Rhymes With Right

May 31, 2007

Oppose Genocide In Darfur? No Coke For You!

That seems to be the position of the genocide-denying Sudanese ambassador to the United States. And i love Dana Milbank's nickname for this creep -- Khartoum Karl!

Now, the genocidal Sudanese government has an entry in this category. Let's call him Khartoum Karl.
Karl -- a.k.a. John Ukec Lueth Ukec, the Sudanese ambassador to Washington -- held a news conference at the National Press Club yesterday to respond to President Bush's new sanctions against his regime. In his hour-long presentation, he described a situation in his land that bore no relation to reality.

Genocide in the Darfur region? "The United States is the only country saying that what is happening in Darfur is a genocide," Ukec shouted, gesticulating wildly and perspiring from his bald crown. "I think this is a pretext."

Ah. So what about the more than 400,000 dead? "See how many people are dying in Darfur: None," he said.

And the 2 million displaced? "I am not a statistician."

Khartoum Karl went on to say that, all evidence to the contrary, his government does not support the murderous Janjaweed militia. "It cannot happen," he said, "so rule it out." As for the Sudanese regime itself: "We are the agents of peace, people like me, my colleagues who are in the central government of Sudan."

What's more, the good and peaceful leaders of Sudan were prepared to retaliate massively: They would cut off shipments of the emulsifier gum arabic, thereby depriving the world of cola.

"I want you to know that the gum arabic which runs all the soft drinks all over the world, including the United States, mainly 80 percent is imported from my country," the ambassador said after raising a bottle of Coca-Cola.

A reporter asked if Sudan was threatening to "stop the export of gum arabic and bring down the Western world."

"I can stop that gum arabic and all of us will have lost this," Khartoum Karl warned anew, beckoning to the Coke bottle. "But I don't want to go that way."

Personally, I'm willing to give up my soda fix -- it isn't particularly good for me. i wonder, though, how my Coca-Cola swilling spouse would respond to this development? I suspect she would be in the streets demanding massive retaliation.

|| Greg, 10:34 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (86) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

A License To Ill?

This case certainly concerns me because of the public health issues it raises.

A man who may have exposed passengers and crew members on two trans-Atlantic flights earlier this month to a highly drug-resistant form of tuberculosis knew he was infected, and had been advised by health officials not to travel overseas.
The man flew to Paris from his home in Atlanta on May 12 for his wedding and honeymoon, even though health officials told him they “preferred” that he not get on the flight, he said in an interview published today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Days later, while he was in Italy, he was contacted by officials of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and was told that he had a rare and potentially virulent form of the disease and should turn himself over to Italian health authorities immediately.

Officials of the centers said at a news conference today that they had begun to make arrangements with the Italian authorities to isolate and treat the man in Rome. But instead of cooperating with the plans, the man traveled to the Czech Republic and took a flight from Prague to Montreal.

He said in the published interview that he did that in the belief that he had been put on a no-fly list and would not be allowed to board a flight bound for the United States.

From Canada, he drove to the United States, and then turned himself in at a tuberculosis isolation hospital in New York City.

This is precisely the sort of entitlement-fueled arrogance that allowed the AIDS epidemic to spread -- the idea that the public does not have the right to be protected against highly communicable diseases because of the purported right of the plague carrier to be free of limitations on their freedom, the rest of society be damned. Knowing that he was ill and carrying the disease, we have a guy knowingly and intentionally exposing hundreds -- if not thousands -- of people to a didease that is drug-resistant and can kill its victims.

And the ACLU wants to make such a self-indulgent "license to ill" the law of the land in America. Just look at this suit.

A federal lawsuit filed Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union alleges that Maricopa County officials have violated the rights of a quarantined tuberculosis patient for months by treating him as a criminal.
The U.S. District Court complaint on behalf of Robert Daniels alleges health officials and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office have violated numerous constitutional rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The suit asks that Daniels be housed in appropriate accommodations, rather than the severe and "inhumane" jail conditions.

"It's good news for me," Daniels said Wednesday evening. "I finally have a chance to get out of this black hole."

Robert England, the county's tuberculosis control officer, declined comment. Other county health officials were not immediately available.

Daniels, 27, has been isolated in a jail ward at Maricopa Medical Center for 10 months under court order, although he was not convicted or charged with any crime.

Linda Cosme, an attorney for Daniels, said her client has been victimized by constitutional violations. "Robert is helpless," she added. "And he's at the mercy of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He needs as much support as possible, and the ACLU is supplying that support."

Arpaio said Daniels is confined under court order, and must abide by security measures. "I run a safe jail, and he's going to be treated like anyone else," he said.

The problem is that the only facility equipped to handle such a severe health issue in that county is the secure ward. And while Daniels thinks it is good news for him that someone is trying to spring him from the most appropriate medical facility in the region, it is bad news for every person that Daniels will come in contact with in a less secure setting -- those who may die due to the disease that Daniels passes on to them.

If terrorists ever want to do a biological attack on the US, all they have to do is send in a dozen guys with Ebola. The ACLU will quickly file suit to ensure the attack is a success. After all, public health and public safety can't trump the freedom to pass on deadly diseases.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, DeMediacratic Nation, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Colloquium, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Pet's Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Wake Up America, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

|| Greg, 07:58 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (105) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Demo-Hypocrisy On Earmarks

They were supposed to be the root of all evil -- and Democrats campaigned against them and promised to end them.

Guess what? Earmarks are the hallmark of Democrat pork-barrel spending. Not only that, but they want to hide it from you.

Sailing into majority status by running against the GOP “culture of corruption,” which included charges of widespread abuse of earmarks, Democrats have since turned their backs on promised reforms and instead have adopted rules that guarantee a continuation of the practice.
In the House Appropriations Committee, Chairman Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., has made it clear that anonymous earmarking will continue, as will the practice of including the extra spending in the House-Senate conference report — behind closed doors with no debate whatsoever on the efficacy of the earmark while the bill is under consideration on the floor.

Obey’s arrogant response to questions about abandoning a major campaign pledge of the Democrats? “I don’t give a damn if people criticize me or not.”

Guess what, America -- they didn't mend it, they didn't end it. Obey and the rest have said "Screw you" to the American people. There's no better example of that than the refusal to condemn Jack Murtha's threats against a GOP colleague for exposing his earmarks to the public.

Turn them out in 2008 -- and elect real conservatives who have been acting to end earmarks.

|| Greg, 07:41 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Be Afraid -- Be Very Afraid

At last -- a potential presidential candidate I can treat with less seriousness than Ron Paul!

On May 25, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney participated in a 23-minute interview on Radio Station WBAI. The hosts asked her about the possibility that she may seek the Green Party presidential nomination in 2008. She said, “With the failure of the Democratic Congress to repeal the Patriot Act, the Secret Evidence Act, the Military Tribunals Act, I have to seriously question my relationship with the Democratic Party. The idea has not been ruled out. All the current Democrats running for president support the principle of potential military action against Iran; none of them is for impeachment of the President. They can’t speak for me. I am open to a lot of ideas in 2008.”

The Hit & Run blog over at Reason.com offers these questions.

Remaining questions:
1: Would McKinney get more or fewer votes than Nader did in 2004?

1a: Would the Libertarian candidate actually win fewer votes than her? Her? Really?

2: Would a McKinney candidacy make the LP look, by the mainstream media's lights, like the serious third party?

My answers?

1. More.

1a. Probably -- she takes all the right positions for the netroots, and the LP voters can't stuff a real ballot box like they do for Ron Paul in online polls.

2. No -- because the MSM actually likes McKinney, while they find the Libertarians insufficiently socialist -- though they do like the stuff about legalizing pot and prostitution.

Perhaps we can get a Cynthia/Cindy ticket in 2008 -- I doubt that Cindy Sheehan can keep herself out of the limelight more than two or three weeks and this would get her a platform.

|| Greg, 07:26 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

How Owns Whom -- Dogs Or People?

Around here, I'm reasonably sure that neither my wife nor I are top dog.

As the demographics of America have changed, so too has the nature of pet ownership. It used to be that most pets were bought by families. Now, the majority of pet owners, 61 percent, are childless—singles, unmarried couples waiting to have kids, gay couples, empty-nesters. Invariably, these owners tend to treat their pets like surrogate babies, and they spoil them accordingly. To help these childless pet-parents spend their disposable income, the pet products industry has mushroomed in the past decade. This year we’ll shell out more than $40 billion to keep our furry friends fed, adorned, amused and healthy—the latter a huge growth category, with more and more owners paying top dollar for elaborate medical treatments to forestall that inevitable last visit to the vet. By the end of the decade, we’ll be spending $50 billion on pet products, according to the APPMA. Walk the aisles of Petco or PetSmart, past the Hawaiian shirts and sunglasses for your dog and the $140 Catnip Chaise Lounge for your cat, and you’ll discover just how well-trained we Americans have become. “I don’t know who’s been domesticated: the animals, or the humans?” says Jeff Corwin, Animal Planet’s globetrotting wildlife biologist.

Let's be honest here -- the adorable ball of fur pictured above is our child -- to the point that folks are surprised to find that my wife and I don't really have any kids (unfortunately). And my students are amused by the (small) framed picture of our pampered pooch on my desk. However, we are nto quite this goofy.

Some 56 percent of dog owners and 42 percent of cat owners buy their pets Christmas presents. Pets can listen to their own Internet radio station (Elvis Presley’s “Hound Dog” is one of the more popular songs on DogCatRadio.com), post their pictures and make play dates on dogster.com and catster.com, and earn frequent flier miles on United. They even have cell phones now: PetsCell is a bone-shaped telephone that attaches to your dog’s collar and allows you to ring him up (sorry, incoming calls only). And there’s a new beer for dogs (from Amsterdam, no less), called Kwispelbier, which is Dutch for “waggy tail” brew. The recent scare over tainted pet food has made feeding your animal a pricey proposition: I’ve switched Samantha to “holistic” kibble and wet food, hormone-free chicken strips and handmade cookies from a local dog bakery, along with the occasional whole-roasted chicken that we share for dinner. She also gets dried pig hearts, which cost $5 apiece (those, we don’t share).

Still, we do get Carmie the best of vet care, and ensure that she has good food and plenty of treats. And if she is getting a bit chubby, what can I say -- she is 11 years old, which would put her somewhere in her mid-70s if she were a person. It's OK that she has lost her girlish figure.

And the adoration of the canine is certainly preferable to this sort of disgusting display.

|| Greg, 07:11 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

ACLU Absurdity

Can't sue the government for legal actions? Well, then, let's just sue anyone who did business with them and performed any services connected with that legal action.

The American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday it is suing Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing Co., claiming it secretly flew three of the CIA's terrorism suspects overseas, where they were tortured.
The cases involve allegations of mistreatment of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian citizen, in July 2002 and January 2004; Elkassim Britel, an Italian citizen, in May 2002; and Ahmed Agiza, an Egyptian citizen, in December 2001.

Mohamed is being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Britel in Morocco; and Agiza in Egypt, the ACLU said in a news release.

Mike Pound, a spokesman for Englewood, Colo.-based Jeppesen, said company officials had not seen the lawsuit and had no immediate comment. He said Jeppesen, a subsidiary of Boeing Commercial Aviation Services, provides support services, rather than the flights themselves.

"We don't know the purpose of the trip for which we do a flight plan," Pound said. "We don't need to know specific details. It's the customer's business, and we do the business that we are contracted for. It's not our practice to ever inquire about the purpose of a trip."

What next -- lawsuits against the companies that fueled the planes? How about against any company that manufactured a part for the plane? Or better yet -- lawsuits imposing individual personal liability against each and every employee of the companies in question?

Dismiss the suit, disbar the lawyers -- and by the way, lock their terrorists clients away forever if not longer.

|| Greg, 06:59 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Teresa -- Get Out The Checkbook For John

Looks like your boy-toy is going to need a bit of cash to pay back the American people for some lawbreaking by his campaign.

John Kerry spent $1.4 million more than federal rules allowed during his 2004 presidential bid, primarily on customizing two campaign planes, according to a draft audit by the Federal Election Commission.
If the commissioners approve the staff findings at a meeting Thursday, Kerry’s campaign could have to repay the overspending to the U.S. Treasury, since his unsuccessful general election campaign was funded by tax dollars.

In order to receive the public funds, Kerry, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, and his running mate, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, agreed to spend $74.6 million or less on their general election campaign against President Bush.

Of course, Kerry aides object.

Marc Elias, a lawyer for Kerry-Edwards, says the campaign stayed within the limits and accused the commission’s auditors of taking “an unsupportably aggressive view of the law.”

Yeah -- we wouldn't want to aggressively enforce teh law against a Democrat, would we.

By the way, when it comes right down to it, he either over-spent or he didn't. What do the numbers say? Exactly what the auditors claim. Maybe Kerry just wants them to use fuzzy math.

But then again, he's just a gigolo, everybody knows...

|| Greg, 06:52 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (112) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

May 30, 2007

Proper Ruling By Supreme Court

I hate the outcome, but the majority made the right call on this one.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for many workers to sue their employers for discrimination in pay, insisting in a 5-to-4 decision on a tight time frame to file such cases. The dissenters said the ruling ignored workplace realities.
The decision came in a case involving a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., the only woman among 16 men at the same management level, who was paid less than any of her colleagues, including those with less seniority. She learned that fact late in a career of nearly 20 years — too late, according to the Supreme Court’s majority.

The court held on Tuesday that employees may not bring suit under the principal federal anti-discrimination law unless they have filed a formal complaint with a federal agency within 180 days after their pay was set. The timeline applies, according to the decision, even if the effects of the initial discriminatory act were not immediately apparent to the worker and even if they continue to the present day.

And you know what -- the dissenters were correct -- the ruling ignores workplace realities. however, so does the statute in question, and judges are supposed to be bound by the statutes they examine. They are not a super-legislature which corrects the bad judgement and faulty craftsmanship of the lawmakers.

Captain Ed puts it very well -- and I wish i had written these words.

And the response to that for the Court should be: Write better laws. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to rewrite poorly-constructed legislation. Congress obviously intended for a short window of opportunity for these complaints, for whatever reason they had. The Supreme Court follows the law, unless the law is expressly unconstitutional. Fine-tuning dumb laws and badly-written legislation isn't the purview of the Court, but rather the responsibility of Congress.
Obviously, Congress needs to revisit this piece of legislation. Thankfully, we now have a Court which forces America's elected representatives to do their job, primarily by refusing to legislate from the bench. This gives hope that the last fifty years of judicial legislation have come to an end.

I hope Congress revisits this statute quickly and corrects the flaw in it. That will allow justice in the future, though it cannot undo the injustice caused by their previous sloppy work.

UPDATE: Why am I not surprised that the New York Times wants the court to serve as a super-legislature?

|| Greg, 08:39 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Malaysian Court Rules Islam Trumps Internationally Recognized Human Rights Norms

Well, that is the easiest way to view this case -- either that, or the court has ruled that Muslims are not human beings and therefore do not have human rights that must be respected.

Malaysia's top civil court Wednesday rejected a woman's appeal to be recognized as a Christian, in a landmark case that tested the limits of religious freedom in this moderate Islamic country.
Lina Joy, who was born Azlina Jailani, had applied for a name change on her government identity card. The National Registration Department obliged but refused to drop Muslim from the religion column.

She appealed the decision to a civil court but was told she must take it to Islamic Shariah courts. Joy, 43, argued that she should not be bound by Shariah law because she is a Christian.

A three-judge Federal Court panel ruled by a 2-1 majority that only the Islamic Shariah Court has the power to allow her to remove the word "Islam" from the religion category on her government identity card.

In other words, in order to exercise her human rights, Lina Joy must get permission from religious authorities whose own religious legal code forbids leaving the faith -- and imposes the death penalty on those who try. Incredible!

And here is what Lina Joy faces when she approaches that religious court.

In practice, Mr. Teoh said, Ms. Joy, who was born Azlina Jailani, will have a very difficult time getting the Islamic authorities to allow her to leave Islam. No one in recent years has done it in the federal territory of Kuala Lumpur, where Ms. Joy is registered, he said. Those who have tried have been “threatened and cajoled,” Mr. Teoh said.

Indeed, part of what has happened to those who try is that they are imprisoned in religious prisons where they are subjected to great pressure to renounce their new faith as a condition of release. But maybe -- after several years of imprisonment for her faith -- the court will let her go. But we know what the public demands of apostates in the Muslim world -- we've sen it too many times.

Perhaps most distressing is this quote from the judge who wrote this abominable decision.

"You can't at whim and fancy convert from one religion to another," Federal Court Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim said in delivering judgment in the case, which has stirred religious tensions in the mainly Muslim nation.

A pity that this pathetic excuse for a jurist is not familiar with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This principle is a fundamental, essential human right. Will the international community speak out against this atrocity against religious freedom? Will the American government act in defense of this fundamental human right? Or will the world, once again, kow-tow to the barbarism that is Islam?

H/T Jawa Report, Michelle Malkin, Sundries Shack, 7.62mm Justice, Absinthe & Cookies

|| Greg, 07:37 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Jordin Had Voice Coach

May I offer a hearty "who cares?"

Jordin Sparks says that she can’t take credit for her fabulous voice because it’s a gift from God. Apparently, the “American Idol” winner also had a little more earthly help: she reportedly had a vocal coach. That may come as a surprise to Sparks’ fans because on her official bio on the “Idol” Web site, when asked if she ever had formal training, Sparks answered, “No.”

I guess it is all in how you define "formal training" -- and whether you think it matters, given that Melinda was a professional back-up singer and others have been working in the music field for years.

|| Greg, 06:53 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Thompson Takes The Next Step

Not that this comes as a surprise to anyone at all -- Fred Thompson is going to be forming an exploratory committee to explore the possibility of running for the White House. When? Monday.

"Law and Order" star Fred Thompson will make his flirtation with a White House bid official this week, forming a presidential committee and launching a fundraising effort that could culminate in a formal announcement over the July 4th weekend, advisers to the former senator said.
Thompson, who has been fueling speculation that he would seek the Republican presidential nomination with a spate of appearances and speeches around the country, urged a group of donors in a conference call yesterday to each attempt to raise a total of $46,000 from 10 couples starting on June 4, according to two participants in the call. Once the money begins flowing, Thompson will begin to hire a campaign staff and set up headquarters in Washington and Nashville, his advisers said.

The question is, of course, which staffers are not committed to someone else -- and which "names" will be jumping to Thompson from the other declared candidates in the GOP.

And the launch date for the "real" campaign? The Fourth of July weekend -- giving Fred one month to raise a substantial kitty. Expect him to make his announcement in Nashville.

The big question is -- who among the GOP leaders does this development hurt? Could it be Romney? Or is it McCain, whose political record is similar to Thompson's?

|| Greg, 06:48 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

May 29, 2007

Pelosi On Climate Change -- Right On Reality, Wrong On Cause

Nancy Pelosi just does not get it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) said Monday she led a congressional delegation to Greenland, where lawmakers saw "firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality," and she hoped the Bush administration would consider a new path on the issue.

Actually, Nancy, I know of very few folks who doubt climate change outright. What we question is the cause, the mechanism, behind it.

The California Democrat pointed to her delegation's weekend stop in Greenland, "where we saw firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality; there is just no denying it."
"It wasn't caused by the people of Greenland — it was caused by the behavior of the rest of the world," she said.

Scientists have noticed that Greenland's output of ice into the North Atlantic had increased dramatically, doubling over the decade that ended in 2005.

Yes, it has -- but has it been caused by human beings? Or has it been part of a cyclical change in climate that occurs over a 1000-1500 year period -- after all, have you never thought of why it was called GREENland by those who discovered it? The climate was much more temperate a millenia ago, while we are now coming out of a period which is often referred to by historians and climatologists as the Little Ice Age.

Oh, and by the way -- who rejected Kyoto? Try Bill Clinton, who never submitted it to the Senate -- and the unanimous Senate that expressed its opposition to the treaty in 1998.

|| Greg, 11:20 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (49) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

|| Greg, 11:20 AM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Comments ||

Trackback Information for Pelosi On Climate Change -- Right On Reality, Wrong On Cause

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/214239
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Pelosi On Climate Change -- Right On Reality, Wrong On Cause'.

Comments on Pelosi On Climate Change -- Right On Reality, Wrong On Cause

This is more comedy gold. You, with all the knowledge inherent in being a rightwing blogger, assert that Pelosi, who gets advice from the leading scientists, "just doesn't get it." You get your advice from discredited fringe elements. Whom should we trust?

|| Posted by Dan, May 29, 2007 05:17 PM ||

Dan, having studied the history of the matter, it is hard to make an argument that this is not part of a cyclical change.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 29, 2007 06:43 PM ||

I don't disagree that cyclical change may be playing a part, but this is faster and more intense that cyclical change, and it is pretty clear that man has enhanced the cyclical change, and that man can have an effect on it.

|| Posted by Dan, May 29, 2007 07:41 PM ||

And given the history of cyclical change, I don't believe that we as a species have that great an impact upon it or the ability to reverse/minimize it. After all, human beings didn't make GREENland green the last time.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 30, 2007 05:09 AM ||

Your belief is charming, but no more factual than someone who believes that global warming is a plot by Cheney. The truth is that mankind has injected vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. (You do believe in chemistry, don't you? We agree that burning of fossil fuels produces CO2, don't we?)

Arguing that global warming is not a problem because temperatures have always fluctuated is like arguing that Andrea Yates is not guilty because children have drowned before.

|| Posted by Dan, May 30, 2007 05:36 AM ||

Dan -- we are today seeing exactly what has happened in the past without human intervention. To argue that it is today caused by human intervention is an absurd religious view, but hardly science.

You are guilty of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 30, 2007 06:31 AM ||

I had that "post hoc ergo propter hoc" one time and the doctor gave me some antibiotics and it went away.

Dan, sorry but your “religion of global warming” caused by humans is not scientific. One volcano going off would do more than all the coal factories ever built to saturate the atmosphere with suspended particulates, enough to cancel out any perceived governmental imposition on how we operate in this age of technology. The root of the environmental movement has nothing to do with saving Bambi from choking on soot; but has to do with imposing sanctions on the free market in order to force capitalism into a box so that socialism can dominate and take over.

|| Posted by T F Stern, May 30, 2007 07:44 AM ||

TF - According to real scientists (not bloggers posing as scientists, "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)".

That is interesting that your opposition to science is based on fear of socialism. I didn't know you were still afraid of that bogey-man. Most of us who believe that the threat is real and man-made think that entrepreneurialism will be the ultimate solution. Other countries are far ahead of us in creating and marketing sustainable and carbon-neutral technologies.

|| Posted by Dan, May 30, 2007 08:21 AM ||

You may want to consider these real scientists -- all of whom formerly supported the religion of man-made global warming -- before you dismiss those who who think the idea that human beings are causing climate change as unscientific.

I'm particularly sympathetic to the views of Dr. Veizer.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 31, 2007 06:29 AM ||

I'm familiat with that tiny group of outliers who have not produced any peer-reviewed scholarship to support their conclusions. RWR, really, you should give up on trying to argue the near-unanimity of scientific opinion on this issue. Given the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, and the fantastic financial resources that people like Imhoff have to reward those who will support the rightwing agenda, it's more surprising that so FEW scientists are willing to jump on board.

|| Posted by Dan, May 31, 2007 07:42 AM ||

Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler -- they were all outliers, too,arguing against the near-unanimous scientific opinion of their day. They should have simply given up and conceded that the Ptolemaic system was right and the universe revolved around the earth. Music of the spheres, anyone?

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 31, 2007 08:04 AM ||

Thank you for the set-up, RWR. I thought you might blunder in to this one eventually.

The men you mention were scientific pioneers whose work was taken seriously and rather quickly accepted by the scientific community. They ran into trouble, however, with the religious and civil communities, where their ideas caused considerable discomfort and fear of change.

They "won" because they looked at evidence and used the scientific method - they were not driven by dogma and attachment to the status quo.

Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler pissed off the right wing bloggers of their day.

|| Posted by Dan, May 31, 2007 08:17 AM ||

And these scientists will one day be seen as the pioneers who broke the lock on public opinion held by the high-priests of the religion of man-made global warming and the left-wing bloggers and activists (and socialists) who want to impose the religious dogma of global warming upon the unbelievers.

We've already seen your side start issuing fatwas about deviation from the true faith -- I'm just waiting for the beheadings to begin.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 31, 2007 08:36 AM ||

By your deranged rantings about high priests, religious dogma, unbelievers, socialists, fatwas, heheadings and true faith, it's obvious you're uncomfortable discussing science . . .

Science is evidence-based, and there is plenty of evidence for man-enhanced global warming.

|| Posted by Dan, May 31, 2007 12:19 PM ||

No, Dan, the problem is that the man-made global warmingists have declared that their dogma is beyond discussion and contradiction, that those who do dissent should be professionally sanctioned and punished for crimes against humanity, and refuse to consider the validity of other arguments. that isn't science -- that is cult-like faith. Indeed, it is a fundamentalism akin to that of the Islamists -- and since we have already seen acts of eco-terrorism in an attempt to end offending uses of resources, I'd have to argue that your side is straying into the practices of the Islamo-terrorists as well.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 31, 2007 01:08 PM ||

What scientist has declared that "their dogma is beyond discussion and contradiction," or "that those who do dissent should be professionally sanctioned and punished for crimes against humanity." I doubt that you can find such a person.

As for the eco-terrorists, they are a fringe group that predates global warming discussion.

|| Posted by Dan, May 31, 2007 06:09 PM ||

Interestingly enough, Alexander Cockburn of CounterPunch and The Nation -- someone with whom I rarely agree -- has made my point for me in a current column. An analysis of the column may also be found at Newsbusters.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 31, 2007 07:33 PM ||

Scientists? No.

Your failure to distinguish between scientists and bloggers is exactly why you are so confused.

|| Posted by Dan, May 31, 2007 08:29 PM ||

Sorry I am not exclusively citing the clergy of the Wamingist faith.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 31, 2007 09:00 PM ||

You are citing pundits and bloggers. You are talking about a policy debate, not a scientific debate.

|| Posted by Dan, June 1, 2007 05:24 AM ||

And when I cited scientists, you rejected them as well. You only want the priesthood of your religion to be cited -- or Pope Al Gore.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 1, 2007 08:18 AM ||

Wrong again, RWR. I pointed out that they are a group of outliers who have not produced any peer-reviewed scholarship to support their conclusions. If they produce some research that supports them, I'll be interested in what they have to say.

Now, even Bush agrees that global warming is a problem that needs to be addressed. Are you sure you still want to deny reality?

|| Posted by Dan, June 1, 2007 03:50 PM ||

I'll take the outliers over the in=liars any day.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 1, 2007 07:10 PM ||

Unlike you, i don't blindly follow my party leaders. Bush is wrong on this one.

The question is, since when did you consider Bush an authority to cite on anything?

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 1, 2007 07:12 PM ||

he's no authority - he's the dumbest man in america, outside of a couple rightwing bloggers. But even he knows the truth.

Let's see, we have both parties and 99.9% of scientists (100% of published scientists) all in agreement, and some untrained blogger knows more than them all.

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

|| Posted by Dan, June 1, 2007 08:41 PM ||

Well, Dan, if he's so dumb, I would think you would question being on the same side as him. And I'd argue that you are hard pressed to prove that "both parties" are in agreement on the issue. I can (and do) support any number of environmental initiatives without falling for the warmingist hoo-doo.

And would you care to document the "99.9% of scientists (100% of published scientists)" claim with a statistical analysis to support your claim -- or is that more of your religious faith in action, deferring to the words of Pope Al Gore? Or, perhaps, are you simply pulling a couple of numbers out of your ass and trying to pass them off as truth -- perhaps revealed truth?

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 1, 2007 09:02 PM ||

Regarding Bush, even stupid people are correct some of the time. I don't mind being on Bush's side when he's correct, and he is, on occasion. We now have the democratic leadership and the republican leadership agreeing that global warming must be addressed - sounds like consensus to me!

As for the unanimity issue, I'm glad you asked. Go read this article.

It baffles me why you are so insistent on bringing religion into this issue. It's a scientific issue - really. I have no allegiance to one side or the other. If the evidence changed and the scientific consensus changed, I would follow. I simply want to follow the best knowledge possible. You keep on recasting this into a battle of religious positions, but that is solely your concern.

|| Posted by Dan, June 2, 2007 01:04 PM ||

No, Dan, your source does not validate your statistics. What is the source of "99.9% of scientists (100% of published scientists)" agree on the subject, as it is not in the article that you cite -- especially given that the article itself is rather dated and specifically acknowledges that many of the articles in question do not deal with the issue of man-made global warming at all?

Did Gaia appear to you and give you divinely revealed information? Or did you simply pull the numbers out of your ass in an attempt to lie your way into rhetorical victory?

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 2, 2007 02:34 PM ||

100% of published articles that addressed the topic agree that man-enhanced global warming is real. 100%.

As for the 99.9 percent of scientists agreeing with it, that was based on the number of scientists, which is in the hundreds of thousands, and the 10 or so that Imhofe and the wealthy industrialists managed to get to agree with them.

And, really, do you want to talk about lying? After I busted you for fabricating a quote by Harry Reid so you could get a chuckle out of calling the troops liars, to your perpetual shame? And you refused to admit when you were wrong about the BMJ? You live in a glass house of inaccuracy, buddy.

And, again, what's with the religious imagery? I don't get it.

|| Posted by Dan, June 2, 2007 03:39 PM ||

In other words, based on one 2 1/2 year old paltry review of the literature (much of which in no way addressed the matter and did, in fact, seem to indicate that climate change is a natural phenomenon in the past) you gin up a statistic of dubious validity.

And you simply make up out of whole cloth your other statistic, without reference to any valid survey research to collect actual data.

I guess you must be one of the "in"-liars -- and think that making up numbers out of whole cloth is fine since it suits your cult-like devotion to the religion of man-made global warming.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 2, 2007 05:04 PM ||

Also, Dan, would you please document your claim that "hundreds of thousands" of scientists accept global warming. A comprehensive list -- divided by specialty and alphabetized, will be acceptable.

And no, Dan, I did not call the troops liars -- that remains one of your biggest lies.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 2, 2007 05:43 PM ||

Oops, I apologize. You are absolutely correct. You called our troops "losers". And thought it was funny. How could I forget? It's good to see you still remember the specifics - it's good to know you have a sense of shame.

As for the hundreds of thousands, here's a partial list of organizations endorsing man-enhanced global warming:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

I'll admit I haven't totalled their membership, but I'm feeling pretty confident they represent hundreds of thousands.

|| Posted by Dan, June 2, 2007 06:13 PM ||

In case the list isn't big enough for you, you can add in these organizations, too - they're on my side:
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

Are there any distinguished organizations on your side?

|| Posted by Dan, June 2, 2007 06:24 PM ||

Excuse me -- my typo -- I did not call the troops losers. Indeed, what you continue to lie about was a satire directly criticizing those who do call our troops losers. You still seem to dumb or dishonest to recognize th difference -- and i'm pretty sure now that it is a question of dishonesty.

And you still have failed to provide the list of "hundreds of thousands" of scientists -- you list a number of organizations, only some of which are climate related, and attempt to claim that anyone associated with them must agree with the notion of man-made global warming. That doesn't cut it. Please provide the complete list of the "hundreds of thousands" of individual scientists who you claim have support your religious faith -- or admit that you are a liar on this subject as well.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 3, 2007 05:22 AM ||

If you think I'm going to compile a list of members of each of those organizations just to satisfy your odd curiosity, you've gone around the bend. I've proven my point, and you've yet to find a single scientific organization which backs you. By the way, each of those organizations I've listed endorses the finding of man-caused climate change.

Why do you think Bush has accepted the finding, as well?

|| Posted by Dan, June 3, 2007 09:30 AM ||

No, Dan, you made the explicit statement that "hundreds of thousands" of scientists back your view, not that "many organizations" accept the view.

it appears you are unable or unwilling to back your statement up with the data you demanded of me -- therefore, by your own standard, I am forced to conclude that you, Dan, are a liar.

And as far as the President is concerned, maybe you have finally succeeded in convincing me that he is "the dumbest man in America" -- especially in light of his position on the current immigration bill. Why would I want to take my lead from "the dumbest man in America"? And why would you use his agreement with your position as evidence I should support your position? hardly seems logical.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 3, 2007 06:30 PM ||

This might be interesting to you -- if you really have an open mind on the matter, and are not afraid of "losing your religion".

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 3, 2007 06:49 PM ||

It appears he's smarter than you, on both this point and on immigration, so if you will accept him as your intellectual superior, it will be a tiny step toward being a real thinking person, instead of a knee-jerk defender of all that is wrong.

We both know I'm right about hundreds of thousands of scientists backing my view, and they are represented by the many, many organizations I cited. Your demand for a list of them is just a silly distraction - a desperate cry for an impractical level of proof of what everyone already knows.

I don't recall demanding a list of people who agree with you - is this yet another of your lies, RWR?

I'm not demanding, but politely asking, is there a single reputable scientific organization that denies the phenomenon of man-enhanced global warming?

You seem to be getting awfully hostile about this issue - why is that? Are you feeling kind of lonely, now that everyone outside of a couple fringe elements and one insane republican congressman from Oklahoma? Are you going to start throwing nazi comparisons, like he has?

|| Posted by Dan, June 3, 2007 06:58 PM ||

Got some more dissenters for you -- but you will probably call them outliers, since they are not a part of your undocumented/non-existent "hundreds of thousands" of in-liars.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 3, 2007 07:31 PM ||

Interesting article - it's funny how he manages to twist differences in prioritization into conflict about science. But, I'll admit he doesn't seem nearly as unhinged as some bloggers. I haven't read all his articles yet, but thanks for directing me to him.

|| Posted by Dan, June 3, 2007 07:55 PM ||

Gee -- anyone who disagrees with you is insane or stupid now. Seems like you are truly looking for rational debate and discussion. Must be part of what makes you one of Al Gore's in-liars.

And I'm simply asking you to document your assertion of "hundreds of thousands of scientists" -- you know, to prove your assertion. If that constitutes hostility, then I think the problem is the weakness of your argument, not the tone of my response.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 4, 2007 06:56 AM ||

Where have I stated that "anyone who disagrees with me is insane or stupid now"?

|| Posted by Dan, June 4, 2007 05:23 PM ||

I think your comment about an insane congressman and "fringe elements takes care of the insane part -- and that the previous statement about a few bloggers being dumber than the president can be reasonably seen as indicating that you believe those who disagree with you are stupid or insane. Interestingly, you don't disavow that interpretation.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 4, 2007 05:29 PM ||

I've pointed out some people who are insane and stupid - but thtat doesn't mean that ANYONE who disagrees with me fits that description, does it?

You really need to take a lesson in reading for meaning.

|| Posted by Dan, June 4, 2007 08:58 PM ||

By the way, Dan, would you care to provide evidence documenting Senator Inhofe's mental illness -- from an appropriate professional source, of course.

Or are you simply sliming your political opponents with nasty charges that are not grounded in reality?

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 4, 2007 09:38 PM ||

It's an opinion, and one based upon reading about the man. It's based in reality, but I haven't obtained a medical release from him, so I can't provide you with the documentary proof. Sorry. Maybe you could use the power of this blog to get him to sign such a release.

|| Posted by Dan, June 5, 2007 06:51 PM ||

In other words, it is you sliming someone you politically disagree with and making libelous statements about him.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 5, 2007 07:41 PM ||

hahahaha - this may be your most foolish entry yet. After attacking democrats with all kinds of names and irrational allegations, and calling our troops losers, you, of all people, are getting your panties into a bunch over my opinion that Inhofe is insane?! Oh, toughen up, you sissy! I never thought you would be one to get all misty-eyed over a little tough talk!

|| Posted by Dan, June 6, 2007 08:37 PM ||

1. There you go again, Dan -- calling your opponents irrational. Seems to be a pattern with you.

2. No, I did not call the troops losers -- you continue to intentionally misinterpret a satire. Apparently you are the only one allowed to engage in satire -- or do you really wish to revoke American citizenship for those who do not meet your standard for Americanism?

3) I notice, you don't deny your libel of the Senator.

4) Misty-eyed? hardly.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 6, 2007 08:59 PM ||

|| Greg, 11:20 AM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment || TrackBacks (0) ||

Don't Go Away Mad -- Just Go Away

When the going gets tough -- the Loony Left posts over at Kos and then abandons the field.

Cindy Sheehan, the "peace mom" who made headlines in 2005 by staging a marathon protest outside President Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch, said Monday that she no longer wants to be seen as a leader of the anti-war movement.
In a 1,245-word missive entitled "Goodbye Attention Whore" posted on the liberal DailyKos blog, Sheehan said her campaign to end the war in Iraq had strained her relationship with her children, cost her a marriage and left her nearly penniless.

"This is my resignation letter as the 'face' of the American anti-war movement," Sheehan wrote. "I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost."

Her sanity and dignity are probably two of the things Sheehan will not recover, having clearly been driven around the bend by her son's death. I don't hate her -- I pity her, both for the loss she has suffered and her inability to channel her grief in a way that didn't destroy her family and disgrace the sacrifice of her son.

But I will point this out to you -- the Democrats embraced her in an opportunistic fashion only, as a weapon agains the GOP, so the conservative suggestion that she was a Democrat tool was, in fact, an accurate one. Once she ceased serving their purpose, she was discarded. It just sort of goes to show you how committed to the cause of ending the war in Iraq they really are -- and how much concern they really ahve for the troops and their families.

|| Greg, 11:13 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Cyber-War In Estonia -- The Shape Of Things To Come

This development in recent weeks has been interesting.

When Estonian authorities began removing a bronze statue of a World War II-era Soviet soldier from a park in this bustling Baltic seaport last month, they expected violent street protests by Estonians of Russian descent.

Expected, yes -- but the decision to remove the statue would be no different than one to remove a statue of the conquering Japanese from the streets of Manila.

They also knew from experience that “if there are fights on the street, there are going to be fights on the Internet,” said Hillar Aarelaid, the director of Estonia’s Computer Emergency Response Team. After all, for people here the Internet is almost as vital as running water; it is used routinely to vote, file their taxes, and, with their cellphones, to shop or pay for parking.
What followed was what some here describe as the first war in cyberspace, a monthlong campaign that has forced Estonian authorities to defend their pint-size Baltic nation from a data flood that they say was set off by orders from Russia or ethnic Russian sources in retaliation for the removal of the statue.

The Estonians assert that an Internet address involved in the attacks belonged to an official who works in the administration of Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin.

The Russian government has denied any involvement in the attacks, which came close to shutting down the country’s digital infrastructure, clogging the Web sites of the president, the prime minister, Parliament and other government agencies, staggering Estonia’s biggest bank and overwhelming the sites of several daily newspapers.

“It turned out to be a national security situation,” Estonia’s defense minister, Jaak Aaviksoo, said in an interview. “It can effectively be compared to when your ports are shut to the sea.”

Computer security experts from NATO, the European Union, the United States and Israel have since converged on Tallinn to offer help and to learn what they can about cyberwar in the digital age.

“This may well turn out to be a watershed in terms of widespread awareness of the vulnerability of modern society,” said Linton Wells II, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for networks and information integration at the Pentagon. “It has gotten the attention of a lot of people.”

The denial of a Putin connection is the most clear sign that there is one, given the byzantine workings of Russian government.

But more importantly, it raises the question of whether or not the US is ready for such an attack by our enemies -- and if we are ready to perpetrate one against our enemies. Given the freedom with which al-Qaeda and other Islamists prowl the internet, I fear that the answer may be no.

|| Greg, 11:06 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

An Army Of Bloggers Against Cancer

You may notice that I've added a new blogroll on my site -- one devoted to fighting cancer. That issue is a very important one to me right now, given that my uncle will undergo cancer surgery beginning at 7:30 this morning, the time I've set for this post to appear on my site.

The originator of the blogroll, G.M. Roper (a fellow Munuvian) explains the goal this way.

Cancer is no respecter of race, religion, social status, income or profession. It is an insidious disease that robs people of a quality of life and too often, of life itself. This blog has one purpose, and one purpose only, to enroll as many bloggers in An Army Of Bloggers as possible and to encourage them to make an annual contribution to fighting cancer. The Rules for membership are simple, put the logo and blogroll on your blog, send a donation to a cancer program of any kind and post about it. It would be helpful if you write in the "memo field" of your check the following "Donated By The Army Of Bloggers." Help spread the word, help beat this s.o.b. into the ground. If you are a blogger, join the blogroll and make a donation. Leave a comment too if you would be so kind as to whom you donated to. Please leave the address and name of the charity in your comment (you don't need to name the amount). Please, if everyone helps this disease can eventually be whipped.
This Blog and accompanying Blogroll is dedicated Pamela Roper Clark, my beloved sister who passed away in 1990 from ovarian cancer. By putting the power of the blogosphere to work, we hope to make a citizens push to conquer this dread disease.

Who do I plan on supporting? The Siteman Cancer Center in St. Louis, which is a research partnership between Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine. It is where my uncle is being treated, and where, with the help of the dedicated medical team and the grace of God, he will beat this disease.

To join, please information, please visit this link. Also contact G.M. Roper for inclusion.

|| Greg, 07:30 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Fitzgerald Seeks To Punish Crimes Not Charged, Proven

Outrageous -- especially because he knew the guilty party from the first day of his investigation and chose not to charge that individual. How can he therefore seek to sentence a non-leaker like he did the leak?

During the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis Libby, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never charged, and never presented evidence, that Libby illegally disclosed the name of a covert CIA agent. But now, Fitzgerald wants Libby to be sentenced as if he had been guilty of that crime.
Libby is scheduled to face sentencing on June 5. In court papers filed last week, Fitzgerald argues that Libby should be sentenced to 30 to 37 months in jail — a relatively stiff sentence that is appropriate, Fitzgerald says, because of the seriousness of the investigation which Libby was convicted of obstructing.

During the CIA-leak probe, Fitzgerald looked into possible violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and the Espionage Act. He did not charge anyone with breaking either law. But in his court filing, Fitzgerald writes that the grand jury “obtained substantial evidence indicating that one or both of the…statutes may have been violated.” Therefore, Fitzgerald is asking Judge Reggie Walton to treat Libby as if it had been proven that such crimes occurred. “Because the investigation defendant was convicted of endeavoring to obstruct focused on violations of the IIPA and the Espionage Act,” Fitzgerald continues, “the court much calculate defendant’s offense level by reference to the guidelines applicable to such violations.”

As a basis for his argument, Fitzgerald is using a common legal distinction: It’s more serious to obstruct a murder investigation than a shoplifting investigation. The problem, for Fitzgerald, is that he never proved that a crime, as defined by either the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, actually occurred. Now, he’s arguing not only that he proved a crime occurred but that Libby knowingly took part in it. The formula for calculating the sentence recommendation, Fitzgerald writes, “is designed to match the offense level to the conduct and result intended by the defendant.”

Absolutely outrageous. Fitzgerald didn't charge Libby with leaking, fought to keep him from presenting evidence that any disclosures were legitimate under the law, and hid the identity of the real leaker throughout the investigation -- ultimately choosing not to charge that individual, who was in no way influenced by or connected to Libby, and who in fact was an opponent of Libby and his boss, Dick Cheney. But now Fitzgerald wants to treat Libby like a leaker?

There is only one word taht fits here -- scapegoat.

|| Greg, 05:10 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Pressuring Sudan

Maybe this will get the situation to improve.

President Bush has decided to implement a plan to pressure Sudan's government into cooperating with international efforts to halt the violence in its troubled Darfur region, where his administration said almost three years ago that genocide was taking place.
Administration officials said yesterday that the Treasury Department will step up efforts to squeeze the Sudanese economy by targeting government-run ventures involved with its booming oil business, which does many of its transactions in U.S. dollars. Bush will sanction two senior Sudanese officials and a rebel leader, who are suspected of being involved in the violence in Darfur.

The United States will also seek new U.N. Security Council sanctions against Khartoum, as well as a provision preventing the Sudanese government from conducting military flights in Darfur. The United Nations has accused Sudan's government of bombing Darfur villages.

Bush has been considering such steps for months and was set to announce the plan last month at the U.S. Memorial Holocaust Museum. But he held off at the behest of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, who pleaded for more time to conduct diplomacy with Sudan's president, Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan al-Bashir, toward allowing international peacekeepers into the country.

International organizations have been silent too long in the face of this crisis. The time has come for that to end.

|| Greg, 04:52 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Dishonoring The Vets

I'm stunned by this one.

Vandals burned dozens of small American flags that decorated veterans' graves for Memorial Day and replaced many of them with hand-drawn swastikas, authorities said Monday.
Forty-six flag standards were found empty and another 33 flags were in charred tatters Sunday in the cemetery, authorities said. Swastikas drawn on paper appeared where 14 of the flags had been.

Members of the American Legion on this island off Washington's northwest coast replaced the burned flags with new ones Sunday afternoon.

The vandals struck again on Memorial Day after a guard left at dawn, the San Juan County sheriff's office said. This time, the vandals left 33 of the hand-drawn swastikas.

"This is not an act of free speech. This is a crime," Sheriff Bill Cumming said in a statement released Monday afternoon

Burn your flag -- free speech. Burn someone else's flag, especially one from a soldier's grave -- criminal vandalism.

Catch these scumbags and throw the book at them.

H/T Malkin

|| Greg, 04:39 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

May 28, 2007

Memorial Day 2007

Lest we forget the many men and women who have given their lives in the service of our country.

May God bless each and every man and woman who faithfully serves beneath the flag of the United States of America.

|| Greg, 11:59 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Barry Bonds -- The Epitome Of No-Class

Some quotes reveal everything about someone's character.

As Barry Bonds nears his record 756th home run, he's stockpiling quite a collection of souvenirs -- bats, balls, helmets and spikes, pieces of baseball history perfectly suited for the Hall of Fame.
Whether he'll donate any of them to Cooperstown, however, is in doubt.

"I'm not worried about the Hall," the San Francisco slugger said during a recent homer drought. "I take care of me."

It still isn't too late do ban this steroid-enhanced cheater from the game. No one will miss him.

|| Greg, 04:46 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

CD22 -- Revenge Of The GOP

I'm so looking forward to seeing Nick Lampson crushed in November, 2008. After all, he showed himself unwilling to face a Republican in 2006, and this time there will definitely be an opponent on the ballot to put the seat firmly in the GOP column where it belongs.

Here’s a sign that full-bore preparations for the 2008 elections start when the legislative session ends later today: U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson of Stafford, near Houston, is letting it be known he’s not running next year for the U.S. Senate seat held by John Cornyn, Lampson’s political strategist says.
Mustafa Tameez of Houston, a political consultant to Lampson, said this morning that Lampson, the Democrat who last year captured the U.S. House seat vacated by Tom DeLay of Sugar Land, intends to seek re-election instead—fully knowing that his district historically leans Republican.

A Senate bid is “not going to happen,” Tameez said. “It sounds goofy, but he feels like he made a commitment to the people of Congressional District 22.” Tameez said Lampson feels a Senate try would be “disingenuous.”

Tameez aired Lampson’s decision to stamp out speculation regarding a Senate bid. “We just want it to stop,” he said (unwittingly the desire of some observers of this legislative session).

So Nick is willing to actually stand and face a GOP opponent this time around? Should be fun to watch him go down in defeat to a Republican -- again. After all, constituents keep rejecting him when he has to face an opponent who is actually on the ballot!

And let there be no mistake -- there are several credible candidates out there, ready, willing, and able to write the final line of Lampson's political obituary.

Deluded Democrat reactions at Musings and BayAreaHouston (OMG-- have I actually linked to John twice today?)

|| Greg, 02:07 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (28) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Frightening Injury In Cincinnati

The initial reports give signs of hope that Ryan Freel will be OK.

Reds center fielder Ryan Freel had feeling in all of his extremities and was coherent after colliding with right fielder Norris Hopper on Monday.
Freel, known for his all-out play, was down for 13 minutes while being examined and was taken off the field on stretcher.

The frightening scene took place in the third inning of a game against the Pittsburgh Pirates. Freel and Hopper chased a ball hit by Humberto Cota leading off the inning. Freel caught the ball on the warning track and his left arm was run into by Hopper. Freel was twirled around to his left and fell at the base of the wall.

After being examined by Reds trainers and physicians, Freel was turned over on his back, strapped to a stretcher, loaded into an ambulance and taken to Good Samaritan Hospital.

The Reds announced Freel's condition in the fourth inning. He was scheduled for further exams.

Hopper remained in the game.

Freel, hitting .253 entering the game, was replaced by Ken Griffey Jr.

The initial fears of a catastrophic injury involving paralysis seem to have been unfounded. Still, everybody keep Ryan Freel in prayer during his recovery from what still appears to be a serious injury.

|| Greg, 01:25 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Patriot Player Missing Drowns Following Jetski Accident

Let's be honest, folks -- this story about Marquise Hill does not look good.

U.S. Coast Guard rescue crews continued searching Lake Pontchartrain on Monday for New England Patriots defensive end Marquise Hill, who was reported missing following a jetski accident.
"We searched throughout the night," said Petty Officer Tom Atkeson.

According to WDSU-TV, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries said they are no longer on a search and rescue mission. Now their mission is one of search and recovery and Hill is presumed drowned.

Hill's agent, Albert Elias, said he had been told Hill and a young woman were jetskiing Sunday in the lake when both of them went into the water, which had a strong current. Elias said the woman was able to make it to a pylon and hang on until she was rescued, while Hill was last scene floating away from the scene.

"I'm an optimistic guy," Elias told WWL television in New Orleans. "He's a strong kid and a fighter."

By all accounts, Hill is a decent guy, who has regularly returned home to help family members recover from the devastation left by hurricane Katrina.

Unfortunately, at least one media outlet has begun using the words "presumed dead" in their coverage -- let's hope and pray that this is a case of leaping to an unwarranted conclusion, and that Marquise Hill is found alive.

UPDATE -- 5/28/07 15:18 Central Time: The body of Marquise Hill has been found.

Officials told New Orleans television station WDSU on Monday that they recovered the body of Marquise Hill of the NFL's New England Patriots.
The news report came about 17 hours after the Coast Guard received word that Hill was missing following an apparent water scooter accident on Lake Ponchartrain.

The former Louisiana State University, a defensive tackle in the NFL since 2004, was reported missing Sunday night. the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries said at about 10:45 a.m. Monday that they were no longer on a search and rescue mission.

Tragic.

May his family and teammates be comforted in the face of the loss of this gentleman at much too young an age.

|| Greg, 01:18 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Texas Teachers Screwed Again

I just love the budget priorities this year when it comes to pay raises.

This year, it includes money for a teacher pay raise of up to $450 and a $35,000 raise for Gov. Rick Perry.

Fortunately, though, they decided to go back to fully funding the pension system this year.

And according to the wrong-wing BayAreaHouston blog, those are not the only two pay raise obsecenities.

Pay raise for our Texas school teachers: $430.
Pay raise for Governor Rick Perry: $32,000.
Pay raise for Attorney General Abbott: $25,000
Pay raise for the Commissioner of the Teacher Retirement System: $151,000.

Here's hoping the governor line-item vetoes the last three -- or better yet, vetoes the whole bill and brings them back to try again.

I'm curious, though, about whether or not the legislature gave itself a huge increase in pay this year. I wonder if John's leaving that out is because there isn't one -- or because it might make his Democrat cronies look bad for voting in favor of a budget that lines their own pockets, like they did last time around.

Oh, and for those of you who are curious -- if we average the two figures mentioned above, it works out to a raise of $2.35 per contract day for each teacher in the state. It's great to know how I am valued by my state legislature -- less than the cost of my lunch in the school cafeteria.

|| Greg, 11:15 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (4) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Al-Qaeda Worldwide --Where Do We Fight?

And how do we stop them in this country without being accused of ethnic profiling and religious discrimination? Because they are expanding their reach beyond the battlefields of Iraq and into the rest of the Middle East -- and into the West.

“There are some operational parallels between the urban terrorist activity in Iraq and the urban environments in Europe and the United States,” Mr. Pluchinsky wrote. “More relevant terrorist skills are transferable from Iraq to Europe than from Afghanistan to Europe,” he went on, citing the use of safe houses, surveillance, bomb making and mortars.
A top American military official who tracks terrorism in Iraq and the surrounding region, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the topic, said: “Do I think in the future the jihad will be fueled from the battlefield of Iraq? Yes. More so than the battlefield of Afghanistan.”

Which is, of course, a good reason for decisively ending the terrorist threat in Iraq by wiping out every last vestige of al-Qaeda there, and by ruthlessly uprooting al-Qaeda where ever it rears its ugly jihadi head -- preferably with the help of our allies, but going it alone if necessary.

Provided, of course, that the American people are wise enough not to elect a president from a party that doesn't see terrorism as real threat to America.

|| Greg, 09:39 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

One More Reason For A National Curriculum?

As a conservative, I hate to see anything run out of Washington. As a teacher, I particularly despise federal mandates in the realm of education, because all too often they are based upon pie-in-the-sky theories that bear little relationship to what actually goes on in the classroom.

However, might it not be a good idea to set a clear standard for what students should learn in high school, so that a diploma actually means something? Right now, it really does not, for core classes are not necessarily rigorous.

It's no secret to most high school students that taking the required courses, getting good grades and receiving a diploma don't take much work. The average U.S. high school senior donning a cap and gown this spring will have spent an hour a day on homework and at least three hours a day watching TV, playing video games and pursuing other diversions.
This is sometimes a surprise to adults, particularly state legislators and school board members who thought that by requiring a number of courses in English, math, science and social studies they had ensured that students would dig in and learn what they need to succeed in college.

Guess again, says a new study, "Rigor at Risk: Reaffirming Quality in the High School Core Curriculum," by the Iowa City-based testing company ACT Inc. "Students today do not have a reasonable chance of becoming ready for college unless they take a number of additional higher-level" courses beyond the minimum, the report said. Even those who do, it concluded, "are not always likely to be ready for college either."

Using research on the college success of students who took the ACT college entrance test, and comparing their test scores to their high school records, ACT researchers found that many core courses were not carefully constructed or monitored and that students often received good grades in the core courses even if they didn't learn much.

State requirements also leave something to be desired, the report said. More than half of states do not require students to take specific core courses in math or science to graduate. Many students pick up diplomas having taken "business arithmetic" rather than geometry or "concepts of physics" rather than a physics course with labs and tough exams.

let's set a rigorous standard nationally for education -- with course expectations that actually teach the important concepts that prepare a student for college or the work world. Furthermore, let's mandate a sequence that makes sense, and that will allow a student to move from district to district, and from state to state, without having their academic credits become a complete hash that delays graduation.

|| Greg, 09:28 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Some Animals More Equal Than Others In Australia

You'll be punished if you try to bar homosexuals from your establishment in Australia -- but gay establishments can bar heterosexuals with impunity.

An Australian hotel catering for homosexuals has won the right to ban heterosexuals from its bars so as to provide a safe and comfortable venue for gay men.
In what is believed to be a first for Australia, the Victorian state civil and administrative tribunal ruled last week that the Peel Hotel in the southern city of Melbourne could exclude patrons based on their sexuality.

Australia's equal opportunity laws prevent people being discriminated against based on race, religion or sexuality.

But Peel Hotel owner Tom McFeely said the ruling was necessary to provide gay men with a non-threatening atmosphere to freely express their sexuality.

"If I can limit the number of heterosexuals entering the Peel, then that helps me keep the safe balance," Peel told Australian radio on Monday.

Welcome to Animal Farm -- where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

|| Greg, 08:53 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

NYTimes Highlights Disillusionment With, Downplays Support Of Mission In Iraq Among Soldiers

After all, it wouldn't do for the American people to be given any sense that the war is going well this memorial day -- it wouldn't fit in the template of the narrative established by the MSM and the neo-Copperhead Democrats.

So you get this story highlighted by the Times.

Staff Sgt. David Safstrom does not regret his previous tours in Iraq, not even a difficult second stint when two comrades were killed while trying to capture insurgents.
“In Mosul, in 2003, it felt like we were making the city a better place,” he said. “There was no sectarian violence, Saddam was gone, we were tracking down the bad guys. It felt awesome.”

But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this past February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.

“I thought, ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’ ” said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”

Of course, they then proceed to downplay the attitude of a different sergeant in the same unit, hiding his comments at the very end of the article, wehre they are most likely to be overlooked.

Sergeant Griffin understands the criticism of the Iraqi forces, but he believes they, and the war effort, must be given more time.
“If we throw this problem to the side, it’s not going to fix itself,” he said. “We’ve created the Iraqi forces. We gave them Humvees and equipment. For however long they say they need us here, maybe we need to stay.”

So, whose view of reality is more valid?

And let's not forget the point of view that highlights what has been accomplished, rather than the negatives.

“I thought it would not be long before we could just stay on our base and act as a quick-reaction force,” said the barrel-chested Captain Rogers of San Antonio. “The Iraqi security forces would step up.”
It has not worked out that way. Still, Captain Rogers says their mission in Kadhimiya has been “an amazing success.”

“We’ve captured 4 of the top 10 most-wanted guys in this area,” he said. And the streets of Kadhimiya are filled with shoppers and the stores are open, he said, a rarity in Baghdad due partly to Delta Company’s patrols.

Unfortunately, there are negatives to this situation -- including turncoats and infiltrators in the Iraqi Army. But a piece on disillusionment in a single unit, based upon interviews with 14 soldiers, hardly seems to be the thing of headlines drawing major conclusions about the war.

Unless the folks doing the writing and publishing have already decided the war isn't worth fighting.

Too bad the days are long gone when the press felt its role was to support, not undermine, the war effort.

H/T Malkin

|| Greg, 08:36 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

May 27, 2007

Plame Perjury?

If this report is correct, one has to ask why Valerie Plame is not facing perjury charges. After all, her own memo seems to contradict her sworn testimony.

In her testimony before the House, Mrs. Wilson said flatly, “I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him.” She told the House committee that a 2004 Senate report, which concluded that she had indeed suggested her husband for the trip, was simply wrong. In particular, Mrs. Wilson pointed to a February 12, 2002, memo she had written, which the Senate said showed that she had suggested her husband for the trip, and claimed that the Senate had taken the memo “out of context” to “make it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him.”
The 2004 Senate report to which Mrs. Wilson referred had quoted a brief excerpt from her memo. In the new report, Sen. Bond publishes the whole thing, and it seems to indicate clearly that Mrs. Wilson suggested her husband for the trip. The memo was occasioned by a February 5, 2002 CIA intelligence report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium. The report had been circulating in the intelligence community for a week by February 12, and Mrs. Wilson headlined her memo, “Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash.”

The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can’t be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.

So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.

Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency’s sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.

Now Byron York points out the obvious contradiction here -- them memo clearly puts forward her husband as a candidate for the mission to Niger, though admittedly she was not the first person to raise his name. however, she is clearly pushing his candidacy here, advocating for him to be selected. How can this be squared with her sworn testimony that she did not recommend her husband? After all, she is clearly laying out her husband's qualifications for the role -- the day before the vice president was briefed on the uranium matter and asked the questions that ostensibly led to her husband's mission.

There is also evidence that she made contacts abroad with US officials in Africa seeking concurrence for her husband's travel -- only hours after the Cheney briefing. However, there is no way that her timeline can be jibed with the contention that the vice president instigated her husband's trip to Niger -- because it is practically a done deal when she sent the cable, and she had already been putting forth her husband as a candidate to seek information in Niger on the previous day.

Now this leads to a very interesting problem for Plame and Wilson. They are now seeking damages based upon true statements made by executive branch officials trying to correct the record after her husband's statements in the press. We now know that Plame lied about her role in selecting her husband -- and have since the original Senate Committee report was issued. The matter is new even clear than it was at the time. Should this evidence not be the basis for dismissing the suit? Furthermore, should this not be the basis for trying Plame, and perhaps Wilson, on perjury charges?

Regardless, it is clearly a basis for appeal on the part of Scooter Libby -- assuming the president is unwilling to immediately do the honorable thing and issue a full, complete, and unconditional pardon. After all, any misstatements on Libby's parts were not material to the investigation conducted by Fitzgerald, the actual leaker was never prosecuted, and the one individual clearly guilty of perjury is the so-called victim in the case.

H/T Ace

|| Greg, 05:41 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (3) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Lina Joy Decision Coming Wednesday

An important case concerning the human rights of those who do not wish to follow Islam will be decided on Wednesday by a court in Malaysia. It involves Lina Joy, a convert to Catholicism who I've blogged about in the past.

Lina Joy has been disowned by her family, shunned by friends and forced into hiding - all because she renounced Islam and embraced Christianity in Muslim-majority Malaysia.
Now, after a seven-year legal struggle, Malaysia's highest court will decide on Wednesday whether her constitutional right to choose her religion overrides an Islamic law that prohibits Malay Muslims from leaving Islam.

Either way, the verdict will have profound implications on society in a country where Islam is increasingly conflicting with minority religions, challenging Malaysia's reputation as a moderate Muslim and multicultural nation that guarantees freedom of worship.

So it is very simple -- do basic norms of human rights recognized repeatedly under international law apply to those who have the misfortune of being born and raised Muslim? Or does forced submission to Islam trump the right to accept freedom in Christ?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, DeMediacratic Nation, Maggie's Notebook, On the Horizon, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Blue Collar Muse, Allie Is Wired, Stageleft, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

|| Greg, 05:23 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

A Column I Can Get Behind

Now here is a position on illegal immigration that I can support completely. The column itself is great, but the conclusion is short, to the point, and dead-on correct.

People who break our laws should be shipped back to wherever they came from and should be told never to dare to darken our doors again. As Sonny Bono said, “What’s to debate? It’s illegal.”

Hurrah!

And might I add:

Round 'em up! Ship 'em back! Rawhide!

|| Greg, 02:56 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (36) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Affirmative Action For Poverty

If the goal of affirmative action programs is to help the disadvantaged, let's make sure that the disadvantaged -- regardless of race and ethnicity -- are the beneficiaries. That is the goal of this program.

Concerned that the barriers to elite institutions are being increasingly drawn along class lines, and wanting to maintain some role as engines of social mobility, about two dozen schools — Amherst, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, the University of Virginia, Williams and the University of North Carolina, among them — have pushed in the past few years to diversify economically.
They are trying tactics like replacing loans with grants and curtailing early admission, which favors the well-to-do and savvy. But most important, Amherst, for instance, is doing more than giving money to low-income students; it is recruiting them and taking their socioeconomic background — defined by family income, parents’ education and occupation level — into account when making admissions decisions.

Amherst’s president, Anthony Marx, turns to stark numbers in a 2004 study by the Century Foundation, a policy institute in New York, to explain the effort: Three-quarters of students at top colleges come from the top socioeconomic quartile, with only one-tenth from the poorer half and 3 percent from the bottom quartile.

Race-based preferences are inherently immoral and contradictory to the spirit of US Civil Rights law and the Fourteenth Amendment -- in addition to often "helping" the most advantaged members of ethnic communities instead of those most in need. By focusing on actual evidence of need rather that blithely making the racist assumption that skin color is a surrogate for being disadvantaged, it may be that affirmative action programs may accomplish an important goal -- helping qualified individuals who truly need the assistance.

|| Greg, 07:37 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

May 31, 2007

Oppose Genocide In Darfur? No Coke For You!

Trackback Information for Oppose Genocide In Darfur? No Coke For You!

Comments on Oppose Genocide In Darfur? No Coke For You!

A License To Ill?

Trackback Information for A License To Ill?

Comments on A License To Ill?

Demo-Hypocrisy On Earmarks

Trackback Information for Demo-Hypocrisy On Earmarks

Comments on Demo-Hypocrisy On Earmarks

Be Afraid -- Be Very Afraid

Trackback Information for Be Afraid -- Be Very Afraid

Comments on Be Afraid -- Be Very Afraid

How Owns Whom -- Dogs Or People?

Trackback Information for How Owns Whom -- Dogs Or People?

Comments on How Owns Whom -- Dogs Or People?

ACLU Absurdity

Trackback Information for ACLU Absurdity

Comments on ACLU Absurdity

Teresa -- Get Out The Checkbook For John

Trackback Information for Teresa -- Get Out The Checkbook For John

Comments on Teresa -- Get Out The Checkbook For John

May 30, 2007

Proper Ruling By Supreme Court

Trackback Information for Proper Ruling By Supreme Court

Comments on Proper Ruling By Supreme Court

Malaysian Court Rules Islam Trumps Internationally Recognized Human Rights Norms

Trackback Information for Malaysian Court Rules Islam Trumps Internationally Recognized Human Rights Norms

Comments on Malaysian Court Rules Islam Trumps Internationally Recognized Human Rights Norms

Jordin Had Voice Coach

Trackback Information for Jordin Had Voice Coach

Comments on Jordin Had Voice Coach

Thompson Takes The Next Step

Trackback Information for Thompson Takes The Next Step

Comments on Thompson Takes The Next Step

May 29, 2007

Pelosi On Climate Change -- Right On Reality, Wrong On Cause

Trackback Information for Pelosi On Climate Change -- Right On Reality, Wrong On Cause

Comments on Pelosi On Climate Change -- Right On Reality, Wrong On Cause

Don't Go Away Mad -- Just Go Away

Trackback Information for Don't Go Away Mad -- Just Go Away

Comments on Don't Go Away Mad -- Just Go Away

Cyber-War In Estonia -- The Shape Of Things To Come

Trackback Information for Cyber-War In Estonia -- The Shape Of Things To Come

Comments on Cyber-War In Estonia -- The Shape Of Things To Come

An Army Of Bloggers Against Cancer

Trackback Information for An Army Of Bloggers Against Cancer

Comments on An Army Of Bloggers Against Cancer

Fitzgerald Seeks To Punish Crimes Not Charged, Proven

Trackback Information for Fitzgerald Seeks To Punish Crimes Not Charged, Proven

Comments on Fitzgerald Seeks To Punish Crimes Not Charged, Proven

Pressuring Sudan

Trackback Information for Pressuring Sudan

Comments on Pressuring Sudan

Dishonoring The Vets

Trackback Information for Dishonoring The Vets

Comments on Dishonoring The Vets

May 28, 2007

Memorial Day 2007

Trackback Information for Memorial Day 2007

Comments on Memorial Day 2007

Barry Bonds -- The Epitome Of No-Class

Trackback Information for Barry Bonds -- The Epitome Of No-Class

Comments on Barry Bonds -- The Epitome Of No-Class

CD22 -- Revenge Of The GOP

Trackback Information for CD22 -- Revenge Of The GOP

Comments on CD22 -- Revenge Of The GOP

Frightening Injury In Cincinnati

Trackback Information for Frightening Injury In Cincinnati

Comments on Frightening Injury In Cincinnati

Patriot Player Missing Drowns Following Jetski Accident

Trackback Information for Patriot Player Missing Drowns Following Jetski Accident

Comments on Patriot Player Missing Drowns Following Jetski Accident

Texas Teachers Screwed Again

Trackback Information for Texas Teachers Screwed Again

Comments on Texas Teachers Screwed Again

Al-Qaeda Worldwide --Where Do We Fight?

Trackback Information for Al-Qaeda Worldwide --Where Do We Fight?

Comments on Al-Qaeda Worldwide --Where Do We Fight?

One More Reason For A National Curriculum?