who is drunk by 2pm every afternoon.

What liberals like Couric really need to do, of course, is stop talking and start thinking....

Mahdi Army Fighters And Leaders Are Arrested, Iraq Says (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Iraqi PM Maliki: "If We Succeed In Implementing The Agreement Between Us To Speed Up The Equipping And Providing Weapons To Our Military Forces, I Think That Within Three To Six Months Our Need For American Troops Will Dramatically Go Down."

Claim: Iran Shoots Down U.S. Spy Drone

Iran's Discontent With Ahmadinejad Grows

Strapped To Apaches And Dodging Fire, How British Troops Recovered Fallen Comrade

Border Agents Sent To Prison. Angry Republican Congressman Calls President Bush 'Disgrace'

Bush Won't Reauthorize NSA Program

Grass-Roots Groups Qualify As Lobbyists Under Ethics Bill

Mexican Gov't Blasts Killing Of Illegal Immigrant By Border Patrol Agent (Mexico Can Shove It)

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls For Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

Parking Fines for Diplomats Nears $18M

Hi, I’m Senator Coburn, And I Don’t Want Your Vote

Tony Blankley: Vulture Politics

Amanda Carpenter: Barack Obama Is Just Another Liberal

Donald Stoker: Insurgencies Rarely Win – And Iraq Won’t Be Any Different (Maybe)

Cal Thomas: Dishonoring Our Veterans

Music Industry Threatens ISPs Over Piracy

Former Denver Broncos Quarterback John Elway Has Ruled Out A Run For The U.S. Senate Seat Being Vacated By Wayne Allard

Los Angeles Lakers center Kwame Brown Involved In Cake Heist

Website Of The Day: The Hillary Spot

Over at the world's most popular liberal blog, the Daily Kos, this ad caught my eye:

Is, what, "the band NOT be playing when our troops come home from Iraq in wheelchairs," really something that produces "liberal doses" of laughter? What exactly do liberals at the Daily Kos find funny about soldiers coming home in wheelchairs?

Believe it or not, the song that's promoted on the webpage is called "When Johnny comes rolling home," and it's about American troops getting crippled in Iraq. And this is something that apparently inspires "Laughter in Liberal Doses" at lefty blogs?

Not only is that disgusting, but the same Democratic politicians who are writing for the Daily Kos and presumably yukking it up at the thought of the troops being crippled are actually making decisions in Washington about the troops. Is that a comforting thought for anyone? That someone like Dick Durbin may be laughing uproariously at a song called, "When Johnny comes rolling home," and then going out on the floor to vote on issues that impact the troops?

Un. Be. Lievable.

"It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it." -- Douglas MacArthur

After seeing the reaction to George Bush's speech about the surge, I think it's fair to say that people have become irrationally pessimistic about Iraq. In fact, it's gotten so out of hand that this may be the only war in American history where the troops in the field getting shot at every day have a higher level of morale than the people who are sitting at home watching the war on television.

But, that's exactly why the troops in the field do have higher morale than the American people: they're not being exposed daily to a mainstream media that couldn't be any more biased or pessimistic if they were on Al-Qaeda's payroll. Practically since the day that the war started, the media has been engaged in a non-stop, never-ending campaign to convince the American people that Iraq is “unwinnable”. Here in North Carolina, they used to say that, "The only man who ever stopped Michael Jordan was Dean Smith." Well, the only people who can stop the U.S. military from eventually succeeding in Iraq are the mainstream media.

Of course, Congress hasn't exactly displayed much leadership either. It's hard to escape the conclusion that many of the Republicans in Congress are hesitant to support the surge because it's politically unpopular while almost all of the Democrats oppose it not only for the same reason, but because they're worried it might actually work and spoil the 2008 elections for them.

You may think that's being too harsh on the Democrats, but this talk about a non-binding resolution expressing their disapproval for the surge shows that this war is nothing more than a petty political issue to them. If the Democrats were sincere and thought we were sending troops to die in a futile effort, why aren't they trying to cut off the funds for the war? On the other hand, if it's not futile, then why try to undercut the strategy just as it's getting started? If they cared about the troops in the field and put the war above mere politics, they certainly wouldn’t be behaving like this.

Along those same lines, Bush is often accused of cavalierly throwing the lives of American troops away, but I'd say the opposite is actually true: many of the current opponents of the war seem to be very cavalier about rendering meaningless the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq due to little more than a shift in the political winds.

That’s despite the fact that one of the best things about Bush's plan is that within a year, we should finally have an excellent idea of whether we're going to be able to win or whether the Iraqis just aren't going to be able to maintain the democracy we've helped them build. If the Iraqis say, "No, we're going to let the Shia militias run wild," or they are unwilling or unable to supply anything near to the needed number of troops, or they're not even close to being able to take over the policing of the country by November, those will be clear signs that it's probably about time to pack it up. On the other hand, if we are able to significantly cut down the violence, the Iraqis meet the benchmarks Bush has set for them, and they're able to handle their own day to day policing by November, a significant number of our troops will be able to come home and the casualties for the troops remaining in Iraq to handle logistics, special forces, etc., will drop through the floor. Moreover, we'll have a democratic government in Iraq that can handle its own internal security with minimal help from the U.S.

What's not to like about that plan?

It won't work. The President and our top general over there now, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, certainly seem to think it will. In my book, that makes it worth a shot.

More of our soldiers will be killed. Yes, they will. But, if we leave now, we're throwing away the sacrifices that our soldiers have already made. If it was hopeless, that would make sense, but it's not. We have a shot to win and once you get in a war, nothing you have to do to achieve victory is worse than losing it.

It's unpopular. Are we basing military strategy on opinion polls now? Is that really a good idea? If Abe Lincoln had paid attention to the polls, the North would have lost the Civil War.

We're going to be there forever. This is the last, best shot we've got in Iraq. If it fails, I fully expect that enough Republicans will side with the Democrats in 2008 to allow them to cut off the funds for the troops. On the other hand, if it works, then we're likely to have a significant number of troops coming home by early 2008 and we'll have victory within our grasp.

It would be easier to just bring the troops home: The consequences of losing to the terrorists in Iraq would be enormous. It would embolden our enemies, including Al-Qaeda, to launch attacks on American interests because they'd think we are weak. More nations in the Middle-East would cooperate with Iran and Al-Qaeda because they'd view us as too weak to protect them. As a matter of fact, we'd get significantly less cooperation in the war on terrorism almost across the board. Furthermore, we could see invasions of Iraq by its neighbors, a REAL civil war in Iraq, Al-Qaeda carving out a state within a state in Iraq, and millions of Sunnis could end up dying in a genocidal purge. We had arguments over whether removing Saddam made us more or less safe, but there is absolutely no doubt that losing in Iraq will make us less safe.

This is going to be our final chance to win the war in Iraq, deal a major blow to Al-Qaeda, and preserve a free society for 25 million people that can serve as an example to nations across the Middle-East. There are no guarantees of victory in this war or any other, but if any plan deserves to be given a fair chance to succeed, this is it.

-- According to Dick Morris, none of the top tier Republican contenders for the nomination in 2008 are going to make it to the finish line:

"I think you’ll see one of the minor leaguers win it [the GOP nomination],” Morris told Fox News Channel.

Morris thinks the leading Republican candidates – Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich – are "too flawed” to win the hearts and votes of conservatives in the early primaries.

"The top four candidates for the Republican nomination can’t win,” Morris said. "Rudy Giuliani, John McCain . . . Romney with all of the flip-flops on abortion and Newt Gingrich, who I don’t think gets into it.”

That leaves a cast of lesser-known Republicans in line for a surprise run toward the nomination.

"I think that the Republican nominee is going to be one of these minor leaguers: [Tom] Tancredo, [Mike] Huckabee, [Sam] Brownback, [Jim] Gilmore from Virginia, Duncan Hunter from California,” Morris said. "It’s like the pitching rotation is all going to be injured at the World Series and the Triple –A pitching staff, one of them is going to pitch the opening game.”

Could Morris be right? Yes. Would I like for Morris to be right? Yes, because the guy who would make it out of that 2nd tier (assuming no one else jumps in) is my number one choice at the moment, Duncan Hunter. Is Morris right? Well, to tell you the truth, Morris has an awful track record on political predictions, so it's hard to say. But, I do still believe there is room for a 2nd tier candidate to rocket up the charts. Time will tell.

-- Rasmussen Reports has done some polling and has found that McCain and Rudy beat Hillary and Gore, but Newt and Mitt Romney both lose to them.

Interesting stuff, but keep in mind that these candidates haven't even started campaigning against each other, so these poll results are of minimal value and they become totally useless when you try to compare candidates with high recognition to people like Mitt Romney, whom a lot of people are still unfamiliar with. When people don't know a lot about candidates, they tend to go against them.

It's a little more disturbing to see Newt losing to Hillary and to Gore, who has a 52% disapproval rating, since Gingrich is a known quantity.

-- When Bush originally selected Mel Martinez to be the new head of the RNC, I was less than thrilled not only because Martinez is a diehard amnesty supporter, but because I don't like the idea of having a part timer in charge of the RNC which is, if anything, a more demanding job than being in the Senate. But, I just sort of shrugged my shoulders and figured that if Bush nominated him, it was a forgone conclusion that he would get the spot, and there was nothing that could be done about it.

However, apparently that's not the case. Some of the members of the Republican National Committee are up in arms about Martinez and intend to fight tooth and nail to stop him:

"Rebellion is brewing among conservatives on the Republican National Committee over President's Bush's attempt to "impose" Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida as "general chairman" of the party, who favors "amnesty" for illegal aliens.

"I will be voting against Senator Martinez if he is nominated for any chairmanship of the RNC," Tina Benkiser, Texas Republican Party chairman, told The Washington Times yesterday.

Bill Crocker, the elected national committeeman from Texas, says that when the RNC convenes here tomorrow, "Absolutely, I will vote against Martinez."

The conservatives -- one of whom accused the Bush White House of "outsourcing" party leadership -- say the general-chairman post does not exist under RNC rules, which can be changed only at the party's presidential nominating convention.

Unhappy committee members say that, in the past, Republican presidents and RNC leaders have successfully run roughshod over the rules, because the RNC officer presiding over votes at committee meetings have simply overruled points of order and other objections from the floor, with no accredited professional parliamentarians to exercise a check.

This time, the organizers of the rebellion say, their strategy will rely in part on having a parliamentarian present. And violations of Robert's Rules of Order and of the RNC's written rules -- adopted at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York -- could result in legal challenges."

..."Martinez's support of [Arizona Sen. John] McCain's immigration bill on amnesty for illegal aliens is causing a lot of concern among our base," said Mr. Pullen. "I happen to know that people -- our $25 and $35 donors -- are writing on the back of our RNC solicitations for donations: 'When you close the border to illegal aliens, we'll open our checkbooks.'

How many members feel like this? I don't know. Do they have a real chance to stop Martinez? I don't know. Either way, other than being generally supportive of the people trying to block Martinez, I don't know that there's much blogs like RWN can do. This is more like the Congressional Leadership races where a select group of people who are going to be hard to sway will decide the issue rather than a primary, where you have a chance to reach out to conservative voters who are more inclined to listen.

In any case, I think this is just another example of how George Bush has allowed an antagonistic relationship to develop between him and the people who should be his big supporters. Once George Bush got to the big dance, he acted as if he didn't need the support of the people who brought him there anymore and he, along with the rest of the Republican Party, are paying one hell of a price for it.

-- Speaking of illegal aliens, a federal immigration raid at a chicken-processing plant in Georgia is proving some of what people opposed to illegal immigration have been saying for years. Here's the rundown from Michelle Malkin's blog:

"Now here's a fair and thorough look at the aftermath of a federal immigration raid at a chicken-processing plant in Georgia that sent hundreds illegal workers packing. The plant, Crider, was forced to hire Georgians--many of them black, and many from off the welfare rolls:

...for local African-Americans, the dramatic appearance of federal agents presented an unexpected opportunity. Crider suddenly raised pay at the plant. An advertisement in the weekly Forest-Blade newspaper blared "Increased Wages" at Crider, starting at $7 to $9 an hour -- more than a dollar above what the company had paid many immigrant workers. The company began offering free transportation from nearby towns and free rooms in a company-owned dormitory near to the plant. For the first time in years, local officials say, Crider aggressively sought workers from the area's state-funded employment office -- a key avenue for low-skilled workers to find jobs. Of 400 candidates sent to Crider -- most of them black -- the plant hired about 200.

Interestingly, there was a lot of friction between these new workers and the Crider management. Two sides to the story, I suppose, but it seems to me that Crider was disappointed to work with actual employees who could demand their rights and speak up and who expect an ice pack when they get injured on the job. It's much easier when your processing plant is staffed by powerless, compliant drones who you can threaten to send back to Mexico and who therefore dare not organize or even gripe."

Well, lookie, lookie, Americans are taking jobs that illegal aliens once held. But, I thought those were, "jobs Americans won't do?" Of course, the truth is that there are no such jobs, there are only jobs Americans won't do at a certain price and what we had here was illegal aliens driving down the wages for a job and thereby taking jobs that Americans would have otherwise done.

-- The fact that border patrol agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos are being railroaded into jail for shooting a scumbag illegal alien who was trying to run drugs into the United States is a disgrace and a miscarriage of justice. These guys deserve to have medals pinned on their chests for risking their lives to prevent a drug shipment from hitting the streets instead of being sent off to the slammer. I'm not sure there have been two men in the last 20 years more deserving of a pardon than Compean and Ramos.

-- Blogger/liberal radio host Taylor Marsh had this to say about the Fairness Doctrine:

"But the Fairness Doctrine is back or at least being talked about again, with Congress set to challenge the FCC. The thought is already driving conservatives nuts, with more here, here, here, here, here, with Jeff Goldstein his usual obtuse self. QandO offers more. One blogger calls it Free Speech’s Abu Ghraib. They're all nuts. They're also very happy with controlling the radio waves.

But frankly, I'll believe it when it's law and not before.

The short version of the Fairness Doctrine is that in 1987 Reagan had it scuttled. Shortly after that Rush Limbaugh began his journey and right-wing radio was created and gradually took over the airwaves, with the help of their corporate friends, while the Democrats were still trying to figure out direct mail. I'm exaggerating, but Democrats were so dense about radio for so long it's amazing there are still any progressive hosts out here working every day to get back on radio. As I've written many times, the Republicans have used radio to pump up emotion and GOTV. In case you haven't noticed, radio works. Just ask Karl Rove, who has worked and worked and worked it. It's about getting control of all the little stations in all the little towns so that you can influence all those people. The host gets to know his/her audience, they trust him/her, so when this host tells them to vote for Right Wing Randy/Roxanne, they likely will. After all, they've built up a trust. Republicans will do anything to get ratings, which includes leaving the facts out and plying their audience with daily doses of emotion instead. Democrats are still behind in radio, trying to reinvent the wheel instead of using their donor base to help hosts who could hold their own. Creating Democratic business consortiums that help hosts get on the air, with the best of us staying on and eventually catapulting to syndication. The Fairness Doctrine could really make a difference. Why do you think conservatives are screaming like crazy?"

First of all, hasn't the stunning failure of Air America proved that conservative success on talk radio isn't about "business consortiums," it's about who draws an audience and who doesn't? Rush Limbaugh has an enormous audience, hence people want to carry his show. Al Franken draws flies, which is why Air America is bankrupt.

Next up, there's a good reason for conservatives to be "screaming like crazy." The Fairness Doctrine is nothing less than an attempt to censor conservative hosts by knocking them off the air. If a "Fairness Doctrine for the internet" were introduced that said that the Daily Kos couldn't have any more visitors per day than Right Wing News, my guess is that people like Taylor Marsh would be "screaming like crazy," too. Yeah, I understand that's not a perfect analogy, but it's close enough. Because liberals can't successfully build competing talk radio shows, they want to stop the conservative shows that are working. That's what the Fairness Doctrine is all about.

If people will pay $24.95 for a hanging Saddam, will they pay $24.95 for this?

PS: Yes, I'm just kidding =D

There's a company called Hero Builders that puts out unusual dolls and does custom toys for people. Well, apparently their latest product is hangable Saddam:

Geeze. I mean, I put up a dancing Snoopy when they hung that rotten son of a gun and even I think that's gauche. Who buys these things and for what purpose? Surely no one is giving toys like this to his kids. Are people setting these things on their desks at work? It seems pretty out there to me.

But, even the Saddam doll doesn't compare to Dual Head Uday:

Saddam and Uday were enemies of the United States and so I feel no pity when they're mocked, but I guess I'm just surprised that people are shelling out $24.95 to do it.

PS: Now, something like this, I get as a gag gift:

Imagine sending this to a Daily Kos loving relative or co-worker at Christmas. Cost of the doll, $24.95. The look of anger and disgust on their face when they opened it? Priceless!

Update #1: In the comments section, Gilbertian pointed out the talking Al Gore doll. Heh, heh, heh -- sounds just like him:

"An Inconvenient Truth" to be shown in all of Scotland's schools. Lesson plan for teachers includes answers to questions like, "How come Al Gore didn't do anything about climate change when he was VP for eight years?" -- Fark

“Which is another reason to ask: Who will hang George Bush?” -- A line by Slavoj Zizek that was edited out of a New York Times column.

The Palestinian Authority Security Forces Have Foiled An Attempt By Hamas To Assassinate Senior PA Leaders In The Gaza Strip, Including PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

British Navy Ships Move To Counter Iran

Pakistan Strikes Al Qaeda's Winter Hideout

Philippines Says Abu Sayyaf Leader Killed In Clash

Deadly Day In Iraq Leaves 109 Dead

Claim By UN: 34,452 Iraq Civilians Said Killed In '06

The Liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals In San Francisco Vacates Sentence Of 'Millennium Bomber,' Who Was Arrested Near The U.S.-Canadian Border And Convicted Of Plotting To Bomb Los Angeles International Airport

White House Denies Climate Change U-Turn

Rangel's Push For Draft Gets Little Support

Sen. Wayne Allard Said Today He Will Honor His Term-Limits Pledge And Leave At The End Of 2008

Obama Takes 1st Step In Presidential Bid

Ex-Okla. Gov. Frank Keating Nixes 2008 Bid

Dick Morris: The Top Four Republican Candidates For The Republican Nomination Can’t Win The Nomination

Michigan: Adultery Could Mean Life, Court Finds

Oil Prices Plunged Nearly 4 Percent To Below $51 A Barrel

Cold Snap Destroys Most Calif. Citrus

Thomas Sowell: Another Vietnam?

Dawn Eden: Casual Sex Is A Con -- Women Just Aren't Like Men

Walter Williams: Trade Deficits -- Good or Bad?

Dennis Prager: Thoughts On My Vacation

Rich Lowry: The Big Drug Scam. Those Anti-Progress Dems

Amsterdam To Get Statue To World's Prostitutes

Police: Woman Hung From Tree, Tortured And Raped For Bondage-Porn Video

Police Unsurprised By 7th Honor Killing In Ramle Family

Website Of The Day: Stop Martinez

You know what Republican members of Congress should be saying? They should be saying that if you're 42 years old or younger, you should vote against the Democratic Party in 2008 because they want to force you to serve in the military via a draft, over the objections of the Republican Party -- and powerful Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel is leading the charge:

"A Democratic congressman from New York has announced plans to file a proposal to reinstate the military draft, making men and women 18 to 42 years old eligible for service, with very few exemptions.

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel said his plan, which comes as President Bush is calling for an expanded military, could deter politicians from starting wars because their children could be at risk of fighting.

...Rangel filed a similar proposal in 2003, to make men and women between 18 and 26 eligible for the draft. And he offered another plan last year, to require military service for people between 18 and 42.

Both plans died, and he even voted against his own first proposal in 2004 - and encouraged fellow Democrats to follow suit - because, he said, Republicans were trying to use the bill to avoid questions about the war in Iraq.

Political observers say Rangel's proposal should get some air time, since Democrats will control Congress and Rangel heads a powerful committee.

"He is thinking that in the absence of a draft, it's mostly the poor and minorities who end up in the military doing the country's fighting," said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University. "He thinks there's merit of having more of a broader cross-section of people fighting the battles.

"And if more wealthy, comfortable people's sons and daughters were exposed to (war) ... the elites of the country would be more careful about going to war."

Polls show little support for bringing back the draft.

In 2005, 7 in 10 Americans said they didn't want to see the draft return. And even former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said then that "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back."

...Leading Democrats in Congress, including incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have said they won't support the plan.

...Jillson said Rangel's draft plan likely won't be successful. At least not this time.

"Congressmen know that most young people and their parents - particularly those who are frequent voters and campaign contributors - don't want a draft," he said. "The proposal is not going to get very far."

Why aren't Republicans out there saying something like, "This proposed draft by Charlie Rangel isn't needed for military purposes nor is it favored by the Pentagon. To the contrary, the whole point of the draft is to damage the military and make it unpopular for them to fight wars. But, don't worry -- Republicans will fight to make sure that the Democrats won't be able to institute a draft that 70 percent of the American public opposes."

We have a powerful, Democratic Congressman offering up a wildly unpopular bill that Republicans uniformly oppose. Why isn't the GOP making the Democrats pay a price for it? Let the Democrats get in front of the cameras and explain why Charles Rangel is proposing a draft. Let them explain why they have this radical kook running the Ways and Means committee. Don't play pattycake with the Democrats, knock them on their behinds at every opportunity -- and this is an opportunity!

This silly spiel from Bill Robinson at the Huffington Post might be part of a potent argument -- if there were a draft in place:

"If you Google "Draft Andrew Rove" you get nothing. Your search "did not match any documents." I'd like to know why. And, yes, I realize even asking this question may get my passport revoked.

Our president calls Karl Rove his "architect." The powers that be genuflect to him in a way unprecedented. But if this genius has had anything to do with the defining act of the Bush II administration, surely he is, as they say, "in it... to win it." Well I say, if you wanna surge baby, put your money where your mouth is. Send your son.

...Maybe Karl doesn't want to risk losing another family member. It's understandable. His mother killed herself, his gay father left the family. Maybe he wants Andrew to follow his own example: In December 1969, Karl's number was drawn for the Vietnam War draft. Yet, on February 17, 1970, he was deferred because he enrolled at the University of Utah. Even though he quickly withdrew from classes, he maintained the deferment until Dec. 14, 1971. Maybe it all runs in the family."

Among other things, making note of the fact that Rove's mother killed herself? Exceptionally nasty and crude. The whole argument? It doesn't even qualify as ignorant. It's just stupid. Nobody in this country is drafted anymore and fathers aren't the ones who sign their kids up for the military.

Additionally,

Newsflash, Genius: We have a volunteer military and everyone who signed up knew that he/she might be sent off to war. That's the whole purpose of the military and complaining about it is like complaining about police who are forced to arrest dangerous criminals or firemen who are forced to fight fires. That's their job. Yes, it's terrible that our soldiers are getting killed fighting in Iraq and it's an enormous burden on their friends and family, but that's what war is like. Some of the good guys get killed.

But, despite the number of troops we've lost and how down the American people are on the war, 54% of people in uniform approve of Bush's handling of the war. This may be the only war in American history where the people who are geting shot at every day have a higher level of morale than the people who are sitting at home benefitting from their efforts.

The Daily Kos has put together a 2008 Straw poll and here are the current results:

John Edwards: 37%
Barrack Obama: 27%
Wesley Clark: 17%
Bill Richardson: 5%
Hillary Clinton: 3%
Dennis Kucinich: 3%

Amusingly, at the moment, Hillary Clinton is only two votes ahead of Dennis Kucinich. Heh.

PS: What exactly is supposed to be so appealing about John Edwards? He's a prissy trial lawyer who only served one term in the Senate, he added zero to the Democratic ticket in 2004, and he hasn't shown that he can deliver any Southern states. Yeah, he has a little bit of charisma, he's pretty, and he's anti-war, but he's also an incredible lightweight. I mean, who would trust John Edwards to handle a foreign policy crisis? The guy looks like he'd cry if someone reached over and mussed up his hair.

Update #1: Bonus -- they've got a little straw poll going over at the Democratic Underground, too. Here are the results (there are a lot less votes at this point though):

Wesley Clark: 33%
John Edwards: 18%
Al Gore: 16%
Dennis Kucinich: 11%
Barrack Obama: 10%
John Kerry: 7%
Hillary Clinton: 3%

Wow, is Hillary unpopular. But, Barrack isn't getting that much respect either. 10%? Well, the DU is pretty white and Barrack is a black man. It's not really a big surprise that so many white liberals aren't voting for a black candidate. (Heh. I am going to really enjoy saying things like that for the next year or so.)

-- Duncan Hunter appears to be getting a little traction in Arizona because he won a straw poll in McCain's home state. Granted, it's only the Maricopa County Republican meeting, but it does prove that Hunter has a message that resonates with people once they find out a litle more about him and what he believes.

-- Barrack Obama is now officially in the race for the Presidency which is good news for Republicans because he does have a chance to win the primary, but he is an unaccomplished, inexperienced, empty suit liberal who probably couldn't beat the top 7 or 8 Republican candidates in a general election. Plus, as an added bonus, liberals will have to beat up on him to stop him which will, by the very standards they've put in place, cause them to be accused of racism. All in all, he's a nice addition to the field -- for Republicans.

-- Charlie Rangel said that Saddam Hussein was "lynched" yesterday on Fox News. Is there any terrorist, criminal, or dictator that liberals' hearts don't bleed for? If these guys could only hate people who want to murder Americans for being Americans the same way they hate their fellow Americans who don't agree with them politically, then, well, we'd have the people in two parties doing that.

-- Unsurprisingly, Dennis Kucinich is out there beating the drums for the Fairness Doctrine, which is nothing more than a backhanded way to try to censor conservative views on the radio:

"Over the weekend, the National Conference for Media Reform was held in Memphis, TN, with a number of notable speakers on hand for the event. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding the Federal Communications Commission.

The Presidential candidate said that the committee would be holding "hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington.? The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee was to be officially announced this week in Washington, D.C., but Kucinich opted to make the news public early.

In addition to media ownership, the committee is expected to focus its attention on issues such as net neutrality and major telecommunications mergers. Also in consideration is the "Fairness Doctrine," which required broadcasters to present controversial topics in a fair and honest manner. It was enforced until it was eliminated in 1987.

Kucinich said in his speech that "We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda" and added "we are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible."

This is how the game works: The Fairness doctrine is implemented. Then FCC bureaucrats go to radio stations and say, "You've got Rush Limbaugh on for 3 hours a day, so you have to balance that out with 3 hours of liberal hosts." Then, the radio station has a big problem. They have a huge audience for Rush's show, but liberal talk radio can't draw flies. So, although they may able to make lots of money selling advertising on Rush's show, they'll lose money hand over fist for 3 hours on the liberal show. So, how do they get out of this dilemma? They dump the format and play pop, country, salsa music -- whatever they think can draw an audience.

So, the "Fairness Doctrine" has nothing to do with "Fairness," it has everything to do with trying to silence people who speak out against liberalism.

-- Quote of the day from Martin Amis:

What is the most depressing thing about Britain you have observed since your return? And the best? GRANT MULLIN, Surrey

The most depressing thing was the sight of middle-class white demonstrators, last August, waddling around under placards saying, We Are All Hizbollah Now. Well, make the most of being Hizbollah while you can. As its leader, Hasan Nasrallah, famously advised the West: “We don’t want anything from you. We just want to eliminate you.” [Close enough. — ed.] Similarly, when I went on Question Time the other week, a woman in the audience, her voice quavering with self-righteousness, presented the following argument: since it was America that supported Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians, the US armed forces, in response to September 11, “should be dropping bombs on themselves!” And the audience applauded. It is quite an achievement. People of liberal sympathies, stupefied by relativism, have become the apologists for a creedal wave that is racist, misogynist, homophobic, imperialist, and genocidal. To put it another way, they are up the arse of those that want them dead."

Republicans in Congress, in a last ditch effort to provide economic justice to America’s working poor, today introduced a bill that would raise the national minimum hourly wage from $5.15 to $84.25.

The bill, offered just hours before the Democrat-led House attempted to raise the rate to $7.25, is roughly based on what Congressmen earn for working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, although the actual working part is optional in Congress.

Under the terms of the GOP-sponsored measure, the minimum wage would also track Congressional pay, which typically includes an annual cost-of-living-it-up increase.

“Hiking it to $7.25 won’t make a dent,” said one unnamed Republican House member, “But at $84.25, we’ll eliminate poverty.”

Lawmakers believe the bill is a win-win, since every other working person in the country will now expect a pay raise to keep his wages an appropriate distance above minimum.

Republicans said the new minimum wage would also produce a windfall of tax revenue as millions of Americans move from paying no federal income tax, straight to the highest tax bracket.

The additional tax money would be earmarked for education, according to the text of the bill, “to teach America’s children the fundamentals of economics in a capitalist system.”

This satire was used with the permission of Scrappleface.

Mark Thoma is telling the hawks they've squandered their credibility for a mess of pottage:

Sorry Jonathan, maybe we don't drum you out of the profession -- there aren't simply two extremes where we listen fully or don't listen at all -- but we are going to pay less attention to what you have to say. That's how it to goes when you are wrong about important things. And unlike the parade of polar extremes presented to us in your argument, there are people who have been generally correct all along and I prefer to give more weight to their views than to those who have been so spectacularly wrong.

Now, of course, I supported the war, so I can be expected to say something like what I am about to say. My only excuse is that I have been thinking hard about this, trying to pick out what went wrong, and I think that I am willing to admit where I was wrong. I was wrong to impute too much confidence to my ability to interpret Saddam Hussein's actions; I was wrong to not foresee how humiliating Iraqis would find being liberated by the westerners who have been tramping around their country, breaking things for their own reasons and with little regard for the Iraqi people, for several hundred years. I was wrong to impute excessive competence to the government--and not just the Bush administration, but to any government occupation.

However.

This has not convinced me of the brilliance of the doves, because precisely none of the ones that I argued with predicted that things would go wrong in the way they did. If you get the right result, with the wrong mechanism, do you get credit for being right, or being lucky? In some way, they got it just as wrong as I did: nothing that they predicted came to pass. It's just that independantly, things they didn't predict made the invasion not work. If I say we shouldn't go to dinner downtown because we're going to be robbed, and we don't get robbed but we do get food poisoning, was I "right"? Only in some trivial sense. Food poisoning and robbery are completely unrelated, so my belief that we would regret going to dinner was validated only by random chance. Yet, the incident will probably increase my confidence in my prediction abilities, even though my prediction was 100% wrong.

I'm trying to assess my decisionmaking process without developing a massive case of hindsight bias. Hindsight bias is a familiar phenomenon to most of us--that's why it has its own proverb--but most people don't realise just how bad it is. The CIA explains:

Analysts interested in improving their own performance need to evaluate their past estimates in the light of subsequent developments. To do this, analysts must either remember (or be able to refer to) their past estimates or must reconstruct their past estimates on the basis of what they remember having known about the situation at the time the estimates were made. The effectiveness of the evaluation process, and of the learning process to which it gives impetus, depends in part upon the accuracy of these remembered or reconstructed estimates.

Experimental evidence suggests a systematic tendency toward faulty memory of past estimates.150 That is, when events occur, people tend to overestimate the extent to which they had previously expected them to occur. And conversely, when events do not occur, people tend to underestimate the probability they had previously assigned to their occurrence. In short, events generally seem less surprising than they should on the basis of past estimates. This experimental evidence accords with analysts' intuitive experience. Analysts rarely appear--or allow themselves to appear--very surprised by the course of events they are following.

In experiments to test the bias in memory of past estimates, 119 subjects were asked to estimate the probability that a number of events would or would not occur during President Nixon's trips to Peking and Moscow in 1972. Fifteen possible outcomes were identified for each trip, and each subject assigned a probability to each of these outcomes. The outcomes were selected to cover the range of possible developments and to elicit a wide range of probability values.

At varying time periods after the trips, the same subjects were asked to remember or reconstruct their own predictions as accurately as possible. (No mention was made of the memory task at the time of the original prediction.) Then the subjects were asked to indicate whether they thought each event had or had not occurred during these trips.

When three to six months were allowed to elapse between the subjects' estimates and their recollection of these estimates, 84 percent of the subjects exhibited the bias when dealing with events they believed actually did happen. That is, the probabilities they remembered having estimated were higher than their actual estimates of events they believed actually did occur. Similarly, for events they believed did not occur, the probabilities they remembered having estimated were lower than their actual estimates, although here the bias was not as great. For both kinds of events, the bias was more pronounced after three to six months had elapsed than when subjects were asked to recall estimates they had given only two weeks earlier.

In summary, knowledge of the outcomes somehow affected most test subjects' memory of their previous estimates of these outcomes, and the more time that was allowed for memories to fade, the greater the effect of the bias. The developments during the President's trips were perceived as less surprising than they would have been if actual estimates were compared with actual outcomes. For the 84 percent of subjects who showed the anticipated bias, their retrospective evaluation of their estimative performance was clearly more favorable than warranted by the facts.

Many of the doves seem to be reconstructing their memory of why they objected to the war, crediting themselves with having predicted that the invasion would fail in this way. Many hawks are also reconstructing their memories to make themselves less hawkish. Fortunately, or unfortunately for me, I wrote my predictions down, so I know that I was an unabashed hawk, 100% convinced that Saddam had WMD.

The lesson that I can unequivocally take out of this is: do not be so confident in your ability to read other people and situations. Saddam was behaving exactly as I would have behaved if I had WMD, so I concluded that he had them. I will never again be so confident in the future.

At the same time, though, in a similar situation this shouldn't necessarily make me listen to the hawks next time. North Korea was behaving exactly like a country that had WMD, and it turned out that this was because they had them. What the doves would like to see the hawk's do--"I was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong about everything, I am a stupid idiot, you are a brilliant figure with god-like omniscience"--is no better a guide to future decisionmaking than ignoring the fact that you were seriously wrong about the Iraq invasion. They are both ways of being completely stupid, not that this has stopped anyone.

When I look back at the decision I made, and I try to imagine making it without what I know now, which is that Saddam didn't have WMD, could I change it? I'm not sure. I don't see any way that I could have known, without actually checking, that he didn't have at least an advanced programme. And even with the chaos now, had we found an advanced nuclear programme, most of the doves would be finding it much harder to argue that the invasion was a disastrous mistake. Perhaps even if he had had them we should have left him alone, but that's a difficult argument. And given the number of Democrats, including President Clinton, who clearly believed that we would find an advanced weapons programme, I have to conclude that without benefit of hindsight, the information painted at least a 50% chance that he had them.

As I see it, doves have, in effect, benefitted from winning a random game. Not that the result was random--obviously, there was only one true state of the world. But at the time of making the decision, the game was random to the observer, with no way to know the true state until you open the box and poke the cat. Having won a random game, they are now crediting themselves with brilliant foresight. And yet, if the hawks had won the game, they would be preening themselves on their analytical ability, and demanding that the doves prostrate themselves in an extensive grovel.

That doesn't mean that my decisionmaking wasn't faulty. It was, in all sorts of ways, and I am trying to learn from them with proper humility. But I think the doves are crediting themselves with way too much analytical brilliance, which is fine to a point, but not so very fine that I am willing to turn over my decisionmaking to their allegedly more capable hands. World War II, after all, came in part out of learning lessons from World War I that weren't actually there. And the sight of doves saying, in effect, "I don't have to listen to you any more" does not make me sanguine that they are doing much better.

This content was used with the permission of Asymmetrical Information.

Secret Understandings Reached Between Representatives Of Israel, Syria

Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, The Top Commander Of U.S. Ground Forces In Iraq, Says The Current Surge Of 21,500 Troops Is Not "Open-Ended" And Warned That "Time Is Running Out" For The United States To Turn Things Around In Iraq.

Castro Reportedly In Grave Condition

The Execution Of Saddam Hussein’s Half Brother Ended With The Hangman’s Noose Decapitating Him After He Dropped Through The Gallows Trapdoor (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Military Gear Bound For Iran, China Traced To Pentagon Surplus Sales

Vice President Cheney: `You Can't Run A War By Committee'

USA TODAY/Gallup Poll: Bush's New Iraq Strategy Fails To Rally Public Support

Choice Of Mel Martinez For RNC Head Sparks GOP Rebellion (Applause)

The Much-Anticipated Trial Of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Begins Tomorrow In Washington

51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Maricopa County, Arizona GOP Straw Poll Results -- Duncan Hunter Takes First Place, Romney 2nd, Gingrich 3rd, and McCain 4th

Hunter Pressing To Chop Long Odds Of Presidential Run

Al Gore: I'm Not Running For President

Brownback Adds Flat Tax To Platform

Democrats To Probe Legality Of Data Requests

Jeff Jacoby: Mitt Be Nimble

Greg Reeson: Iraq Death Watch: When Did We Become Casualty Averse?

George Diaz: Bill O'Reilly Is Right About Cindy Sheehan

David Limbaugh: The Left's Tiresome "Chicken-Hawk" Mantra

David B. Rivkin Jr. And Lee A. Casey: What Congress Can (And Can't) Do On Iraq (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Wesley Pruden: Does Anyone Here Want To Survive?

New On The Internet: A Community Of People Who Believe The Government Is Beaming Voices Into Their Minds (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Newsreader Exposes Affair On Live TV

A Man Told Investigators He Set Fire To His Mother's House Because She Told Him To Get A Job If He Wanted To Stay There

Website Of The Day: Fark Politics

For years, conservatives have been pointing out that artificially increasing the costs of labor via the minimum wage costs people jobs while liberals denied it. Then, along come the Democrats who increase the minimum wage and what do we hear from them? We can't raise the minimum wage in American Samoa because it'll cost people jobs!

"Under a Democrat-backed legislation that is now before the House of Representatives, employers on the Northern Mariana Islands would have to pay workers the federal minimum wage. American Samoa and the tuna industry that dominates its economy would, on the other hand, remain free to pay wages less than half the bill's new mandatory minimum.

Democrats have long tried to pull the Northern Marianas under the umbrella of U.S. labor law, accusing the island's government and its industry leaders of coddling sweatshops and turning a blind eye to forced abortions and indentured servitude.

Samoa has escaped such notoriety, and its low-wage canneries have a protector of a different political stripe, Democratic delegate Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, whose campaign coffers have been well stocked by the tuna industry that virtually runs his island's economy.

Faleomavaega has long made it clear he did not believe his island's economy could handle the federal minimum wage, issuing statements of sympathy for a Samoan tuna industry competing with South American and Asian canneries paying workers about 67 cents an hour.

...The wage bill coming to a vote this Wednesday (Thursday on Saipan) would raise the federal minimum from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 over two years, the first such increase since 1997. The 10-year stretch between wage increases is the longest since the mandatory minimum was created, and passage is expected to be overwhelming.

...But in American Samoa the tuna industry rules the roost. Canneries employ nearly 5,000 workers on the island, or 40 percent of the work force, paying on average $3.60 an hour, compared to $7.99 an hour for Samoan government employees. Samoan minimum wage rates are set by federal industry committees, which visit the island every two years.

...But after the same meeting, Faleomavaega said he understood that the Samoan canneries were facing severe wage competition from South American and Asian competitors.

Department of Interior testimony last year before the Senate noted that canneries in Thailand and the Philippines were paying their workers about 67 cents an hour. If the canneries left American Samoa en masse, the impact would be devastating, leaving Samoans wards of the federal welfare state, warned David Cohen, deputy assistant secretary of the interior for insular affairs."

Of course, the 17 million dollar investment that Nancy Pelosi's husband has in Del Monte Foods and the location of said company in her home state probably had more to do with the exemption than any concern for the workers there, but in either case, after Republican complaints, American Samoa is now going to be covered by the minimum wage.

However, that brings up an interesting question. These people in American Samoa are voluntarily choosing to work for $3.60 an hour. If the tuna companies do pack up and head elsewhere, will the people out of a job be better off? No. Moreover, what about all the other people across the country who are going to lose their jobs because the companies where they're working won't be able to pay them a higher wage than they deserve? Are they going to be better off? No, they're not.

And that's something that these advocates of a minimum wage never consider. They like to pat themselves on the back because they think they're caring and sensitive because they support the minimum wage, but, do these same people ever say, "Gee, this policy that I support will cause enormous suffering in many people's lives by regulating them out of a job?" No, because this legislation is really about making the people who advocate policies like the minimum wage feel good, not about the actual results.

If 40% of the work force in American Samoa does actually end up losing their jobs because of a minimum wage, that will be a terrible thing, but it will also be a concrete example of the sort of damage that liberal economy policies cause in people's lives.

Over 12,000 people from all around the right side of the blogosphere have voted in the GOP Bloggers 2008 straw poll. Here's a little analysis of how things broke down on the candidate acceptability scale (the higher the score, the better). First off, there are:

The Front Runners

Mitt Romney: +46.6%
Newt Gingrich: +45.8%
Rudy Giuliani: + 33.9%

Analysis: Mitt Romney has really rocketed up the charts in the last few months. For example, if you look back to July of last year, he was sitting at only 17.9%. Back then, the number one candidate was George Allen at 48.9%. After Allen went down in flames, it looks as if most of his support went to Romney with a little spillover going to Gingrich while Rudy has stayed in about the same spot (he was +30.6% back then).

On the other hand, Gingrich is not only just a hair behind Romney's poll, he's beating the pants off him in state by state polling. This suggests that Newt has the support not just of the average Republicans, but of the online activists, which means he has a real shot to win this thing if he wants to try to grab the brass ring.

The 2nd Tier

Mike Huckabee: -3.9%
Tom Tancredo: -4.9%
Duncan Hunter: -6.2%
Tommy Thompson: -9.6%

Analysis: Huckabee, Hunter, and Thompson are sitting in this position because they don't have enough name recognition to go much higher or lower on the scale. However, given that Tancredo is much more of a known quantity than the other 3, being in this slot isn't particularly good news for him because it means that people know him, and yet he's still not getting a lot of traction.

The Bottom Of The Barrel:

Sam Brownback: -15.8%
Jim Gilmore: -20.3%
John McCain: -28.4%
George Pataki: -53.4%
Chuck Hagel: -58.2%

Analysis: Brownback should probably be the guy most dispirited by this performance because he is being touted as a possible contender despite his low name recognition and yet, his rating suggests that he's turning off people who do find out more about him. I guess that's what happens when you make amnesty and surrendering in Iraq your first two signature issues.

McCain is the other interesting candidate because when he gets out of the blogosphere and into the actual polls of people in key states, he's one of the front runners. The difference, in my opinion, comes from people who are regularly exposed to the new media vs. the general public. The sort of wonks who read blogs, listen to talk radio, and read Human Events, despise the guy, while the general public, which gets their news from the MSM, isn't as negatively disposed towards him. Unfortunately for McCain, as the primaries get closer, the impact of alternative media will skyrocket and it will sink his campaign.

Could Johnny Mac turn things around? Not likely. Back in July, McCain was at -39.8%. So, if he continues on that same pace, he should get back to even-steven in the polls some time around mid-2008, long after the nominee is decided.

This week-end, I linked Kim Du Toit's essay, "The Pussification Of The Western Male, but I titled it, "The Wussification Of The Western Male." That was to spare me indignant emails from people complaining that I was posting "vulgar" language on the blog.

Anyway, Kim Du Toit, took exception to that and wrote the following on his blog,

"Rich Irony

Of all the comic genres, irony is one of the most difficult to describe. Often confused with sarcasm, it seems to give people fits when they try to describe it using an example.

Here’s a perfect one.

John Hawkins recently linked to my Pussification of the Western Male essay—only, his link labels it the Wussification of the Western Male."

That's "rich irony," huh? Well personally, I don't think ungracious whining about using the word "wussy" instead of "p*ssy" in a link to your blog is particularly manly, but setting that aside, here's something that's really ironic. If you read the essay, Du Toit himself bleeps expletives out of it. For example,

"Now, for those who haven’t seen this piece of ####, I’m going to go over it, from memory, because it epitomizes everything I hate..."

"Because I have fairly set views on what constitutes right and wrong, I have no difficulty in calling Bill Clinton, for example, a ####### liar and hypocrite."

Yet, he's complaining that I used wussy instead of p*ssy. Now, how's THAT for "rich irony?"

There are a whole host of things wrong with modern journalism, which is why it's widely reviled amongst the American people, but one of the worst faults is what I think of as the "tabloidization of the media." By that I mean, if it will draw eyeballs, somebody will publish it regardless of the consequences.

The mainstream media in this country will happily publish classified documents that will make it easier for Al-Qaeda to kill Americans, paparazzi ceaselessly hound celebrities and try to take embarrassing pictures of them at every opportunity, and even ordinary people like Richard Jewell and Steven Hatfill have their names drug through the mud as though the public's "need to know" outweighs their presumption of innocence and right to privacy.

The same effect regularly occurs in the blogosphere. People like Michelle Malkin have had their home address and phone number posted by malicious left-wing blogs, there are gay outing campaigns, detailed investigations into the private lives of people like former reporter Jeff Gannon -- & tramps like Jessica Cutler and the random woman who had a one night stand with Keith Olbermann talk about the intimate details not just of their sex lives, but of their partners' sex lives.

It's all inappropriate, better left unsaid, and most definitely better left unprinted. But, in war, the aggressor sets the rules and in the media, the lowest common denominator sets the rules. So, the reality is that once it's out there, it's out there. If people not only can get away with posting information that should have been left private, but are rewarded for it, trying to be ethical about what you print becomes a fool's game.

Which brings me to Tucker Carlson and a moronic blogger. Here's the WAPO summary of the action:

"Potomac Video store clerk Charles Williamson, 28, posted a message on his blog, Freelance Genius, Dec. 23 that described how he set up a movie rental account for MSNBC host Tucker Carlson at the MacArthur Boulevard store the day before.

"I could tell you what he and his ridiculously wasped-out female companion (wife?) rented if you really want to know," he wrote. "I won't tell you where he lives, though. That would be wrong and stupid." Williamson also joked that he wouldn't send 10,000 copies of Jon Stewart's best-selling political satire, "America (The Book)," to Carlson's home; Stewart ridiculed Carlson on "Crossfire" before the 2004 election.

...A week later, Williamson had forgotten all about it, he told us yesterday. That is, until Carlson, 37, reappeared at the video store and, said Williamson, "got pretty aggressive." According to Williamson, Carlson confronted him about the blog and said he viewed the post as a threat to him and his wife. "He said, 'If you keep this [expletive] up, I will [expletive] destroy you,' " Williamson recalled.

...In a phone interview Thursday, Carlson acknowledged that he approached Williamson in the store and said he was "very aggressive" because he wanted the post removed: "I don't like to call the police or call his boss. . . . I'm a libertarian. I'm not into that."

On Monday, Williamson said, his Potomac Video manager called and fired him. Williamson said he was told the company was threatened with legal action "and the owner doesn't like that." He re-posted the original Carlson item later that day. Williamson said he later learned that a man who identified himself as a lawyer for Carlson had been in the store and asked Potomac Video employees questions about him.

Carlson told us that he was concerned for the safety of his family, but did not threaten legal action against the company or push to have Williamson, who still has his office-manager day job, fired.

"He implied he was going to come and do something to my house," Carlson said. "I've got four kids at home and I've had serious problems with stalkers twice. . . . This guy is threatening to come to my house and I'm on the road all the time. What would you do? This guy is threatening my family."

Good for Carlson because that blogger deserved to be fired. The guy offered to post what Carlson was renting online and that's obviously a violation of trust. What video store would want to have someone on their staff who's threatening to post what customers of the store are watching? He also made a joke about knowing Carlson's address and pranking him. Again, is that something that you'd want an employee of yours doing? Moreover, is it something that belongs on a blog? No, it doesn't and it's great that this guy was turned into a cautionary tale, because it discourages other people from doing the same thing. We'd be much better off as a society if more people paid a price for posting that sort of material.

The print edition of the Weekly World News has once again scooped everybody with the news that Bigfoot will be Hillary Clinton's running mate in 2008. They even have pics:

Now, I know what most of you are thinking after seeing that pic. Probably, something like, "Bigfoot is standing directly behind Hillary Clinton and he's not wearing any pants!"

True, that is disturbing, but remember that we're talking about a political amateur here who has never run for office before. That also explains the flag pin. I mean hasn't someone explained to the big guy that spontaneous displays of patriotism nauseate a significant percentage of the liberal base? Well, he'll figure it out eventually.

PS: Breaking news: The Loch Ness monster has just set up an exploratory committee and is planning on running for the Republican nomination. His first comment to the press? "Well, after Ron Paul jumped in, I figure why not me? I have a better shot of getting elected than that guy!"

"The fact that more than 90 percent of the violence that dominates reporting from Iraq takes place in five neighborhoods in Baghdad, plus one of the 18 Iraqi provinces, is neither here nor there. The perception is that all of Iraq is lost.

... Last month, Iraq received the U.N.'s special environmental prize for reviving parts of the marshes drained by Saddam, thus saving one of the world's most precious ecological treasures. Almost no one in the media noticed.

Also last month, the Iraqi soccer squad reached the finals of the Asian Games - beating out Japan, China, South Korea and Iran. Again, few in the West noticed.

In 2006, almost 200 major reconstruction projects were officially completed and 4,000 new private companies registered in Iraq. But few seem interested in the return of private capitalism after nearly 50 years of Soviet-style control.

Iraq's new political life is either ignored or dismissed as irrelevant. The creation of political parties (some emerging from decades of clandestine life), the work of Iraq's parliament, the fact that it is almost the only Arab country where people are free to discuss politics to their hearts' content - these are of no interest to those determined to see Iraq as a disaster, as proof that toppling Saddam was a modern version of the original sin.

Iraq may still become any of those things - but right now it is none of them. When the real history of the Iraq war is written, posterity might marvel at the way modern media were used to manufacture that original sin." -- Amir Taheri

"This is a common viewpoint, I've found, among my Democratic friends--Jon Alter, this means you!--who would never actually buy a Detroit product but who want to believe the UAW can't be blamed. The argument seems to be roughtly this: a) American cars are now reliable enough, having closed the gap with the Japanese brands, so b) the workers are doing their job; therefore c) if Detroit cars like the G6 are still obviously inferior--tacky and cheap, with mediocre handling--it must be because they're designed badly by white collar professionals, not because they're built badly by blue collar union members.

The trouble with this comforting liberal argument is labor costs. When Kuttner says "Japanese total labor costs are comparable, even with Detroit's higher health insurance costs," he is--as is so often the case--talking through his hat. Look at this chart. GM pays $31.35 an hour. Toyota pays $27 an hour. Not such a big difference. But--thanks in part to union work rules that prevent the thousands of little changes that boost productivity--it takes GM, on average, 34.3 hours to build a car, while it takes Toyota only 27.9 hours. ** Multiply those two numbers together and it comes out that GM spends 43% more on labor per car. And that's before health care costs (where GM has a $1,300/vehicle disadvantage).

If you're GM or Ford, how do you make up for a 43% disadvantage? Well, you concentrate on vehicle types where you don't have competition from Toyota--e.g. big SUVs in the 1980s and 1990s. Or you build cars that strike an iconic, patriotic chord--like pickup trucks, or the Mustang and Camaro. Or--and this is the most common technique--you skimp on the quality and expense of materials.

...Is it really an accident that all the UAW-organized auto companies are in deep trouble while all the non-union Japanese "transplants" building cars in America are doing fine? Detroit's designs are inferior for a reason, even when they're well built. And that reason probably as more to do with the impediments to productivity imposed by the UAW--or, rather, by legalistic, Wagner-Act unionism--than with slick and unhip Detroit corporate "culture." -- Mickey Kaus

Eritrea Warns Of "Consequences" For U.S. In Somalia

Chavez, Ahmadinejad Plan Anti-U.S. Fund

Honduras Temporarily Grabs Exxon, Chevron Terminals

Bush: 'We're Going Forward'. More Troops Called The Only Iraq Option

Iraqi Foreign Minister Wants 5 Iranians Released. Tehran Claims Group Held By U.S. Forces Are Diplomats

Saddam Half Brother, Ex-Official Hanged

John Bolton: Mideast Peace Efforts A Waste

The Pentagon Has Been Using A Little-Known Power To Obtain Banking And Credit Records Of Hundreds Of Americans And Others Suspected Of Terrorism Or Espionage Inside The United States (Free NY Times Reg Req)

Nancy Pelosi's Husband Paul Pelosi Has A $17 Million Dollar Investment In The Majority Corporate Owner Of Starkist Tuna, The Company That Was Set To Benefit By Keeping American Samoa From Being Included In The Minimum Wage

Murtha Proposes Bill To Choke Funding For Surge

Key Legislators Threaten Funds For Nuclear Weapons Overhaul

James Dobson Wouln't Vote For John Mccain 'Under Any Circumstances'

Rare Brain Worms Latest Border Disease. Fatal Disease Found In Developing Countries With Poor Hygiene Habits Hits South Texas

U.S. Border Patrol Agent Shoots And Kills Mexican Illegal

Jack Kelly: We Definitely Can Still Win In Iraq If We Stop Repeating The Mistakes

Dick Morris And Eileen McGann: The Looming Democratic Party Civil War

The New York Post: Jimmy For Terror

Youssef Ibrahim: Will Saudis Ban The Letter ‘X'?

Israel grows beating heart tissue, blood vessels (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Great Strategy Game: Dice Wars

Website Of The Day: Dr. Melissa Clouthier