While we're on the subject of Larry Craig, I've got some real problems with this whole situation. While I'm no fan of his (I knew little about him until his vote for Amnesty), as a libertarian, I have a real problem with the misdemeanor charge he got in Minneapolis. If he had said to the cop "wanna have sex?" that would be one thing...but to say that he is guilty of soliciting sex by putting his foot next to another person's and swiping his hand under the stall...that to me is a real stretch. They say these are the known signs of someone looking for public sex...I guess I've lived a sheltered life.
Someone asked me recently, have you ever heard of this? I said, no, but I'm glad I have now so I don't accidentally do it in the future!
Exit question: Shouldn't airport police be worried more about terrorism than sex in the bathrooms? Also, what if they caught a Muslim soliciting sex in an airport bathroom? Just asking...
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious -- makes you so sick at heart that you cannot take part. You cannot even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies on the gears and upon the wheels and levers, upon all of the apparatus and you have to make it stop and you have got to indicate to the people who run and own it, that unless you are free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.
This is one of those stories where you really want a player to do well. Harrington has taken over QB job at a franchise that has been shell shocked. They need something to get their spirits up in Atlanta and they're hoping he can deliver. So far, he's handled it well. His play in the preseason has been solid and his relationship with his teammates is strong, Warrick Dunn stating that the players have responded well to him and "have his back."
It's the kind of thing that adds an interesting element to an already interesting game.
Now there's talk Michael Chertoff is the possibly replacement. That could be interesting as he's made no friends with the Conservative base after his comments on Amnesty.
I've said it once and I'll say it again. The presidency needs to be one six-year term. Most presidency's have burned-out by the time 6 years rolls around. Something to consider.
A transcript of Bush's speech is here, I suggest you read it. The reaction of the elites and Hitchens has to do with their misguided view of communism. Though they refuse to admit it and even offer shallow lip-service with under-their-breath statements that "Stalin was indeed and very bad man," these people will always have a soft-spot for the Marxist ideology because of central (yet false) credo "equality." The reality is that communism is an ideology based on man's self-hatred. Communism seeks to crush every human desire, good and bad, and with that, everyone is "equal." Hitler and the Nazi's weren't quite the same. Theirs was an ideology based on race...they hated everyone but themselves, very similar to the Islamofascists (hence the reason we use the term) of today. Many try to say Vietnam didn't have it so bad after we left. John Kerry, most famously. Max Boot tackled this subject:
After all, isn't Vietnam today an emerging economic power that is cultivating friendly ties with the U.S.?
True, but that's 30 years after the fact. In the short-term, the costs of defeat were indeed heavy. More than a million people perished in the killing fields of Cambodia, while in Vietnam, those who worked with American forces were consigned, as Mr. Bush noted, to prison camps "where tens of thousands perished." Many more fled as "boat people," he continued, "many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea."
That assessment actually understates the terrible repercussions from the American defeat, whose ripples spread around the world. In the late 1970s, America's enemies seized power in countries from Mozambique to Iran to Nicaragua. American hostages were seized aboard the SS Mayaguez (off Cambodia) and in Tehran. The Red Army invaded Afghanistan. It is impossible to prove the connection with the Vietnam War, but there is little doubt that the enfeeblement of a superpower encouraged our enemies to undertake acts of aggression that they might otherwise have shied away from. Indeed, as Mr. Bush noted, jihadists still gain hope from what Ayman al Zawahiri accurately describes as "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents."
Bush was not giving a history lecture at NYU, he was trying to explain some real world realities in a short amount of time. Like they say in football, you can have all the great stats you want but the only stat that matters is how many W's you have. In this world, the only stat that matters is America's win-loss record, because when America loses, freedom loses. You don't have to like it, but you do have to face it.
A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina without Americans: For Most a Better Life."
That line came from reporter Sydney Schanberg. You know, he was the hero in The Killings Fields, played by Sam Waterston. That one line proved to be one of the most erroneous predictions in the history of journalism. Sadly, history is repeating.
For a primer on the Cambodian/Vietnam aftermath debate between the Left and the Right, click here.
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Pounded and strained by heavy traffic and weakened by missing bolts and cracking steel, the failed interstate bridge over the Mississippi River also faced a less obvious enemy: pigeons.
Inspectors began documenting the buildup of pigeon dung on the span near downtown Minneapolis two decades ago. Experts say the corrosive guano deposited all over the Interstate 35W span's framework helped the steel beams rust faster.
Although investigators have yet to identify the cause of the bridge's Aug. 1 collapse, which killed at least 13 people and injured about 100, the pigeon problem is one of many factors that dogged the structure.
We let their desecration of our statues slide, but now they're on thin ice! (Hat tip: Blue Crab Boulevard)
For years, Medecins Sans Frontiers, known in English as "The French Doctors", the organisation that Kouchner and his friends founded, was one of the few Western charities that publicised the sufferings of the Iraqi people.
More than a dozen Michael Vick jerseys have been sent to AHS, and they are putting them to good use.
"When I first saw them, I was kind of shocked. I was like, 'Why do they have Vick jerseys here,'" said Julie Sentner.
So what are volunteers doing with the jerseys?
"We discovered like any donation we get, any shirt or towel, we put it to good use here at Atlanta Humane Society. We’re always using things to clean kennels, use for bedding and stuff like that," said Smith.
Did she say cleaning kennels?
"We’re not showing any favoritism to these jerseys, they go into our
general rotation of towels," Smith said.
By the way, Vick has agreed to plead Guilty to the federal charges. It'll be very interesting to see what Roger Goodell does now.
As expected, the only action the magazine has taken is to fire the whistle-blower who told a few conservative bloggers about the fact that Beauchamp is married to one of TNR's "fact-checkers (a fact that has been thoroughly checked). While some may be amazed by this, it's hardly surprising. The MSM sees the Blogosphere (at least the conservative Blogosphere) as a pesky rebellion on the outskirts of the capital. While it may be the right thing to do to come clean and admit they were duped, the last thing the editors at TNR or any MSM outlet want to do is give the rebels any kind of credibility. If the New York Times or Time Magazine had revealed that Beauchamp was a fraud, TNR would still have been annoyed but also more likely to come clean. Since they're being exposed by the likes of Little Green Footballs and The Confederate Yankee, they're wrapping themselves in a cone of silence.
It's more than ideology at work here. It's not about being pro-war or anti-war. It's about class, about TNR's standing in the Fourth Estate hierarchy. They're being challenged and they don't like it...none of the MSM likes it and they're not going to leave the ivory tower without a fight.
The great war...the battle over the control of information and ideas, will be a generational war.
What does that mean? Well, if their experiment indeed proves out, it basically means that everything we thought we knew about space and time is wrong. Einstein's famous Theory of Relativity says that it would require an infinite amount of energy to propel an object at more than 186,000 miles per second, i.e. it's impossible to go faster than the speed of light. However, these two physicists may have found a way around that.
Now, it's extremely early. This is one finding and it will have to be tested on a larger scale by many other scientists before it can claim an credence...but it's quite a step.
Don Surber has more on Petraeus.
Amir Taheri in the New York Post offers this little nugget:
In Tehran, hundreds gathered near the home of Mansour Osanloo, the imprisoned leader of the capital's transit workers, with a simple message: We are not afraid! The authorities had organized a military operation to cordon off the streets leading to the house - but couldn't prevent union members from assembling. The day ended with the arrest of at least 15 workers' leaders.
Meanwhile, in factories and workshops in and around the capital, workers organized peaceful hour-long "solidarity pauses," defying a ban imposed by the authorities. Several other major cities saw similar demonstrations, including Ahvaz, Arak, Sanandaj, Shiraz and Tabriz.
Everywhere, the protesters took care to keep their actions within the law. Yet the authorities kept any mention of Thursday's events out of the official media.
Wait for it...
Osanloo's lawyers phoned the offices of more than a dozen Western news agencies and radio and TV networks in Tehran in the hope of persuading them to cover the events - with no results.
Inside Iran, some see global conspiracy to keep international opinion in the dark about what is really happening in the Islamic Republic. They ask: Why is it that world media representatives in Iran never interview any of the thousands of trade unionists, teachers' leaders, journalists, student activists, women's-lib militants and dissident intellectuals? Why is the brutal repression in several provinces, which has already claimed scores of lives, never covered on the spot?
Now I'm not saying that being a foreign correspondent in a tyrannical country is a walk in the park. You're under constant surveillance and pressure from the regime and could be banned at a moments notice, but you're there to cover the news, to cover the stories that matter. You've already taken a risk just by being there, what's the point if you're just going to be a Western mouth-piece for tyrants?
Remember Eason Jordan? Remember how he kept the crimes of Saddam Hussein out of the spotlight so CNN could have a Baghdad Bureau. He claimed it was to protect his journalists and not the existence of the bureau itself, but if you can't report the news, why be there? International prestige is the answer to that question. Truth? Eh! Better the Europeans love you.
But despite the problems for reporters on the ground working for MSM outlets, there is this:
The good news, however, is that, thanks to the Internet and other means of communication, information almost always ends up getting out.
Anywho, back to the routine.
Okay, fine! Mr. Hall in "Clueless."
A General dropped all charges Thursday against a Marine who had been accused of killing three Iraqi brothers in response to a roadside bomb attack in Haditha in 2005.The Leftist bloggers aren't gonna like this.
"The evidence does not support a referral to a court-martial," Lt. Gen. James Mattis wrote in his written decision.
Human Events: "Do you see any sort of moral obligation to avoid any sort of Cambodia or Saigon in Iraq, on our part?"
Ron Paul: "I see a lot of moral obligation, it's a moral obligation to our troops, so that no more are killed. So that we don't have 50,000 instead of 30,000 coming back without their arms and legs, and brain injuries. And I have a moral obligation to our taxpayers. I know there is going to be chaos. And there will be. There might be a lot less. Vietnam is now a trading partner. They're westernized. We achieved in peace what the Founders advised, what we couldn't achieve in war. But there was, you know, an up tick in the major problems in there. But it's because we're there. If we leave and there is more trouble, it's not because we left and take my policy, it's because we went in there in the first place, and shouldn't have. So, we do have a moral obligation."
Dan Moldea has been beaten up by thugs, trashed in the press, accused of chilling free speech and threatened with prosecution.
And yet after an improbable, colorful career in journalism, he remains a historical footnote for one cameo role: as a sex investigator for Larry Flynt a decade ago.
So when Flynt, the publisher of Hustler, recently asked him to resume his digging into the extramarital exploits of politicians, Moldea had misgivings.
"Please understand that if we work together again . . . I am going to be tracked and harassed," he wrote in a June 9 memo to Flynt. "I'm going to be judged harshly by my friends and colleagues for reentering this world with you in what will be viewed as the mother lode of checkbook journalism. In addition, I will receive more bad press than I have ever received before."
Once again, Moldea is chasing tips from people hoping to score a million-dollar reward proffered by Flynt in a full-page Washington Post ad. Once again, Moldea is justifying his role as holding accountable those who preach moral values but act differently in their private lives.
Okay, let's delve into this. I'm not sure that Moldea would want to call himself a scholar, but when you write investigate tombs, one's goal is usually to make their work the last word on the subject. Case in point: Gerald Posner's book on the JFK Assassination titled "Case Closed." 'Nuff said. However, there is an important rule of scholarship: you have to be prepared to find out that everything you believed in your heart of hearts could prove to be wrong based on the evidence. As I said, Moldea seemed to follow this path with his RFK book. Another classic example is Allen Weinstein who wrote the brilliant book on the Alger Hiss case "Perjury." He started out believing that Hiss was set up and pretty much told Hiss he was gonna exonerate him. After years of research, he had to face the fact that Hiss was indeed guilty. Weinstein paid a price for intellectual honesty.
I don't have a problem with an investigative journalists going into a project with certain beliefs or attitudes, that's human nature. I'm libertarian and it colors how I see things from the start, but once you decide to take a scientific approach to a subject, the evidence is the evidence. Where I have misgivings is when journalists, like Moldea, decide whether their scientific findings should be reported or buried based on their ideological beliefs.
"I've got two Republicans I've thrown back in the water because, to me, they haven't shown any hypocrisy," he says, explaining that they are current members of Congress who he believes have sexually strayed.
Sorry Dan, but that's just not good enough. Yes, you can make the argument it's more newsworthy that someone like Senator Vitter, who talks of family values, has extramaritals, but couldn't that argument be said of any member of the Republican Party? How many of them are out there saying otherwise? Democrats too. They may be seen as the party of sex thanks to Bill Clinton and the Kennedys, but how many of them don't give family values lip-service during election years? The point is, unless Moldea is willing to share all of his findings, he is not a scholar or a journalist really...he is a
Moldea fervently believes he played a role in the Senate's subsequent acquittal of Clinton, although it never appeared there were enough Democratic votes to oust the president. "There was a right-wing attempt to overthrow the executive branch of government, and I thought I could be sacrificed," Moldea says. "This was important enough for me to risk being destroyed."
But there was a plus side for Moldea. "He loves getting attention," Leamer says. "He loves seeing his name. He really gets off on that."
Once the dust settled, Moldea fell on hard times. He turned to consulting, mainly for liberal public-interest groups, to make ends meet. Moldea has not won a book contract since the late 1990s. "Some people have hit a wall with me where they just feel I'm trouble," he says.
That'll happen when you have the reputation of someone with an agenda. Yes, we all have agendas, but a true scholar has one agenda: truth and full disclosure.
The Kurtz article ends with this incredibly ironic warning from Moldea:
Now Moldea is knee-deep in sexual allegations, and with Clinton's wife seeking the presidency, Moldea is again warning darkly of conspiracies.
"I have it on very, very good authority that major opposition research has already been conducted on Bill Clinton, and it's going to be a massive smear campaign against him," he says. A group of former intelligence officers, he says, is "going to try to cripple Hillary through Bill."
"Warning darkly of conspiracies." Does he hear himself talk? How is this different from what he does? Oh, that's right, the Clintons have never claimed to be a moral, upstanding people (they actually have, but no matter to their fans) so they should be spared this kind of treatment. How about the Swiftboat Vets and John Kerry? Weren't they just trying to expose a man who talked like a war hero but in reality was a complete phony? Thus, they exposed hypocrisy. How was what they did any different from Moldea's operation?
Again, just not good enough Dan. Picking and choosing who deserves to be exposed for their chicanery is not the work of a scholar.
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp–author of the much-disputed “Shock Troops” article in the New Republic’s July 23 issue as well as two previous “Baghdad Diarist” columns–signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods–fabrications containing only “a smidgen of truth,” in the words of our source.
The New Republic is done. I used to glance at their website as a source of "reasonable" liberalism, but now the editors have dropped the ball again! As far as I'm concerned they're one-step above The Nation magazine, which is basically the 6th circle of Hell.
I'm not happy on this point, however. If she wins the presidency we'll be slouching toward authoritarian government. Thank G-d my man Rudy is also leading in the polls. I said it long ago and I'll say it again, the clash of the titans that we almost had in the New York Senate race in 2000 will now be fought on the national stage. Take it to the bank.
UPDATE: The good Captain says it's erroneous to blame pork for a bridge collapse:
Even without the pork, Minnesota got a 46% increase in transportation funds from that bill. That amounted to a $1.1 billion windfall over five years -- certainly plenty of money to conduct inspections. In fact, as I've noted before, we could have replaced that bridge almost three full times with that increase.
Captain Ed is right and I was sloppy in making my point. It's true that pork didn't cause the bridge to collapse...G-d knows there's plenty of our tax dollars in Washington to go around. The point I'm trying to make is how an amazing amount of money is wasted by Congressmen trying to buy votes that could go to projects that are needed. If I were President Bush, I'd tabulate how much money was spent by Congress on pork projects in the most recent session, then propose a tax-cut for that amount. When Congress screams, ask them to justify it.
“I won’t meddle any more than Arthur Sulzberger does."
“I just think The Journal needs a little more urgency.”
"I want it to be more competitive with The New York Times."
This could be a huge step toward toppling the MSM empire.
Meanwhile, the Silky Pony continues to prove what a joke he is on a daily basis. He blasts Hillary for taking Rupert Murdoch's money since Murdoch is supposedly hell-bent on hurting Democrats with his Fox News Channel and other parts of his media empire. Now we find out that Murdoch published one of Silky's books. No matter, says Edwards, he donated that money to charity.
Okay, let's see...Murdoch has given money to Hillary, published Edwards book and I'm sure more tombs of drivel from other Dems....isn't the evidence kind of piling up that Murdoch isn't trying to hurt anybody, he's just trying to make money?
Edwards is starting to make Kucinich look legitimate.
UPDATE: It just gets better in the Congress as the voting computer has crashed and they have to use paper, thus no one can see how others vote! Man, if the Repubs were still the majority, Kos would be decrying a conspiracy of Oliver Stone magnitude, but the Dems are in charge, so no worries.
Anyway, the story in question: Nebraska Rep. Lee Terry nearly got into a fist-fight on the House floor with Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. Not exactly a clash of the titans, but in the month of August it's the best we can do. The Street Sweeper on Leavenworth Street has the skinny.
Now, in the 21st Century, the New York Times has become the J. Edgar Hoover of the MSM. They've pretty much given up all pretense of journalistic ethics and unbiased reporting. No, they won't plainly state, "yes, we're liberals (or "progressives") and we hate conservativism and it's various factions. We're going to do what we can to destroy it and those that don't follow the blueprint of the way we think the world should be, we're gonna take them out," but their actions convey those exact words.
When word came down a few weeks ago that Rupert Murdoch wanted to buy Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal, it must have been the equivalent of hearing that Voldemort is back in the New York Times building. They were in a panic. They put a group of reporters on the job to find anything damning about Murdoch that could derail the deal. They failed. He got it.
Well, they're not giving up on doing what they can to put as many chinks in the media giant's armor as they can. Drudge is reporting that the Times is now looking into any and all connections between Murdock, Roger Ailes and Presidential frontrunner Rudy Giuliani. Reports Drudge:
Having failed to thwart a Murdoch purchase of the WALL STREET JOURNAL, the NEW YORK TIMES intensifies battle with the NEWS CORP. empire on Thursday, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
The paper is preparing a provocative examination of Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani's relationship with FOX NEWS chief Roger Ailes.
Is this journalism? Many will say, sure it is. It's the job of the media to keep the big boys honest and hold their feet to the fire. True enough, but when you pursue a story with the intention of finding dirt that will damage a certain person's reputation, are you practicing journalism or something else entirely. Yellow Journalism? Not quite. That's scandal-mongering for the sake of scandal-mongering with little concern over who the target will be. What the New York Times is practicing is pure agenda journalism with the intent to destroy. And why? Because people like Murdoch, Ailes and Giuliani work against the world that the New York Times believes in.
The MSM is out of control, and it's only going to get worse until a massive segment of the public says enough.
MORE: As Rush points out, with Murdoch leading the Wall Street Journal, there is now a paper that will be able to trade body blows with the so-called "paper of record," the New York Times. It's no wonder they're scared to death.